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

suggestions for where working group members can get involved

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:59:34 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: <gdeering@acslink.net.au>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Geoff asked "can you please send me a list of the sections that require work so I can choose which ones I may be best fit for?"  Others might be asking themselves the same question.  Here is my quick response of what needs work.  I haven't sent this by Gregg and Jason first, so they might have a slightly different opinion, but here is my point of view.

In your response you mention clarifying A, AA, and AAA. However, the group has not decided that we will use the same conformance scheme in WCAG 2.0 that we developed in WCAG 1.0. Therefore, I'm not sure what there is to write, unless you are interested in working on a FAQ for WCAG 1.0.

If you are interested in recent discussions about conformance refer to the mail archives and minutes from previous meetings.  A summary of previous discussions and  a proposal for how to move forward would be helpful. Although, we've put off this discussion until the success criteria are more solid.

How about creating examples?  We need examples and clarifying text for every technology that we are creating techniques documents for.  You could look at these documents and find where you might be of help.  I think the only document that is well covered is CSS Techniques.

We have the following issues list for WCAG 2.0. Do you see anything in here that you could help clarify?

Or what about some of the issues contained within the latest draft that need clarifying? (do a text search on "issue." e.g. "Issue: it has been proposed that we provide multiple, automatically generated "views" of the guidelines document for different purposes, using XSLT. What are the different "views" of the document that we should make available? Should we also have versions that include techniques or technology-specific success criteria (i.e., the technology-specific layer), along with the guidelines, checkpoints and generic success criteria? "

Does that help?

At 05:05 PM 1/24/02, Geoff Deering wrote:
>If you ask which sections I would like to work on, can you please send me a
>list of the sections that require work so I can choose which ones I may be
>best fit for?
>If it is more open ended, I would like to write something concerned with
>this thread.  My concern is the interpretation of what is A, AA, and AAA
>compliant.  I am quite concerned that the novice, new to WAI, or with some
>passion or interest, wants to embrace it's best of practice, goes and looks
>at all the sites that are strongly associated with the W3C WAI movement, and
>forms an observation from close discernment which is not the "Best of
>Practice".  Often this alienates good people, and we need to be rigorous and
>disciplined enough to be able to show best of practice in our own work, and
>also to be able to show the huge business advantages from doing so.
>I am willing to write clarifying documentation on this, test suites,
>examples, whatever, but most of all, it may be more important, at this
>stage, to be concentrating on what the priority work at hand is, so I leave
>it to you and Charles to make suggestions as to what the priorities are, and
>what they need?
>Geoff Deering
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Wendy A Chisholm [mailto:wendy@w3.org]
>Sent: Friday, 25 January 2002 7:54 AM
>To: gdeering@acslink.net.au
>Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>Subject: RE: level A and double A RE: rationalize presentation
>Agreed. Which sections would you like to work on?
>At 02:29 PM 1/22/02, Geoff Deering wrote:
>>I agree with this.  The success in the communication and impact of the
>>future release of WCAG2, I feel, will depend on such clarifying
>>documentation, Test Suites, and examples.
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@w3.org]
>>Sent: Monday, 21 January 2002 9:30 PM
>>To: Geoff Deering
>>Cc: WAI GL
>>Subject: level A and double A RE: rationalize presentation
>>        [snip]
>>There is a lack of detail available from teh techniques documents in some
>>areas, and it
>>would be helpful to have a lot more specific examples of what does or does
>>not meet a checkpoint and why - working group consensus on annotations to a
>>Test Suite would be a good start. I feel that this  is a real problem
>>inhibiting implementation (as opposed to adoption in policy) of the
>>guidelines, and one that we as a working group should be resolving.
>wendy a chisholm
>world wide web consortium
>web accessibility initiative
>seattle, wa usa

wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium 
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2002 18:05:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:40 UTC