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
Draft
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
alerts)
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
navigation
	*	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
concentrate. 
	*	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
distract
	*	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
application 
	*	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
1.0
	*	Jason:  it's in another checkpoint
	*	Len, Gregg:  There is a problem with the 1.0 -> 2.0
document.
	*	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
checks?
	*	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 GMT

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