W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2003

Agenda

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:23:55 +1000
Message-ID: <16093.15387.839521.189311@jdc.local>
To: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Thursday, 29 May, 2000 UTC (4 PM US Eastern, 10 PM France, 6 AM
Eastern Australia) on +1-617-761-6200, passcode 9224.
IRC: irc.w3.org 6665, channel #wai-wcag

Background: the purpose of the next two meetings is to prepare a draft
of the reorganized 2.0 guidelines for publication on the W3C's
Technical Reports page, in order to solicit public comments. Your
Chairs and editors have identified the following major issues as
requiring attention before a draft can be published:

1. Classification of checkpoints flagged by question marks in the
   current draft, into "core" or "extended" categories. The presently
   accepted principles
   for determiing whether a checkpoint belongs in "core" or "extended"
   are summarized at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003AprJun/0187.html

2. For purposes of the TR draft, what should we include in the
   "conformance" section? A proposal is expected to be posted to the
   list before Thursday's meeting, based on the conformance section of
   earlier drafts, but with adaptations to take account of the new
   categorization scheme.

3. Any other issues.

Note that for purposes of circulating a draft for public review, it is
less important to achieve consensus regarding which items belong in
"minimum success criteria" vs. "best practice". Nevertheless, if there
are any obvious problems or inconsistencies that can be resolved
easily, they should be addressed.

For reference, here are the working principles by which the group has
agreed to be guided in classifying checkpoints, success criteria and
"best practice" items. It was acknowledged at last week's meeting that
these principles may be amended in the future should the need arise,
but only as a result of conscious deliberation on the part of the
working group.

The following are taken from Gregg's summaries:

A checkpoint belongs in the core if the following requirements are
met; otherwise it becomes an extended checkpoint:

GP1 - the checkpoint doesn't prescribe the default presentation or
expression of the content.     

GP2 - the checkpoint could be applied to all types of content and sites

	- (we don't want to have a required (core) checkpoint that 
		can't be met by some types of sites or they will not be 
		able to claim any conformance.)  
	- (in some cases we put in exceptions so that the 
		guideline (with the exception) could be met by all. 


Minimum success criteria vs. best practice vs. techniques:

- All minmum items must be testable.
- All minimum items on the CORE checkpoints must be doable on all sites.

- The minimum items for the Extended checkpoints would not necessarily be
doable on all sites, but it would probably be good - so that sites could
strive for meeting them all.

- The Best practice items do not need to be reliably testable. 
However, we want to track the different items and mark them as [TESTABLE] if
they are testable.

- it was not clear to the group if there should be just two levels  (minimum
and best practices) or if there should be three (with a second testable
level after minimum).   We are therefore holding this issue open and using
the [TESTABLE] marking technique so that we can go back later and examine
this issue after we have reviewed the reorganization and all of the items.
The concern is that if we put everything in best practices (that cannot be
claimed in conformance) then it is less likely that they will be picked up
in 'required' practices (since they will not be testable or reportable).



TECHNIQUES VS BEST PRACTICE ITEMS.

- There is also a question of the line between the 'best practice' lists and
the techniques docs.    I think we will need to have some in but don't know
where the line is.   Maybe we don't put techniques in except where there are
no hard guidelines or much more than a general guideline possible. So the
techniques are needed to provide guidance and clarity.  

Perhaps we could say that an item goes in "best practice" rather
than techniques if all or most of the following requirements are met:

1. Following the "best practice" item would significantly enhance the
   quality of implementation of the checkpoint, or substantially
   improve the accessibility of the content.

2. The "best practice" item is always, or almost always applicable
   whenever the checkpoint is - in other words, it is relevant in most
   circumstances under which the checkpoint is to be implemented.

3. The "best practice" item is not technology-specific.

4. The "best practice" item would only be used in content targeted to
   the needs of a particular audience, that is, it carries
   implementation of the checkpoint to the highest standard.


This questions is still open and we currently are holding this until we can
review the re-org
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2003 20:24:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:22 GMT