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

Re: Agenda

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:04:35 +0200
Message-ID: <003501c085d4$0159d7c0$b795003e@seeman>
To: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, "WAI" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Some of these may be obsolete. I remember an email from Charles saying that
there are now free, readily available user agents that are ok with tables
(Am I remembering this right?). With Wendy's stats about the number of sites
using tables (almost 80%), maybe we should drop this one. The "until user
agents" may have been reached.

4.3,  4.1 ,13.2, could go in "Use markup or a data model to provide the
logical structure of content" -  could just add "use the markup to give as
many details about the document as possible including......"

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 2:21 AM
Subject: Agenda

>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
>       equivalents?
>     * 4.3 Identify the primary natural language of a document. [Priority
>       3]
>     * 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
>       sites.
>     * 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
>       3]
Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2001 02:05:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:36 UTC