W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2000


From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:57:47 +1100 (EST)
To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.10.10010261117530.2809-100000@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Thursday, 26 October, 2000 UTC (4 PM Boston, 10 PM France, 6 AM Friday
Eastern Australia), on the W3C/MIT Longfellow bridge: +1-617-252-1038

The meeting agenda is as follows:

1. Erratum to WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 3.1: see Wendy's latest proposal at
Please be prepared to vote on adoption of this text, to determine whether
consensus can be reached. As Wendy mentioned, each working group member
will have an opportunity to state an opinion regarding the proposal
(please keep your contributions to one minute each).

2. User agent capabilities. This issue was discussed at last week's
meeting. Should the WCAG 2.0 Techniques be premised on, and document,
minimal requirements of user agents, that determine the extent to which
content developers need accommodate older technologies? If so, two
possible approaches have been suggested: (a) identifying the basic level
of support which can be expected of user agents out in the field, as at
the time of publication of the Techniques document; (b) considering
various technologies (E.G. HTML, CSS, Ecmascript, etc.) and deciding
whether support for each of these, and if so at what level, can reasonably
be presupposed.

3. Changes in the latest draft of WCAG 2.0. More specifically, there is a
concern, on the part of Wendy and me at least, that checkpoint 2.3 as
currently drafted is inadequate, in that it fails to provide guidance as
to which semantic and structural distinctions are important and thus need
to be defined in markup or a data model. Obviously, the underlying goal is
to ensure that content can be rendered appropriately in all three
modalities and that structural navigation be supported. To a significant
extent, the detailed markup requirements, relative to particular
languages, will be defined in the relevant Techniques; but what general
advice should we include in the guidelines themselves under checkpoint

Please also review the changes to checkpoints 3.1 and 6.1.

4. WCAG working group and Education/Outreach dependency. The issue was
taken for coordination and a proposal put forward, which may be
summarised, in general terms, as follows:
1. The WCAG working group will produce a normative document, the Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines, which must be sufficiently precise to
permit implementation and verification of conformance. This will be
accompanied by relevant Techniques, applicable to a range of formats and
protocols in use in the web infrastructure.

2. The WCAG working group will ensure, through appropriate layering of
content or attention to the use of language in its deliverables, that the
latter, particularly the normative guidelines, can be read by as broad an
audience as possible. This aspect of the working group's activity would be
carried out in cooperation with the Education and Outreach working group.

Do you support this proposal? Is any further clarification required? Note
that, if adopted, this proposal would lead to amendment of the scope and
dependency sections of the working group's Charter.
Received on Wednesday, 25 October 2000 20:57:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 16 February 2017 16:48:29 UTC