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


From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:16:32 +1100 (EST)
To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.10.10101241050020.23245-100000@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Thursday, 25 January, 2100 UTC (4 PM US Eastern, 10 PM France, 8 AM
Eastern Australia), on the W3C/MIT Longfellow bridge: +1-617-252-1038,
with the following agenda:

The purpose of this meeting is to consider the relationship between WCAG
1.0 and WCAG 2.0.

1. The practice of the working group has been to issue errata to the 1.0
document as needed, and we have also published a revised version of the
1.0 techniques, while working steadily on version 2.0. This policy is not,
however, expressed as a formal resolution of the working group. Are we in
agreement regarding this point? How far should our efforts to maintain
version 1.0 extend?

2. Consider the checkpoint mapping which describes the relationship
between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0:

There are a number of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints which do not have any clear
correspondence to the WCAG 2.0 requirements (they are documented near the
end of the checkpoint map under the heading "checkpoints without a clear

a. A number of these checkpoints can best be classified as techniques (or
technology-specific requirements), e.g., the checkpoints related to layout
tables and image maps, which are artefacts of HTML for the most part. Even
if they enter WCAG 2.0 at the technique/technology-specific level however,
under which checkpoints should they appear?

2. Are there any additional checkpoints that need to be added to WCAG 2.0
to complete the correspondence with version 1.0?

3. Are there any WCAG 2.0 checkpoints which should be reworked so as to
encompass requirements from WCAG 1.0?

The WCAG 1.0 checkpoints which lack definite relationships with the 2.0
document are listed below (the following is exerpted from the checkpoint

The issue of priorities which Wendy raises at the end of the checkpoint
map will be considered when we discuss prioritization issues. Please note
also that the question of "user agent capabilities", raised again on the
list this week, will be at the top of the agenda of next week's meeting.

WCAG 1.0 checkpoints without a clear home

   I did not assign the following WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to any WCAG 2.0
   checkpoints because it was not clear where they fit.
     * 4.1 Clearly identify changes in the natural language of a
       document's text and any text equivalents (e.g., captions).
       [Priority 1] - Perhaps fits with 2.3 - Give users control of
       mechanisms that cause extreme changes in context?
     * 9.1 Provide client-side image maps instead of server-side image
       maps except where the regions cannot be defined with an available
       geometric shape. [Priority 1] - Perhaps with 1.1 Provide text
     * 4.3 Identify the primary natural language of a document. [Priority
     * 11.3 Provide information so that users may receive documents
       according to their preferences (e.g., language, content type,
       etc.) [Priority 3] - Perhaps with 2.1 Provide consistent
       interaction and navigation mechanisms?
     * 13.2 Provide metadata to add semantic information to pages and
     * 2.2 Ensure that foreground and background color combinations
       provide sufficient contrast when viewed by someone having color
       deficits or when viewed on a black and white screen. [Priority 2
       for images, Priority 3 for text].
     * 5.3 Do not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when
       linearized. Otherwise, if the table does not make sense, provide
       an alternative equivalent (which may be a linearized version).
       [Priority 2]
     * 5.4 If a table is used for layout, do not use any structural
       markup for the purpose of visual formatting. [Priority 2]??
     * 13.10 Provide a means to skip over multi-line ASCII art. [Priority
Received on Tuesday, 23 January 2001 19:16:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:09 GMT