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

AUWG WCAG 2.0 Update Synopsis

From: Ben Caldwell <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 17:30:12 -0500
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <008b01c22eaa$ae9ba870$c317a8c0@ippiii7501>
Hi,

 

I was asked to spend some time with the Authoring Tool Accessibility
Guidelines Working Group (AUWG) last Monday at the F2F in Linz and
wanted to pass along some of the feedback I received. In a nutshell,
because ATAG is highly dependent on WCAG both now and in the future,
there was some concern about how the group should move forward with
their work given ongoing changes in the WCAG 2.0 draft. My presentation
focused primarily on changes to the structure and organization of the
document that have occurred in recent months. As well, it introduced our
current thinking about conformance. 

 

I've included some notes and questions from the meeting for general
consideration below:

 

-          There were a number of questions about how the conformance
scheme differs from WCAG 1.0. We need to work on a way to clearly
explain/present the differences in order to minimize confusion for those
transitioning from 1.0 to 2.0.

-          Regarding conformance, there is an open question about how
authoring tools should address evaluating conformance on chunks of
content vs. entire sites. This relates specifically to level 2 success
criteria where we've used language that requires that a statement be
present asserting that something has been done to address a particular
topic on the site. For example, how would you address this success
criteria if your conformance statement applies only to a single page or
if the scope of your testing is only an individual page? How might a
tool prompt an author regarding these checkpoints?

-          There was some concern about how ATAG would deal with a
fourth level (additional ideas for enhancing a site along this
particular dimension) of success criteria. 

 

The group also made the following requests of WCAG WG:

 

1.) that we identify which success criteria in the guidelines document
are machine testable as well as which criteria we feel should be
addressed at the authoring tool level.

2.) that we work to increase the level of interaction between AUWG and
WCAG. One suggestion included scheduling regular updates from our group
during weekly teleconference calls.

 

--
Ben Caldwell |  <mailto:caldwell@trace.wisc.edu> caldwell@trace.wisc.edu
Trace Research and Development Center (http://trace.wisc.edu)   

 
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2002 18:31:45 GMT

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