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

Re: minutes

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 10:50:11 -0800
To: gian@stanleymilford.com.au, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <00c401c1c865$7a655d40$6593003e@dev1>
LS: ???

Sorry I can not remember what I said.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <gian@stanleymilford.com.au>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 2:32 PM
Subject: minutes


> Reception on telephone call very bad (for us Aussies at least) - so
> apologies if minutes are not accurate. Get back to me with changes. 
> 
> W3C teleconference
> 
> 08.03.02
> 
> ATTENDEES:
> 
> Gian Sampson-Wild
> 
> Jason White
> 
> Andi
> 
> Loretta
> 
> Wendy
> 
> Lisa
> 
> Lee Roberts
> 
> Dina Slydon
> 
> Ben Caldwell
> 
> Jenae ??
> 
> JS: Agenda: F2F meeting agenda, finish guidelines for next working
> draft for internal publication (ready for F2F meeting)
> 
> WC: Draft agenda published on meeting page. Saturday 9am- techniques
> breakout session. Andi published first draft of HTML techniques.
> Afternoon meet with WAI interest group (2- 4 or 1.30- 3 TBD). Sunday
> morning meeting with EO, Sunday afternoon WCAG WG (checkpoint 3.3 and
> 3.4). 
> 
> GSW: When should telecon people attend?
> 
> WC: Saturday afternoon and Sunday afternoon for those joining by phone.
> 
> LS: Can only attend F2F by telecon on Sunday, so can Checkpoint 3.3 and
> 3.4 wait until then?
> 
> WC: Couple of issues of WCAG 2.0 that need to be clarified by W3C. Has
> everyone registered? Important to have the right size bridge
> 
> JW & GSW: Have not registered.
> 
> WC: List of attendees not public. If anyone has any ideas for agenda,
> please send to list or email Wendy directly.
> 
> Andi: Would success criteria be a good agenda item - to ensure
> testability
> 
> JW: Would be worth discussing at a teleconference.
> 
> ?? Could come out in techniques breakout session
> 
> WC: Could I have an idea who will be working on what techniques/ideas on
> breakout session on Saturday morning. need to break into sub-groups of
> similar interests. So can people show up with some idea of what to talk
> about.
> 
> WC: EO will have frequently asked questions - Lisa and Graham to write.
> 
> LS: Finished draft, hasn't been posted to the list yet. Will chase that
> up.
> 
> WC: Has it been sent to EO?
> 
> LS: It's been sent to someone because we have received feedback.
> 
> WC: Please chase it up and send to WCAG and EO ASAP so people can
> consider it.
> 
> WC: Any other topics to take to EO? EO - produce curriculum, quick tip
> cards, business cards, a lot to support technical work in guidelines
> group, make things easier to read and to reach a wider audience. Do we
> have any questions for them or things they need to review? Please send
> to the list.
> 
> JW: There may be some EO documents we will be asked to review. Therefore
> there might be some messages to the list before the F2F to review.
> 
> JW: Next draft is for internal use for the WG, plan to refine it further
> before made public.
> 
> LS: Will Checkpoint 3.3 be rewritten?
> 
> JW: Jo is still working on it, and would like LS to be involved. Issues
> that Jo has found, will have been put into an email, and wanting to work
> with LS on it. Action item still open.
> 
> LS: ???
> 
> JW: Work on proposal of success criteria and work on any concerns that
> could arise from that proposal.
> 
> LS: Right that checkpoint 3.3 does not belong there, but where does it
> belong? Feedback from people in disability community- have contact
> details, so perhaps have them join in this discussion. Maybe we should
> email draft, and see how they would like to word it. 
> 
> JW: proposal was we get a draft for revised success criteria for 3.3,
> then incorporate issues of other checkpoints. Either done as a proposal
> in near future, or when next internal draft comes out
> 
> JW: Any other issues people would like to discuss?
> 
> JW: Discussion on the list for rewording the guidelines.
> 
> GSW: From email, three sections
> 
> GSW: Like it, because it splits into sections that show the areas that
> help people with disabilities
> 
> LS: Rewrite it to group the information, if you were trying to give a 4
> minute talk about accessibility, what would the groupings there be?
> Looking at all the guidelines people were writing, split into three or
> four comments and if people really followed them without WCAG they would
> have an accessible site
> 
> GSW: Isn't this what Paul has done?
> 
> LS: Don't think by themselves it is possible to follow them, second
> option isn't descriptive enough.
> 
> JW: Serious problems with Paul's proposal, because when talking about
> the guidelines, they are supposed to say 'what are the
> properties/qualities of a web site to be accessible', and current
> sections really capture the guidelines, therefore much more useful and
> more convenient way of categorising, as opposed to the platitudes in
> latest proposal. LS proposal interesting, as high level guidelines
> always were supposed to capture guidelines underneath. Somehow we need
> to capture the main concerns of a guideline. We need some kind of
> explanation on how to implement these things, even if not stated in
> contents of guidelines and checkpoints. Do we want additional
> information for people to approach the task appropriately.
> 
> LS: Problem with accessibility is people get caught up on success
> criteria. Modular approach - could have various different ways, main
> point make sure people know why they're doing what they're doing.
> 
> JW: Whenever interpretive questions arrive about a certain guideline
> questions should be to the principle of the guideline, does the
> implementation of the checkpoint follow the spirit of the guideline.
> Checkpoints are details, whereas main concept is in the text of the
> guideline.
> 
> Andi??: When discussing whether information belongs under one checkpoint
> or another we go back to the guideline.
> 
> JW: Need more comments on proposal to see if it goes anywhere or not.
> Would people like to review over the next week or so.
> 
> ??: Can't make any decisions until author joins us teleconferences.
> 
> GSW: Does Paul ever make it to teleconferences?
> 
> JW: Yes
> 
> JW: Clarified agenda for F2F meeting, 3.3 checkpoint and high-level
> guidelines.
> 
> Cheers,
> Gian
> 
> Gian Sampson-Wild
> Accessibility Specialist
> 
> Member: Web Content Accessibility Group Working Group
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
> 
> Stanley & Milford
> A Software Communication Group Company
> Level 16
> 644 Chapel Street
> South Yarra VIC 3141
> Australia
> Tel. 613 9826 5829
> Fax. 613 9826 8336
> Mob. 0404 498 030
> Email gian@stanleymilford.com.au
> Web: www.stanleymilford.com.au
> 
> ********************************************
> This message contains privileged and confidential information intended
> only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the
> intended recipient of this message you must not disseminate, copy or
> take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in
> error, please notify Software Communication Group immediately. Any views
> expressed in this message are those of the individual sender except
> where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Software
> Communication Group.
> ********************************************
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 00:58:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:18 GMT