27 Jun 2002 - WCAG WG Teleconference Minutes


Ben Caldwell
Loretta Guarino Reid
Matt May
Andi Snow-Weaver
Jason White


Doyle Burnett
Wendy Chisolm
Bengt Farre
Lee Roberts
Gian Sampson-Wild
Cynthia Shelley
John Slatin
Eugenia Slaydon


We appear to be in good shape to release our next public draft. We'll watch for issues to be raised on the mailing list, but hope to post this in two weeks.

Action Items

Editors: reword Checkpoint 2.1 to put it in imperative mode.
BC: Remove the word "Next" from the image in Checkpoing 1.1, example 1

Checkpoint 2.1

JW: Are there any comments on the new version of Checkpoint 2.1?
JW: This checkpoint should be reworded slightly to put it into imperative mode, consistent with the other checkpoints. Propose that the editors address this.
ASW: I used to be uncomfortable with this because it was unclear when the User Agent or author had responsibility for ensuring this. But the success criteria clarifies this. But I don't think the Submit Button example is a good one, since the Browser controls whether you can tab to the button, not the author.
JW: So this is really a non-example. I think this example just carried over from WCAG 1. Should we just delete it?
ASW: Yes, let's delete it. The second example is more script-oriented, hence more appropriate.

Any other issues before making this version public

BC: Checkpoint 1.1, example 1, I propose removing the word "Next" from the image. It seems like the image itself violates some of our guidelines, because the word Next is part of the image in a way that is hard to read. Let's just use the icon with the arrow.
ASW: Sounds ok to me.
JW: So we appear to be in good shape to release this draft in a week or so.

MM: Futures question: when will we be dealing with prioritization/conformance?
JW: I thought there was already a proposal in the current draft?
MM: I just want to be sure this isn't going to come back again, because it affects the authoring tools. We'll need to do an ATAG 1.1 for this.
JW: There may be changes in the level allocations of particular success criteria. But there seems to be a reasonable agreement with the general scheme itself, so it seems like to be what we will use. But we can't rely on it, and particularly on the priorities of success criteria, until the document goes to last call.
MM: Will WCAG and ATAG be meeting together?
JW: I suggested it should happen sometime soon after this public draft comes out. This gives ATAG people a chance to review this draft and prepare a list of issues, then we should hold a teleconference to address the issues of dependencies.
MM: I think we should take advantage of being together in Linz, and meet at the beginning of the face-to-face.
JW: This was ruled out because the chairs of the group couldn't be present, so the face-to-face meeting will just be a working session on techniques, and we'll address the ATAG dependencies in a teleconference.

JW: Upcoming issues: ATAG dependencies; multiple versions of contents and server side techniques, particularly as they affect conformance schemes; a range of issues related to particular checkpoints in the document

$Date: 2002/05/24 21:45:12 $ Loretta Guarino Reid