W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: Agenda

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 12:04:54 -0500
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <009d01c200e9$a1695510$066fa8c0@laptop600>
Hi Lisa, 

    Thanks for comments.   

I follow them - and we are increasingly using metadata in the
recommendations,  -  but am not sure exactly what you mean for us to do.

Do you have specific recommendations for wording changes in the
guidelines to reflect this that you would like to propose?

Gregg

------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Ind Engr - Biomed - Trace,  Univ of Wis
gv@trace.wisc.edu

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf
> Of lisa (by way of Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>)
> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 3:55 PM
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Agenda
> 
> 
> I see a difference between a web author deciding to tailor for a given
> end user group, and in us legitimizing their decisions to exclude.
> 
> Let me be blunt. We could end up with a prioritization system which
> rates the ability to access of some groups, however small in number or
> unattractive they may be, as lower priority.
> 
> Now if there is one thing that all disabilities groups have in common,
> it is alienation form societies. Now we can not stop that through
WCAG,
> but we do not have to be part of the process.
> 
> With a modular system the individual web author and policy maker may
> well decide to leave out some disabilities groups. We can not stop
that.
> But let us not put our seal of approval on it either. And let us
supply
> the meta data so that a person can find the sites were they are
wanted.
> 
> All the best
> Lisa
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU]
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 12:45 PM
> To: 'lisa Seeman'; jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU; 'Web Content
> Guidelines'
> Subject: RE: Agenda
> 
> 
> Sorry you cannot make it
> 
> Couple of questions then to clarify.
> 
> 1 - you said you liked modular approach better - so we didn't
> discriminate.   As I understood modular approach - it meant that
people
> could pick which checkpoints to include or exclude.   Current proposal
> is to require that all checkpoints be included at least at minimum
> level.      I thought the current proposal sounded better for your
> concern.   Please expand your thought because I'm missing something.
> 
> 2 -  Yes - cognitive is perhaps the largest group depending on how it
is
> defined.   The comment wasn't about the relative sizes of disability
> groups though.  (One of our consensus items was that conformance
should
> not be able to be disability specific --- so relative sizes or
> visibility or anything else of major disability groups did not arise.
)
> The item was about how universally needed something was within a major
> disability group.
> 
> 3 -  Correct.   Testability did not demote success criteria to lower
> levels under the current consensus of the group.   Success criteria
> needed to be testable at all levels - unless we change our minds.
> 
> 
> PS     I too think we want to get to machine readable and
understandable
> text as a goal for better access.  I think it is the best chance for
> getting access to text at all the different cognitive and language
> levels that might be needed - and for  agent assisted access as well.
> How to do it will indeed be a long topic.  Thanks for starting up the
> discussion.  As Co-chair I also thank you for thinking to take it off
> list since it will be a big topic.   And put me on the list.
> Gregg
> 
> ------------------------------------
> Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Ind Engr - Biomed - Trace,  Univ of Wis
> gv@trace.wisc.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf
>  > Of lisa Seeman
>  > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 3:52 AM
>  > To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU; Web Content Guidelines
>  > Subject: Re: Agenda
>  >
>  > I can not make it as it is a Jewish festival tonight.
>  >
>  > my comments are:
>  > 1, I like Kynns modular approach much better. We need a more
flexible
> system
>  > if we are not going to discriminate against some disabilities
within
> the
>  > guidelines (even if it is just in terms of numbers)
>  >
>  > 2 on
>  > " Absolute essentials.  If these aren't done - most everyone in a
> major
>  > disability group can't access the information.  (e.g. no
>  > captions)"
>  > Please note the largest disabilities groups are thoughs with
cognitive
>  > disabilities. There needs must be addressed as P1 or equivalent.
>  >
>  > 3.
>  > Minimal conformance to a guideline may require some testability.
That
> does
>  > not  mean that checkpoints without testability need to be demoted
for
>  > prioritization levels as well.
>  >
>  >
>  > ----- Original Message -----
>  > From: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
>  > To: "Web Content Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>  > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:53 PM
>  > Subject: Agenda
>  >
>  >
>  > > Thursday, 16 May, 20:00 UTC - 4 PM US Eastern, 10 PM France, 6 AM
>  > > Eastern Australia, on +1-617-252-1038:
>  > >
>  > > 1. The conformance scheme. See Gregg's latest summary to the list
at
>  > >
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002AprJun/0266.html
>  > >
>  > > 2. Guideline 5. Issues related to guideline 5 arose at last
week's
>  > >    meeting; thus it seems best to address them directly. Note
that
>  > >    Cynthia's proposed reworking of guideline 5 is included in the
>  > >    latest internal working draft.
>  > >
> 
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.361 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 5/7/2002
> 
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2002 13:05:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:19 GMT