W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2001

WCAG Meeting Minutes, June 01, 2001

From: Andi Snow-Weaver <andisnow@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 17:54:30 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Summary of action items and resolutions:
KHS and LGR incorporate suggestions and feedback to PDF Techniques Doc
KHS begin incorporating feedback and suggestions into Introduction to WCAG 
2.0, PB will help once back from vacation.


JW: PDF Techniques discussion.
WL: Date of latest draft?
JW: What were the issues brought up in last call?
KH: Loretta adding info in intro to describe what a page description
language is, differences between PDF 1.3 and 1.4
WC: At last meeting, were talking about language and how to identify
language. Need to add checkpoint to guideline 1 that discusses color and
contrast. Katie and Gregory were to come up with a checkpoint under
guideline 1 about how to handle language markup.
WC: Language issue came up in reaction to discussion of PDF techniques.
JW: Vigorously oppose the language checkpoint in the WCAG 2.0 guidelines.
KH: Where does "Generate the text of your document..." belong?
GV: Sounds like "table linearization" concept
JW: The requirement for everything to be provided as text is guideline 1
GV: Feels like 1 to me. Information has to be fundamentally extractable.
GR: SVG has similar text flow issues - have to use markup to indicate how
to render something non-visually. Should work with Charles for synergy.
GV: Logical structure may jump to another page of document
LG: There is a way to indicate that. Want page to be readable as well as
the document. These techniques are for PDF renderers, not authors.
GV: Recommend "Render characters and words in reading order within the
GV: "Generate the text of your document...." should be "Ensure the text of
the document...."
WL: Abstract does not match audience. Abstract is written to web content
JW: Keep going through the issues. Edit the abstract for another meeting.
KH: Provide structural groupings
JW: Structure requirement. Belongs under guideline 1.
GV: Belongs under 1.4
KH: Document navigation
JW: Belongs under guideline 2
WC: 2.1 and 2.2
KH: Provide expansions....
GV: Belongs with comprehension
GV: "Note: this guideline applies only where the content provides its own
user interface" does not belong.
LG: Left over from cut/paste. Remove
KH: "Set document protection to permit access."
GV: Sounds right where it is. Only reason you need to set this is so that
AT can interoperate with it.
JW: Belongs with guideline 4
WC: Several suggestions from May 17 meeting to be incorporated
LG: Also several comments on the mailing list
WL: Why isn't this under ATAG rather than WCAG?
JW: Defining what makes a PDF file accessible is our responsibility.

JW: Next item on the agenda is to discuss Paul's intro to the guidelines.
WC: Katie worked on it as well
KH: Want to talk about the individual disability categories.
WC: At last meeting, asked Gregg to take to steering committee meeting.
What should be on the list?
JW: Decided this was too specific for steering committee.
GV: SC agenda had item dealing with cognitive issues but not anything about
listing the disability categories
KH: Integrated Paul's work into www.w3c.org/wai/gl/intro.html. Need common
language across all WAI documents about what disabilities we are talking
WC: Reading disabilities don't seem to be represented
GV: Need to add learning disabilities: dyslexia, dyscalculia, ADD, and ADHD
GV: Mental health disabilities are different from the other categories.
Emotional disabilities (ED) not represented. How would you design a page
that would be accessible to someone with ED?
KH: Don't want to leave people out
GV: But don't want to put people in if we're not doing anything for them.
{agreement to remove mental health disabilities from list}
GV: Change "Cognitive and Neurological Disabilities" to "Cognitive
Disabilities". Leave seizure as a separate category
JW: Age-related is a cause of the other disabilities but is not a
disability itself
KH: Specific, large target audience
GV: Nothing about being "old" that keeps you from using the web. Vision,
cognitive problems are what cause the problems.
WC: Would be helpful to highlight under multiple disabilities
GV: Move example (retiree) to "Multiple disabilities" section.
PB: Not all old people have multiple disabilities
GV: Neither do all teenagers. These are just how the examples are labeled.
GV: Add skeletel disabilities to Physical Disabilities section; i.e. people
who don't have arms, etc. Motor should be Neuro-muscular.
GV: Do we need the two categories in physical disabilities? There are so
many kinds of physical disabilities. Don't need breakdown if solution is
the same for all sub-categories. The ATs are quite different but page
design is not.
KH: Looking for consistency across documents. Set of documents deals with
more than page authoring.
GV: Trying to minimize the amount of information we give them that they
can't do anything with. LD people do not want to be listed under cognitive.
JW: Collapse list as much as possible for guidelines and put detail in
glossary. Glossary is cross working group deliverable.
GV: Blindness and low vision, Deafness and hard-of hearing, Physical,
Speech, Cognitive, Learning, Seizure, and Multiple are the categories
KH: If we do this, WCAG and "How people use the web" will look totally
JW: Need good general categories that are relatively uncontroversial,
clarify in glossary.
JW: Other controversial issues with the introduction?
WC: "Compliance" should be "Conformance"
JW: Introduction should not be longer than the document itself
WC: What is the idea behind the Optimization Techniques documents?
PB: There is a difference between making something generally accessible and
making something that is optimized for access by a particular disabilities
GV: Need to allow for server-side as well as client-side solutions. If we
try to provide guidance on designing content for particular disability
group, do we have the resources to do it for all of them? It's not really
part of what we were chartered to do.
GV: Should separate the server-side/client-side concepts. Recognize that
there are times when you may want to optimize for target groups. WAI will
provide a page that points to guidelines that are provided by others. Not
endorsed by W3C.
WC: Cynthia already talking about server-side techniques. Trace has
different style sheets. Propose we move this to server-side techniques.
Paul should work with Cynthia on them.
GV: Most people read these guidelines as "page author" guidelines but
server-side and PDF techniques are not for page authors. Need something in
introduction that addresses this.
KH: Could go in "Broad nature" section
WC: Agree. Could also come under "Conformance" section
PB: Currently listed under "Limitations"
GV: Remove "usability" label. Add paragraph that "there will always be
subset of people who will not be able to use the site. May want to target
content for certain groups. Point to another page for these guidelines"
WC: Techniques documents are hard to find in WCAG 1.0 because embedded
after every checkpoint. Helpful to have a list.
GV: Links should be "HTML Techniques", not just "HTML", "XML Techniques",
not just "XML"
PB: Some define usability and accessibility as the same thing. If we
distinguish our document as accessibility, not usability, it will be
GV: Our document is about accessibility and usability. One person's
usability is another person's accessibility. First paragraph does not
reflect that we have any Priority 3 items.
KH: Tried to meld Paul's and Wendy's introduction
PB: Would like to continue editing introduction but will be on vacation
next two weeks.
{Katie will do it}
GV: Use combo of Wendy's and Paul's Purpose paragraph

IBM Accessibility Center - Special Needs Systems
(512) 838-9903, http://www.ibm.com/able
Internal Tie Line 678-9903, http://w3.austin.ibm.com/~snsinfo 
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2001 17:48:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:37 UTC