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

June 13 Telecon Highlights

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 15:54:56 -0500
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <007601c21641$3ca77d10$b817a8c0@laptop600>
 

Highlights from June 13 telecon:

 

1.	Cynthia, Paul and Wendy's proposal
(http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2002/05/cp1-2.html) for checkpoint 1.2, was
reviewed with discussion focusing primarily on edits to the minimum
level success criteria. A new draft of the proposal based on the
discussion can be reviewed at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2002/06/17-cp1-2.html.  
2.	Gregg and Ben are working on a new checkpoint for Guideline 1
that is focused on providing information needed for unambiguous decoding
of the characters and words in content. The new checkpoint will address
the issue of missing vowel marks (such as in Hebrew) and will
incorporate discussion of character set remapping (text must map back to
(whatever international group says) character set)
3.	New Issues (tracked with experimental issue tracking tool):

*	Accessible rebroadcasts (see
http://cgi.w3.org/ETA/issues.php3/wai/wcag/?issues_id=647)
*	Character encoding (see
http://cgi.w3.org/ETA/issues.php3/wai/wcag/?issues_id=649)
*	real-time or interactive presentation and deaf-blindness (see
http://cgi.w3.org/ETA/issues.php3/wai/wcag/?issues_id=650) 
*	checkpoint (or definition) about use of standard character set
(see http://cgi.w3.org/ETA/issues.php3/wai/wcag/?issues_id=648) 

4.	(General Comment) In discussing the checkpoint 1.2 proposal,
John Slatin suggested that we should avoid using language that ensures
that the user can achieve the author's intention. Instead, we should say
that the author has provided an equivalent that achieves the purpose of
the content. 

 

 
Received on Monday, 17 June 2002 16:55:16 GMT

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