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

Re: Agenda

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:20:36 -0500
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20010213201721.00c1b200@localhost>
To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
fyi: For more background on these issues refer to open issues 40 and 41 in 
the open issues list:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag20-issues.html#40
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag20-issues.html#41
--wendy

At 07:18 PM 2/13/01 , Jason White wrote:
>Thursday, 15 February, 2100 UTC (4 PM Boston, 10 PM Sophia, 8 AM
>Melbourne), on the W3C/MIT Longfellow bridge: +1-617-252-1038, with the
>following agenda:
>
>1. WCAG 2.0 issues, as follows:
>
>a. Note accompanying guidelines 1 referring to user agent capabilities:
>does this designate the capabilities of what the user actually has, or the
>user agent/assistive technology that they could acquire? Is this a
>relevant question here?
>
>b. Should we add a requirement that audio-only timed interactions should
>be synchronzied (presumably with text?) This issue was raised at an
>earlier meeting. Essentially it was the question of how to treat
>medium-specific content (other than multimedia) which requires a
>time-based response.
>
>2. Management of the process by which techniques will be developed, tested
>and approved. We need to determine the framework in which the techniques
>will be developed, in preparation for the face to face meeting, large
>parts of which will be devoted to techniques.
>
>3. Documentation of assumptions: we resolved last week to incorporate
>questions of user agent capability, so far as possible, in to the task of
>developing techniques, as it arises at a technology-specific level.
>Nevertheless, the issue still emerges at a higher (checkpoint) level: see
>checkpoint 1.7, and possibly elsewhere in the guidelines. How should we
>define the requirement of checkpoint 1.7, or should it be moved into an
>introductory (or advisory) section and out of the checkpoints as such? Or,
>if we decide that the Techniques will in any respect be normative, should
>checkpoint 1.7 be tied to the specific (evolving) requirements established
>at the technique level?

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2001 20:12:19 GMT

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