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

14 June 2001 WCAG WG telecon

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 18:04:02 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20010614180323.00b0abf0@localhost>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2001/06/14-minutes.html


14 June 2001 WCAG WG telecon

Summary
       Everyone is encouraged to create a list of questions to ask David 
about usability testing of WCAG 2.0. At the F2F, he will give a 
presentation on his proposal, and then we will discuss it.
       Compiling an FAQ from recent threads from the WCAG and IG mailing 
lists would be useful. At the F2F we will begin ciphering through archives 
for questions and answers and discuss how to proceed in the future.
       The FAQ will likely feed directly into the techniques documents.
       The AU WG still has open issues for us from AERT. These are 
documented in the  issues list for AERT. These will likely be answered by 
the HTML Techniques.
       We concluded that we would not specifically discuss checkpoint 2.4 
at the F2F since we should reserve that time for larger issues. The larger 
issue that it relates to is testability and placing qualifications on 
checkpoints.
       William suggests that everyone take a look at the      XML 
Accessibility Guidelines as a guidelines for guidelines. How to write good 
guidelines. What ours should fit into.

Participants
       William
       Jenae
       Loretta
       Matt
       Jason
       Wendy
       Katie
       Gregg
       Charles

Regrets
       Cynthia

F2F Agenda
WL Phone situation?
WC Not sure yet, Daniel working on.
WL JW and GV attending by phone?
WC Yes.
JW WC hosting
WC Please bring questions for David, particularly what questions do you 
want answered and what questions do you have on process.
WL Is part of this testing usability of guidelines for people writing sites?
WC Right, how usable are the guidelines not how usable are sites that are 
produced using the guidelines.
WC Clarifying WCAG 1.0 - on agenda for F2F? Had discussed a while ago.
JW Need a subgroup to volunteer to write it. Clear dimensions of its scope.
WC Therefore goal of that discussion is to define scope and find people 
work on.
CMN People are coming along with concrete solutions and examples. We 
discuss but don't come to clear consensus. We need to go through the 
questions that we already have. Bring them up and say "can we agree that 
one of these is the answer?"
WC Dig through archives at the meeting or before?
CMN do it before, but I'm not going to.
KHS Going over the same questions.
WC List divided into 3 month chunks
KHS Not same e-mail, same questions.
CMN DOn't see a problem in that.
WL It may be that the process of doing the FAQ is the road to improving 
techniques.
JW If it is an issue related to specific technology, then those should be 
directed to subgroups. Resolved in the context of 2.0.
WC Find hands on, people doing work very useful. Perhaps part of dividing 
up into techniques.
WL ORganizing FAQ a way to get stuff for technique.
CMN Yes a consequence. The crucial thing is that lots of people 
implementing, people getting stuck.
KHS Who be there?
/* WC reads 12 names */
CMN Risk of too much breaking up, lots of people knowing a chunk and 
everyone knowing only little chunk.
WC Yes, but if say at the end, "here are the 5 questions we came up with. 
these 4 are not answered.etc." CMN - AU specific questions.
CMN AERT issues. Part of agenda of AU F2F in Boston.

Checkpoint 2.4
WC Status?
JW GV has proposal, go through guidelines, determine clarifications of 
reasonableness. On agenda for the F2F next week.
WC Part of the testability discussion next week?
JW Yes.
WL Originally, "give users control..." hasn't gotten any clearer.
JW WL action item to go through guidelines and which need clarification.
WL Thought I had fulfilled. Put it to the list.
WC How do we move it forward?
WL Several revised languages for it. No one has voted.
GV We should probably try to condense it. Perhaps leave it until after F2F. 
Don't think there is controversy. Sit down with wording then walk it 
through phone call and close it out. Think F2F for bigger issues.
JW Yes, though larger issue of where qualifications are needed is the kind 
of question to discuss at the meeting.
WL People should look at public version of XML guidelines as guidelines for 
guidelines. How to write good guidelines. What ours should fit into. They 
will not be recommendation, not as constrained by process.

$Date: 2001/06/14 21:56:35 $ Wendy Chisholm

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
tel: +1 206.706.5263
/--
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2001 17:57:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:10 GMT