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

March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)

From: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@opendesign.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 17:32:21 -0800
Message-ID: <F0CBA28A8CE1D311B64300508BC216228CCCC7@SARUMAN>
To: "W3c-Wai-Gl@W3. Org (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Minutes of the Discussion of reviewer comments on checkpoints in WCAG 2.0
during the WCAG 2.0 Working Group F2F Meeting March 2, 2001 in Boston USA

Summary of Action Items:
Wendy:  wordsmith checkpoint 1.7
Kynn:  write up suggestion for split 2.1 into 2 checkpoints
Rob: help Kynn with 2.1
Kynn:  work on situations where it's important to distract user (like
Cynthia: help Kynn with above
Katie:  add "extreme changes of content" to glossary
Rob:  try come up with a generalized guideline for 2.5, so 2.5 can be moved
to techniques
Wendy:  fix 1.0 to 2.0 mapping doc so that "organization" aspect of old 14.1
is mapped to the appropriate checkpoint in 2.0
Kynn: deconstruct 14.1 (I wrote this, but I don't remember what it means.
Kynn, do you have better notes?)
Wendy:  write an introduction for 4.3
Rob:  rewrite 4.3  in less geeky language
Wendy:  Move 4.3 to be 4.1

Summary of Open Issues:
should we split 2.1 into 2 checkpoints?
should 2.4 be UA or WCAG?
is breaking the back button actually an accessibility issue, or just a
usability issue? 

Summary of Resolutions:
Leave 2.1 where it is
Leave 3.2 as is

Detailed notes.
1.7  Ensure that content remains accessible when newer technologies are not
supported or turned off. 
	*	Change newer "technologies" to newer "standards"?
	*	Wendy: no
	*	Marti: remove newer?
	*	Cynthia:  no, because many of the technologies we're
discussing aren't standards based
	*	Action item Wendy:  wordsmith this checkpoint

2.1 Provide consistent interaction behaviors and navigation mechanisms. 
	*	Comment from Daniel:  move to 3?
	*	Kynn: it's kind of on the line.  Had to put it in one place
or another. 
	*	Resolved: don't move it.
	*	Jason: can cross-reference

	*	Comment form Aaron:  the checkpoint asks for consistency but
talks about interaction
	*	Kynn and Wendy: What do we mean by consistent?  
	*	Kynn: Maybe 2 checkpoints:  one for results, one for
	*	OPEN ISSUE:  should we split this?
	*	Action Kynn:  write up suggestion for split checkpoints
	*	Action Rob: help Kynn with this

2.2  Minimize content that interferes with the user's ability to
	*	Daniel - why not in guideline 3?
	*	Kynn:  Daniel didn't like where we split hairs
	*	Kynn rewrite to make it fit better with guideline 2
	*	WC: already covered?
	*	Kynn: change concentrate to interact?  The user's ability to
do what the user is doing.  
	*	Aaron: delete this?
	*	CS: I like the idea of deleting this.  Point of an ad is to
	*	Kynn: there are times when it's important to distract the
user (alerts)
	*	Action Item Kynn:  work on this
	*	Action Item CS: give feedback

2.4 Give users control over how long they can spend reading or interacting
with content. 
	*	Comment from Aaron:  this is a UA issue
	*	Agree: Jason, Kynn, 
	*	CS: can be done in script or in UA
	*	Open Issue:  is this UA or WCAG?
	*	Kynn: Frames bullet should be changed to script
	*	Gregg: how about "if you create extreme changes in context,
let the user turn them off"
	*	Gregg:  Use mechanisms that users can control for any
extreme changes in context.  (say it better)
	*	Rob:  define extreme changes of context
	*	Action Katie:  add extreme changes of content to glossary
	*	Len:  change extreme to unexplained.
	*	Jason: unexpected
	*	Matt:  this may be desirable behavior in a shopping cart
	*	CS:  is breaking the back button actually an accessibility
issue, or just a usability issue?  OPEN ISSUE:

2.5 If search functions are provided, provide a variety of search options
for different skill levels and preferences. 
	*	Need an example
	*	Already has an example
	*	Rob:  This is very hard to implement
	*	Action Item Rob:  figure out how to change this to make it
less onerous.
	*	Len:  why not have different language choices (such as
simple and complex language)
	*	CS and WC:  Anne and Leesa both want that
	*	Rob: move to techniques?
	*	Wendy:  only if there is a generalized guideline to replace
it that could point to the technique
	*	Action Item Rob:  try come up with a generalized guideline

3.2 Emphasize structure through presentation, positioning, and labels. 
	*	Aaron's comment is editorial
	*	Consensus is to leave it alone
	*	Gregg:  the current one is easier to read.

3.3 Write clearly and simply. 
	*	Write as clearly and simply as is appropriate for the [site,
content, audience, whatever]
	*	Should note that audiences for Web Content will always be
larger than you might assume.
	*	Resolved:  Change to "Write as clearly and simply as is
appropriate for the content of the site."  Action Wendy: change it to WCAG
1.0 wording.
	*	Judy:  unverifiable, unmeasurable.  We knew what we meant in
1.0, but it didn't speak well enough to everybody.  
	*	Jason:  if you're going to raise this issue, please do so
with a counter-proposal.
	*	Len:  does not cover "organization", which was in 14.1 from
	*	Jason:  it's in another checkpoint
	*	Len, Gregg:  There is a problem with the 1.0 -> 2.0
	*	Action  Kynn: deconstruct the checkpoint.
	*	Action Wendy (I think?) fix 1.0 -> 2.0 mapping document

4.3 Design assistive-technology compatible user interfaces. 
	*	Too vague
	*	CS: shouldn't the specifics be in the technology specific
	*	Greg: should be ok
	*	Matt what's the relationship between 4.1, 4.2, 4.3
	*	CS:
			o	4.1 pick an accessible language 
			o	4.2 use the language right
			o	4.3 use the accessibility features of the
environment hosting your markup.
	*	Rob:
			o	Fear factor
	*	Gregg:  4.3 says be compatible with assistive technologies.
It's the only place we say that.  It should be 4.1.
	*	Action Wendy:  write an introduction
	*	Action Rob:  rewrite in less geeky language
	*	Action Wendy:  Move 4.3 to be 4.1
Received on Monday, 5 March 2001 20:32:29 UTC

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