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

phone notes from Melbourne face to face

From: Jo Miller <jo@bendingline.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 19:09:03 -0500
Message-Id: <p0510032bb8160ef44c74@[192.168.1.101]>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hi all,

Below, an addition to the official minutes. These are notes from the 
IRC log. Jo, Andi, Matt May, Gregg, Loretta, Paul, Tim are joining by 
phone/IRC. Jo is minuting for Matt who is on IRC but not phone. 
Participants in Australia are currently unable to get on IRC. Phone 
minute-taker acknowledges that this log is probably riddled with 
errors, misattributions, and general slanders--please refer to real 
minutes when they are posted later! Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

         Jo: Jason refers to GV's message re. axes, conformance.
         Jo: Extent to which user can access the content with AT and 
client support.
         Jo: On other side there are questions of what author should 
be able to do in terms of prioritizing implementation by difficulty, 
etc.
         Jo: Temporal dimension: some requirements address software 
limitations which will disappear, new software will bring new issues, 
etc.
         Jo: Make sure guidelines can outlive medium-term developments in tech.
         Jo: Formulate all these into conformance scheme?
         Jo: IMS has separated user issues from provider issues.
         Jo: Accessibility group of IMS has added accessibility to 
learner profile.

         Jo: Gian just joined. Wendy suggests re-doing introductions.

  [interruption by static buzzing on phone]


     chaals: how long has that been?
         Jo: Just since the second round of intros started.
     chaals: (I am connected by cellphone - that might be causingthe 
interference)
     chaals: that could be me. I will disconnect, and please tell us 
if the buzz goes away.
     chaals: see you in a bit if the buz doesn't change.
*** Signoff: chaals (ShadowIRC 1.1b2 PPC)
         Jo: Thanks for those CSS issues, Andi!
       andi: I haven't scrubbed them yet but I wanted to get them up 
there in case anything happens with them at the f2f
         Jo: Gregg are you still on the phone?
         Jo: Matt, want to introduce yourself?
         Jo: They're asking how long you've been with WCAG and what you do/
      mcmay: Okay.
      mcmay: I'm a consultant in Seattle, and I've been a member for a 
little over a year.
         Jo: Thanks.
      mcmay: I'm working on the techniques document for HTML/XHTML, 
and some of the CSS techniques.
        Jo: IMS will be joining in about 5 minutes and then they'll 
get into conformance issues...
   Jo: Wendy is raising sticky issues like baseline capabilities.
     Paul joins.
         Jo: LS: Conformance should be "do-able." Thinking of adding 
different dimension to grid of conformance. Author's perspective.
         Jo: Minimum conformance standard that makes sense for 
retrofitting only.
         Jo: Completely different minimal conformance list for people 
building site from scratch.
         Jo: Addresses practical ramifications. For people who 
otherwise won't bother retrofitting.
         Jo: Andrew: Corporate and gvt ask what level should we achieve?
         Jo: Levels don't necess. apply to what you're trying to do 
for your customers/audience.
         Jo: Some way of being able to mix and match checkpoints 
according to their needs will be more successful than offering A or B 
or C.
         Jo: WC: We've been saying authors can make a more granular claim.
         Jo: Using Earl is one way.
         Jo: A few proposals: 1. a minimum set, make granular claims 
based on what you've done above that.
         Jo: But if there's a minimum set, there's concern that the 
minimum is all they'll do.
         Jo: LS: If we label minimal set as retrofitting...
         Jo: WC- you think minimum set only applies to retrofitting?
         Jo: "Core." [who is talking now?]
         Jo: "Core" are the things that are common to everyone.
         Jo: "Main specific elements" extend the core. For instance, 
for the domain of government.
       andi: Isn't it Chaals' mum?
         Jo: Thanks.
         Jo: LN: 1. Who is ultimately using it? 2. Is there a mediator 
(as in a classroom situation with a teacher)
         Jo: Different groups add further refinements to core 
extensions based on their interests and needs.
         Jo: WC- How would you apply? What's the equivalent of domain in WCAG?
         Jo: LN- Domain is accessibility.
         Jo: Within that domain there are different application 
profiles (WCAG, 508, New Zealand), that can be cross-mapped to each 
other.
         Jo: CMN- We have the technical pieces in place to do metadata schemes.
       andi: Jo, thanks for loggin all this!
      mcmay: Yeah. Thanks! :)
         Jo: But in building new vision of WCAG, what does it mean to 
conform to WCAG?
         Jo: Which of those pieces are compulsory and which are useful 
things you can also do which go beyond some level.
         Jo: In WCAG 1 the three levels (must, should may)
         Jo: If we're changing that, then we need an alternative.
         Jo: If we keep it, then let's look at requirements and check 
if priorities are assigned at reasonable level.
         Jo: For accessibility as a whole, there is a group for almost 
any given requirement for whom THAT requirement is a MUST (essential).
         Jo: One approach: drop prioritization. Here's the whole list.
         Jo: To build a policy that some gvt. is going to implement, 
show them what group they're cutting out.
         Jo: They are in the biz of excluding people. This is what they do.
         Jo: CBA
         Jo: Different orgs will come up with different CBAs.
         Jo: Degree of difficulty plays a large part for them.
         Jo: LN- suggest prioritizing by applications?
         Jo: CMN- If you're happy to exclude x group of users, here 
are the things you can drop off your list. That information is 
reasonably available.
         Jo: Matt, we're recapping last week's telecon
         Jo: Pros and cons of having levels vs. having no levels.
      mcmay: k.
         Jo: JW- 3 or 4 different dimensions along which we could make 
classifications.
         Jo: Examine how those dimensions interact.
         Jo: LS- User self-identification.
         Jo: LN- IMS goes by what you need, not who you are. One 
person may have many profiles.
         Jo: LS- Flip side of self-identification is allowing someone 
else to identify what your needs are.
         Jo: Cognitive disabilities, learning disabilities. Not leave 
it to web authors to identify their end-users' needs.
         Jo: GV raises his hand.
         Jo: LS- every checkpoint is essential to one user group. 
Single-A tends to go with physical barriers. Comprehension goes to 
double-A.
         Jo: Same applies to phase 1, phase 2 representation.
         Jo: Anything left to AA or AAA is something that must happen 
in phase 1.
         Jo: Better representation: who does it in the process and at 
what point in the process can it be put in?
         Jo: People can choose according to where they are in their 
web development. Planning, updating, architecture, photographics 
department...
         Jo: CMN- First point: using the way we talk about conformance 
levels as motivational tool is useless. If there are 3 levels people 
will go for 1st one, maybe second.
         Jo: Second point: we're not writing laws. If we say these are 
the requirements for accessibility, we're not forcing anyone.
         Jo: People aren't necessarily going to do them all at once. 
Kynn says we shouldn't be setting implementation priorities. We 
should be setting out information that people could use.
         Jo: Argument for dropping priorities: we could get on with 
the work. We're not in a position to take what we've got and assign 
priorities.
         Jo: There's another related rat-hole: what do we assume about users?
         Jo: We assume they can identify and follow a link.  WCAG 1 
does not assume access to javascript.
         Jo: We need to start out with process for deciding what our 
assumptions are.
             mcmay prays for a short user-assumptions discussion ;)
         Jo: CM is not keen to drop priorities because UA work assumes 
priority scheme.
         Jo: Also, we'll end up with a big laundry list.
         Jo: Well, we will end up with a big laundry list. There are 
lots of pieces to consider. What's the most effective way of 
implementing checkpoints so that you cover 7 or 9 of them in each 
piece of work you do.
         Jo: GO- Request that we maintain one level of conformance at least.
         Jo: In smaller jurisdictions (NZ, etc.) we're looking for 
leadership from guidelines.
         Jo: In America there's a huge legislative environment for 
coming up with appropriate guidelines for various sectors.
      mcmay: The most effective way of doing that is to make sure that 
implementing things in an inaccessible fashion is difficult using the 
languages and tools.
         Jo: Matt, do you want me to get you into the queue to speak?
      mcmay: I'm going to just type out what I need to say, and then I 
guess I can jump in the queue once it's all done.
         Jo: GSW- Transitional and retrofitting...
      mcmay: That way I don't have to jump in with just one sentence at a time.
         Jo: [OK matt -- makes sense.]
      mcmay: I think that's what should be the long-term goal of WCAG. 
In the short term, I feel we need to work on a transitional approach 
to bring current sites to more people...
         Jo: GSW- Useful to explain to business managers why you need 
to conform to a certain checkpoint. They need concrete explanation 
with reference to user groups.
         Jo: But this shouldn't be incorporated into the checkpoints.
         Jo: Allowing people to exclude groups deliberately.
      mcmay: And in the middle-term, we should focus on how to do 
things right from scratch (WCAG Strict). But in the end, we need to 
realize that UAAG and ATAG need to rejoin WCAG at the end.
      mcmay: Okay. Done.
         Jo: GSW- Three types of sites attempting accessibility levels.
         Jo: 1. public site, general. should aim for AA
      mcmay: Erm. Pardon the grammar. :)
         Jo: 2. Disability services organizations. Willing to go far 
and above AAA.
         Jo: 3. Site with targeted audience. Small, known audience. 
None blind, deaf, but maybe color-blind.
         Jo: GSW- How does technical environment fit in?
         Jo: Baseline assumptions?
         Jo: People with disabilities are usu. from lower income?
         Jo: We may be setting baseline too high.
         Jo: OK Matt, you're in their queue. Shall I read out all 
you've said when they get to you, or just ping you and let you write 
more?
         Jo: GV-History of prioritization schemes.  Layers. Where to start.
      mcmay: I think I'll hold with with that. The idea is that we 
should be looking several years down the road, rather than trying to 
pick apart current capabilities.
         Jo: If we have just the full set, letting people pick where 
to start, what we often find people doing (to use hotel analogy)...
         Jo: Is that they're doing the carpet on the second floor 
before they've installed the elevator.
         Jo: Where do we draw the line, how do we figure that out?
         Jo: GV- Give people a way of attacking the problem in terms 
of grouping, layering.
         Jo: Also flag the ones where if you don't do this, no one's 
getting anywhere. Minimum set or whatever.
         Jo: I feel we need some type of prioritization on the items.
         Jo: Loretta's turn.
         Jo: Loretta- Charles's proposal appealing on many levels. But 
what would it mean to claim conformance?
         Jo: This came up at last F2F.
         Jo: Discussion about whether conformance could be related to 
different disabilities, consensus seemed to be that it could not. Are 
we back there?
         Jo: CMN- Conformance would mean you did the lot. Means 
conformance is rare, highly valued, reasonably measurable.
         Jo: What I would expect people to do a lot of is claim how 
far they'd got. Identify each thing they'd done.
         Jo: Not claiming "i conform." But produce detailed 
information about how far along they are, what they've done.
         Jo: BTW, Matt, this also came up in the telecon last week. 
Stages on the way to full conformance.
         Jo: CMN- Getting real conformance would be a big piece of work.
         Jo: And stating how far you'd got would be A CRUCIAL PART of 
implementing the guidelines.
         Jo: And no, we shouldn't let them claim conformance by 
splitting people by disabilities.
         Jo: WC- we need a break...
         Jo: Break at 11? Agreed.
         Jo: JW- We have some agreement that there's some information 
that we want to provide with guidelines. Who benefits, who would be 
excluded without them, some implementation information.
         Jo: Where it is best done in implementation process and how 
it is best done.
         Jo: Areas in which we want to at least provide information. 
This seems to come through pretty clearly in discussions.
         Jo: Differences of opinion on whether there should be 
differing levels of conformance.
         Jo: Need among implementors to have suitable starting point. 
Some dependencies among them, as GV mentioned.
         Jo: Maybe what we should do is go through checkpoints at some 
stage, categorize them in some way, so extra information is in the 
document.
         Jo: Then move on to prioritizing or categorizing in some way.
         Jo: Start adding the additional information first.
         Jo: Consider conformance questions later.
         Jo: CS- We need to define what are the things that can be 
done to help people. This is what we can usefully do.
         Jo: Next thing is to help implementors know where to start, 
how to do it.
         Jo: Many audiences for that.
         Jo: If we set it up so we give implementors info they need to 
implement, without worrying about what's more important. Just write 
it down and get it out there...
         Jo: Then give policymakers the info they need to make policy, 
which they're going to do anyway.
         Jo: Third thing: provide info to users so they can provide 
content they need. In metadata.
         Jo: If we can do those 3 things, we'll have done a lot to 
help people in real world.
         Jo: If we try to write a set of regs, we'll help fewer people.
         Jo: LS- Disagree with chaals that our job is to give information.
         Jo: Perhaps our job is to promote, to do what we can to make 
web accessible.
         Jo: Little groups aren't going to come up with their own 
policies, guidelines.
         Jo: Need to take into account practicalities of implementation.
         Jo: Suggest: have complete requirements. Add levels, grid.
         Jo: Burden in different situations, for example.
         Jo: Distinguish retrofitting from building new sites.
         Jo: Recognize different stages in web creation.
         Jo: Inaccessible navigation is a disaster, for example. So we 
could add something about how to make a regulation.
         Jo: WC- You're talking about profiles for types of sites, stages...
         Jo: Matt, they're taking a break. i'm going to e-mail them 
these notes, including your comments, in case I am not here when they 
get back from break -- does that sound OK?
      mcmay: fine with me.

Jo Miller
___________________________
B e n d i n g   L i n e
7 0 3 - 7 8 3 - 0 6 9 5
Strategic Web Consulting

http://bendingline.com
Received on Monday, 12 November 2001 19:09:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:16 GMT