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

23 August 2001 WCAG WG minutes

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:00:18 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

23 August 2001 WCAG WG minutes
       Charles Munat
       Charles McCathieNevile

resolved: closed
hardships: documenting "other way out" as possibility.

resolved: closed

CMN this is not closed. may be subsumed into #46 - illustrating text.
resolved: subsume into #46

WC I think handed by "How People with..."
CMN Can people use javascript. Technical question.
JW Techniques.
CMN need a checkpoint - work without javascript.
JW ECMAscript checkpoints.
CMN arise in any language that could incorporate javascript - everything 
except CSS.
CM We're talking about client-side. Sounds more specific than most checkpoints.
CS Not so much checkpoint issue as meta issue. WCAG 1.0 says don't use 
scripting, most do. should we be changing. Gets into until user agents. 
Stating assumptions.
GR UAAG changed a lot since then. UAs are no longer just GUI on desktop, 
but on phones etc.
JW User agents on desktop do support scripting, mobile devices may not.
JM Top 5 questions I get from people.
CS I'm not at the moment advocating user agent capabilities, but we should 
state them.
WC This is user agent capabilities discussion, then. Therefore, we ought to 
Resolved: 1, 6, 15, 28, 40 are all about assumptions and technologies. 
combine them.
CS all agree need to document, but haven't agreed on what they are.

Interface and presentation issues
WC Paul has started these threads on the list. Start here?
JW Personally read it as one doc rather than separate. Generating into 
separate files ok, as long as have single source.
KHS Yes, also good for printing.
CS Yes. Divided or single just 2 views. Many are divided like that.
PB I envision when you go to the main page have toc and preliminary info, 
then either view as single page or in modularized version.
MM GL index page.
JW Also proposals for a few other forms. Source available so people can 
create their own if needed.
PB Yes. One source file best.
Resolved. Multiple chapters as well as a single source.
JW Modularization is conformance issue not presentaiton.
KHS With the glossary you arrive at the chapters version but can 
immediately go to full version.
JW How is the glossary going?
WC should discuss at F2F. PB go over?
PB handled on list.

JW Think it's covered.
WC no mention of audio-only in the sucess criteria of 1.2.
KHS What about online radio?
JW Handled by transcripts.
GR Media equivalents defn is too narrow.
Action: WC ask GV if covered.
Action GR: definition for media equivalents.
JW Provide transcripts after the fact.
GR 1.2 does not define anything used in the checkpoint.
Action GR: e-mail Anttie and Kitch to ask about what the deaf community 
finds acceptable for real-time events.

WC ask Geoff Freed or someone at WBGH.
JW GV didn't want a number.
Action WC: Ask Geoff.

WC don't actually input data into data model.
CM Depends on how use it.
JW Intedned to cover cases where structural identifiers do not have syntax 
of language. database, PDF file,e tc. don't want to say attributed tree - 
imposes structure. categorization of content in terms of identifiers, 
classes, or labels in case of XML - element names. accessible by API or 
file format, goes beyond markup.
WC Refering to semantics - relationships between pieces of data.
GR think 1.3 is success criteria of 1.5.
CM PUrpose of 1.3? diff seems to be "use structure" vs "separate structure 
WC Repurposing.
CM "Use markup or equivalent"
CS I like that.
WC Yes, although use of "equivalent" is overused.
CS Or drop "use markup..."
CM Provide structure in a manner that allows repurposing
Action CM: look at GR's post for success criteria for 1.5 and think about 
how to write "Provide structure in a manner that allows repurposing" could 
replace the current 1.3. Definition of repurpose?

CM and LG drop adjective altogether.
CS and KHS agree.
JW although "language of text" could be programming language.
CM Does it add more confusion or decrease it?
JW Technically correct.
CS Never in favor of moving exactness. Language without a modifier is 
JM We could just define it, that would solve for everyone.
Resolved: keep use of "natural" and link to definition - which follows.

JW Identifying natural language another caes of identifying semantics. 
Similar to requirements of 1.3. Not really structural but many of the 
semantic distinctions are not structural - in strict sense of the term. 
Either separate checkpoint on semantics or widen concept of structure.
WC right, all about repurposing. CM consider in 1.3 proposal?
CM yes, agree.
Action CM: also think about including 1.4 in 1.3 as another case of 
repurposable - ua does something when encounters change in language.

WC Another issue with 1.3?
JW UAAG took an issue about this. Making class names available.
CM Worked with that issue. Built all pages with XHTML strict. Used 
sidebars. Label it sidebar in style sheet, make label invisible in style 
sheet. Specific to what you are doing. WL makes a good point, goes beyond 
user agent. Styles are used to convey information. Want to encode as much 
of semantics into doc as you can. Then if lose presentation you don't lose 
that info.
JM CSS techniques.
CM Yes. But, the issue as rasied here affect 1.5?
JW don't think it's an issue.
CM sidebars can be inserted into flow of text when style sheets are not on 
and interrupt flow of text.
WC fix by putting that paragraph last or first rather than within the document.
CM Also falls under 1.3.
WC Primarily a CSS problem?
JW Make happen in XSLT.
Action WC: ask wl if #4 is resolved.

$Date: 2001/08/23 21:42:59 $ Wendy Chisholm

wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2001 17:46:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:38 UTC