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

Re: Agenda

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 19:32:01 -0800
To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au, "_W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <00e901c17bab$129456a0$7692003e@dev1>
For the record: After I read the minuets for Sept ftf I did raise the point
that I do not hold with consensus, I still do not.

That being said, I dare say we do not need 100% agreement for consensus. But
it did seem that a few people agreed with me. That minimum conformance and
the normative document,  should not be restricted to checkpoints for which
there are adequate test, but should include any checkpoint whose violation
can  bar a user from accessing information.

By the way, we can not all get to each FTF, and teleconferences are in the
middle of the night for me. Maybe consensus should be checked on the list.


> Lisa Seeman writes:
>  > > 1. The working group has agreed that only checkpoints for which we
can
>  > >    develop adequate success criteria will be included in the
normative
>  > >    document (i.e., count for purposes of conformance to the
>  > >    specification).
>  > did we?
> Yes, in several teleconferences and in the September face to face
> meeting.
>
> In today's teleconference it was decided that items for which adequate
> success criteria cannot be provided may still be included in the
> guidelines document but cannot be required for purposes of
> conformance. At least, that is the position toward which the working
> group is moving (it hasn't been finally decided whether non-normative
> items will go in the guidelines document or be relegated to a separate
> document, but everyone who expressed an opinion on this favoured the
> former alternative).
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jason.
>
Received on Sunday, 2 December 2001 12:34:52 GMT

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