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

Rough notes on WCAG-related topics from AUWG F2F 26/27 September

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:14:26 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Hello all,

I attended both days of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working 
Group (ATAG WG) face-to-face meeting [0].  We had preliminary discussion 
about some of the topics listed at [1].   Here is my summary of the 
WCAG-specific topics;  complete minutes will be available from the ATAG 
WG.  I had hoped to clean these up a bit more (they are mostly rough 
notes), but because of our upcoming call with AUWG I will send these as 
is.  I'm happy to answer questions.


[0] http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2003/09/26-meeting.html
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2003JulSep/0029.html

WCAG 2.0 checkpoint 4.1 (as written in reorg4 [2])

1. What is the definition of "accessibility features?"
2.  There is an exception for backwards compatibility.  An example that 
we've discussed in the Techniques Task Force is using the embed element 
because the object element is not well supported. Thus, it should be 
acceptable to stray from the HTML 4.01 specification by using the embed 
element.  However, it is also possible to publish a modified HTML 4.01 dtd 
that allows embed.  For example, [3]. The exception for backwards 
compatibility seems applicable primarily (only?) to HTML 4.01.
3. Is 4.1 assuming w3c specs?  Is it assuming that the spec has been 
reviewed for accessibility.  Concern that "documented" and "spec" are 
vague. Someone could create custom dtd, no accessibility features, and 
validate to it.  Do we need further restriction?  Do we need to say "can 
produce content that conforms to wcag?"

1. remove the exception for backwards compatibility and push validity to 
dtd/schemata whether it be something published by the W3C or something 
published by someone else.  Issue: what about proprietary elements?  What 
about formats that do not have accessibility features?
2. leave exception for backwards compatibility and allow for conformance to 
extended/modified evolutions of standards.
3. leave exception and describe in techniques.
4. others...

[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/09/reorg4/4-combined.html#use-spec
[3] http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/customdtd.html

linking to non-w3c technologies techniques docs

If WCAG links to the various techniques documents,  it could be viewed as 
endorsing or certifying them in some way. How much vetting does the WCAG WG 
do before linking to a techniques document?

ATAG 2.0 relative conformance to WCAG 2.0 checkpoints

currently A in ATAG 1 if minimum in WCAG. more support for A, AA, AAA in 
WCAG 2.0.

if wcag only has core and extended, and atag has 3 levels, what issues does 
that create?

expect vendors to go beyond priority 1?

perhaps wcag 2.0 should have core, extended, and optional?  optional 
include best practice?  less testable extended?  optional fits into some of 
the issues we've had with html techniques.

check out atag 2.0 applicability matrix.

atag 2.0 likely to say: priority 1 do core checkpoints, priority 2 is not 
applicable, priority 3 do core and extended.  thus, an issue that wcag 2.0 
does not have that middle step.  implementing all extended too difficult to 
put as level 2 in atag 2.0.

=== wcag checkpoint requiring certain types of metadata for all content?
benefits:  discovery, transformation (information about how to make the 
transformation or if it can be transformed)

requirements:  basically what is coming out of accmd


related to dc:conforms-to

=== wcag 2.0 refering to atag 2.0
intro something about best way to conform is to use an ATAG conformant tool.

another link:
atag techniques likely to reference technology-specific checklist items.

migration from 1.0 to 2.0, especially of mapping of priorities and 
conformance levels important explanation for atag 2.0.

=== atag 2.0 and wcag 2.0
wcag checkpoint that says, "if the content produces content, apply atag"
atag say "if tool is a web-based interface, the interface must conform to wcag"

techniques for application that generate content
would have to reference both atag and wcag checkpoints and reference the 
also reference uaag?
applications in general?
a shell that basically references all the other techniques?
are there any techniques that would live only here?
is this another gateway?
techniques gateway for web applications
techniques gateway for web documents
a way to handle the requests for "conformance profiles?"

=== wcag and atag and uaag
atag refers to software guideliens and wcag (in turn wcag refers to uaag)
should wcag refer to software guidelines (coming from ibm but published as 
w3c note?)

=== see atag 2.2

=== real-time
what about chatboards? what is the ATAG component and what is the WCAG 
component? (going back to techniques, what would the joint techniques look 
accessible image criteria (ala Vladimir B and John Gardner)?

wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
Received on Tuesday, 21 October 2003 13:17:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:46 UTC