27 Jun 2002 - WCAG WG Teleconference Minutes
Loretta Guarino Reid
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
Editors: reword Checkpoint 2.1 to put it in imperative mode.
BC: Remove the word "Next" from the image in Checkpoing 1.1, example
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
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
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
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