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

(Small chunk of) WCAG minutes 2001.02.01 (fwd)

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 05:51:20 -0500 (EST)
To: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0102040551030.5155-100000@tux.w3.org>
This is the last of the minutes. The middle I will send in a minute.


Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:17:29 -0800
From: Dick Brown <dickb@microsoft.com>
To: "'wendy@w3.org'" <wendy@w3.org>, "'charles@w3.org'" <charles@w3.org>
Subject: (Small chunk of) WCAG minutes 2001.02.01

Charles and Wendy,

Here are the minutes from my brief stint at the end of the meeting:

Dick Brown:

We shouldn't use specific browser versions for the baseline, but rather
browser *features*.

Gregg Vanderheiden:
Someplace we have to separate what constitutes accessibility and what it is
we expect people will do. We've tried to make guidelines what constitutes
accessiblity, and we're not going to ask people to do something that's
impossible. Doability needs to be mixed back in without playing games with
the priorities. Tying it to a browser is a doability issue, not an
accessibility issue.

Jason White:
We could say when a particular (browser) feature has been implemented ... is
publicly available, it's reasonable to start implementing it even though
many people don't have it. We won't (challenge compliance claims by) people
who implement it, but will discourage (its use). (There can be a) difference
between a compliance claim and what we recommend -- different ways of giving
flexibility in how people implement the guidelines.

Charles McCathieNevile:
 Would be nice to have someone volunteer to go through the guidelines and
say which require particular features depend on user agents and which don't.

Action item could be: Work through 2.0 and latest techniques to identify
user agent capabilities which are assumed by the checkpoints and techniques.


Next item: Mapping 1.0 to 2.0
Resolved to accept JW's proposal-- see JW mail in archives 5.3 and 5.x

Next item:
Remind registration open for f2f in March.
Received on Sunday, 4 February 2001 05:51:20 UTC

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