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

Re: Minutes (finally) (fwd)

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 05:21:19 -0500 (EST)
To: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0111210519440.791-100000@tux.w3.org>
Here are a bunch more minutes, thanks to Cynthia.

Note that we had Mat Miirabella at the meeting, and Matt May on the phone, so
it is not yet clear who is who...

  WCAG F2F Telstra, Melbourne Australia November 13 2001
  Gian Sampson-Wild, Stanley & Milford
  Emeline Haight, Dept of Ed Tasmania
  Rob Pedlow, Telstra Research
  Graham Oliver
  Liddy Nevile
  Andrew Arch
  Mat Mirabella, Telstra Research
  Wendy Chisholm, W3C
  Jason White, University of Melbourne
  Lisa Seeman,
  Cynthia C. Shelly, Microsoft Corporation
  Charles McCathieNevile
  On the Phone
  Jo Miller
  Gregg Vanderheiden
  Andy Snow-Weaver, IBM
  Loretta Guarino-Ried, Adobe
  Tim Lacy, Microsoft Corporation
  Matt May

  Email from Greg summarizing axes for summarizing checkpoints. What
  criteria will we use to decide what goes in the minimum set, and how the
  conformance will work.
  Can the user access the content
  Ability of user's technology
  What the author should be able to do in terms of selecting audience and
  prioritizing implementation
  Temporal dimension. Some requirements exist because of software
  limitations which will disappear over time, and new opportunities will
  come up over time.
  How can we formulate these into a coherent conformance scheme
  IMS takes an approach where you separate the user issues from the
  provider issues. They use a learner profile, and allow learner to add to
  the profile their accessibility needs. IMS is interested in how you link
  resources together to make a composite resource. Use a user profile of
  the user to automatically link the resources together. IMS is all about
  making standards to which members will comply - educational sector.
  IMS definition. Trying to create a world where you can plug a student in
  and have them do all there work and be evaluated. Or, allow teachers to
  construct customized educational tools.
  Consortium of commercial software companies working on voluntary
  standards for educational software
  Conformance Introduction. We're trying to decide what kind of priority
  scheme we should use for WCAG 2.0. It's very different than WCAG 1.0.
  There is some contention about how uniformly we applied criteria in 1.
  Many people also thought it was too rigid
  2 ways we can approach
  discuss what are the axes
  try to apply the ones we have
  Perhaps Dublin core can be extended to include an accessibility element.
  Add accessibility metadata. Dublin Core has done a lot of thinking about
  how to represent accessibility in metadata.
  There's a practical consideration people have when trying to make
  conformance claims, where it should be doable. That goes against the
  grain for people like me who think it should be based on how hard it is
  for people to access. We should have a minimum set for retrofitting, and
  a different one for people who are building a new site. This might make
  a good compromise
  What level should we achieve? Levels don't necessarily map to what
  you're trying to do for your users. Priority 1, 2 and 3 are too course.
  Some way to mix and match according to their needs, according to what
  their audience is and what they're trying to achieve.
  We have consensus that we need to allow authors to make a more granular
  claim. But, there is some concern about people only doing a minimal set.
  If we label minimum set as retrofitting,
  This is the same argument Dublin Core has been having for 5 years. How
  do you get from the core set to a very granular thing for a special
  situation. We should learn from their work.
  How did they get there?
  Core must be doable, recognizable. Special domains have added
  extensions. Education wants to know about the audience for whom the
  resource is intended, but there are 2 audiences - students and a
  mediating teacher or some combination. Allows for refinements of
  extensions, for example adding controlled vocabulary. Dumb-down rule to
  allow refined set to be translated to core. There is a registry for
  How would you apply
  Dublin core is about discovery. We could add a domain specific element
  recommended for use by everyone in Dublin core that would describe
  accessibility. Could use application profiles to look at [508 vs. WCAG
  vs. New Zealand, etc]
  We have technical tools for linking different requirements. WCAG has a
  list of stuff that you can do and ways to decide if you have done it. In
  WCAG 1.0 we had must should may, which is well understood. One way to
  approach is to get rid of priority, and give information on which users
  are effective so that different organizations can make proper
  cost-benefit decisions.
  Could do that w/ Dublin core using application profiles.
  On the call last Thursday, we talked about the pros and cons of having
  and not having priorities
  Was there consensus?
  There was recognition that there were pros and cons both ways
  Drawback of bare minimum - many orgs will do just that and no more. How
  can we express or present as Phase 1, so people will continue with the
  next phase.
  Kynn compared this to transitional and strict HTML standards.
  Kynn also suggested that trans/strict analogy worked for tech change
  too. The requirements that will go away with tech innovation would go
  into transitional.
  Possibility/impossibility for use
  W/ w/o tech
  What authors can do with their resources / needs
  What's available today, what can be done when there are new techs.
  The challenge is to examine how they interact and what kind of scheme we
  Something I'm worried about. When speaking to corps about learning
  disabilities, people often complain against the policy of
  self-identifying. In the adult population, there are people who don't
  IMS profile is based on what you need not what you have
  For cognitive disabilities that won't work, because you have a lot of
  denial. The opposite of self-identification is for someone else to
  identify you, and I don't trust others to do so. I'm hesitant to let
  authors identify their user's needs. At the same time, I think Charles
  point is important, that each and every checkpoint is essential to some
  user group. Single A is only about physical barriers, comprehension
  moves to double A. If the data is not comprehensible, has accessibility
  been achieved? Taking a solution that is almost asking people to miss
  use it for the same groups is not a solutions. Similar issues with Phase
  1, Phase 2. A lot of things that are in AA, are things that can only
  happen in phase 1 development - can't be added later. A better
  representation might be who does it and at one point in the process
  (general architecture, updating, etc).
  Language for motivation is useless by the time it gets translated.
  We aren't requiring conformance, we are explaining what is required to
  ensure accessibility.
  Pro dropping priorities: we can do the work that we need before we can
  make sensible distinctions
  Con: ATAG will be a nightmare. There will be a big list of things to do.
  I think we need to do more work on techniques and how to make this
  happen, and less on conformance schemes.
  Small places are looking for guidance and leadership from the
  guidelines, so having a conformance scheme is important - there aren't
  enough people for them to be able to split out the requirements.
  Having a retrofitting thing that seems easier will be bad, because that
  is what people will do instead.
  Splitting things by disability is tricky. It is important to justify
  that a requirement is important for somebody, but we should not
  incorporate that in a way that encourages people to try and match their
  target audience.
  Splitting conformance. There are 3 types of site that attempt
  accessibility - general public sites, (should aim for AA), disability
  service orgs - they are going to go as far as they can, and there are
  sites with targeted audiences - they assume that there are no people
  with disabilities in that audience.
  Question: I am a bit hazy on how the technical environment fits into the
  group. Why do we assume that people don't have JavaScript - because of
  their systems? Economics? ...
  People look at the guidelines and say "where do we start?". Maybe there
  is something other than "importance to people" as a way of prioritizing.
  If we have the full set and let people pick where to start, people risk
  starting at a point that is not useful - doing a lot of work that relies
  on things they haven't done yet. There are things that are critical, the
  minimum set. I think we need to have some type of prioritization.
  Charles' proposal appealed to me, but what would it mean to claim
  conformance. In addition we discussed whether conformance could be
  related to disabilities - I thought
  Conformance would be doing the lot. Rare and highly valued, but we would
  have to make it clear that specifying what has been done is really
  important in the real world. It should be impossible to claim
  conformance based on helping one group or other of people with
  We need to have information for our "checkpoints" - who benefits, what
  the technical requirements are, how to do it, ... We haven't got an
  agreed set of this information, but these are consistent themes. We
  should have a task to work out what we need from this information. There
  are possible dependencies among checkpoints - these should be
  identified. Maybe we should go through the checkpoints, categorize them
  so the extra info is in the document. Then we can go and consider
  conformance again.
  This group can define what things can be done to help people - that's
  what we are really good at. The next thing is to help figure out where
  to start. There are loots of different audiences. If we give
  implementers the things they need to implement without worrying about
  which is more important, then people can find it and use it. Then we can
  give policy makers the information they need to make a policy. They do
  that anyway - we otherwise make it hard for them to relate what we are
  doing to what they are doing. And then we need to make things
  discoverable - EARL, DC, or some other metadata-based system so people
  can find it. If we do those, we will do a lot of good. If we try to
  write regulations, we will help fewer people - if there is what my boss
  wrote and what W3C wrote, I am going 5to follow my boss.
  I like the way we are going. I disagreed with the premise that Charles
  made, that our job is just to give information. Perhaps our job is to do
  what we can do to make the web accessible. Looking at the situation in
  New Zealand is very important - I don't think everybody is going to make
  up their own policies - that only applies to big countries and big
  companies. I wanted to suggest we have the complete requirements, add a
  level of burden in different situations - when you are creating
  something, when you are fixing. Also, demonstrate the spread effect -
  the dependencies. Then we should look at ways of implementing
  accessibility policies.
  Liddy: IMS are not here because they are meeting tomorrow morning (days
  are different on different continents).
  Break - 15 minutes. Q == Andrew, Matt, Charles, Graham, Liddy.

Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 05:21:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:39 UTC