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

Regrets RE: This weeks meeting moved to Friday - a joint WCAGWG-AUWG Call on Oct. 24 AGENDA

From: lisa seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 10:03:26 +0200
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <020401c39b97$a9b78710$ad00000a@patirsrv.patir.com>


I can't make it on Friday nights ...
All the best
Lisa Seeman
 
Visit us at the UB Access website
UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 12:17 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: This weeks meeting moved to Friday - a joint WCAGWG-AUWG Call
on Oct. 24 AGENDA




We will be meeting joint with the Authoring Tools Working Group this
week so we will be meeting FRIDAY and NOT THURSDAY. 

DATE:   Friday Oct 24 
TIME:   4:00 EASTERN time  20:00-21:30 UTC
Call in Number:  +1.617.761.6200,
Conf Code:   2894 ("AUWG")



AGENDA


1. How ATAG and WCAG reference each other.  Where does WCAG reference 
ATAG?  Where does ATAG reference WCAG?  What is needed in the
organization 
of the documents to make the references as straight-forward as 
possible?  What can we do in WCAG to decrease the complexity of ATAG's 
relationship with WCAG (relative conformance)?  More thoughts at [1]

2. Scope of the documents. Basically, ATAG covers the process of
generating the content and t thus includes Content Management Systems
(CMS), authoring tools, etc.  WCAG covers the end result of the
authoring process (thus does not cover CMS).  However, what about web
applications that generate 
content?  ATAG and WCAG could produce a shared techniques document 
"techniques for application that generate content" that would refer to
both 
ATAG and WCAG checkpoints.

3. The suitability of requirements to use W3C recommendations.  ATAG 1.0
only discusses producing content for W3C formats.  WCAG 1.0 says only
use W3C formats.  How should the 2.0 versions of WCAG and ATAG reference
W3C technologies?  In WCAG 2.0 we had checkpoint 4.3 (this has evolved
since 
this was published) [2], although all of Guideline 4 [3] relates to
technology.

4.  Development of test suites - How do we coordinate development and 
reuse?  How do we design a test suite that is beneficial for both ATAG
and 
WCAG?  What will be the differences between our test suite needs?  We
also 
need to coordinate with UAWG and QAWG.

5.  If we have time -- Metadata in WCAG  and any other topics that are
raised.

NOTE: AUWG should be aware that the WCAG WG recently adopted a new
organization  of the document and we will be talking from this
perspective [4].  We are 
moving towards 3 levels of conformance (which should help address issues
raised during the AUWG F2F in September in Seattle).  This is part of
the 1st agendum.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2003OctDec/0007.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#technology-supports-access
[3] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/10/reorg5.html#robust
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003OctDec/0034.html

 

Gregg
Co-Chair WCAG WG
Received on Sunday, 26 October 2003 03:03:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:26 GMT