W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: Agenda April 22th

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 07:56:17 -0500
Message-ID: <C46A1118E0262B47BD5C202DA2490D1A0183AE7D@MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Regrets-I'm on the road.


Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 8:36 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Agenda April 22th

  Time: 2100 UTC 
(4 PM US Eastern)
Number:  +1-617-761-6200, passcode 9224 
irc.w3.org 6665, channel #wai-wcag
Agenda for this week

1. Assign action items for open issues 506, 556, 669, 405, 704, 707 [1]

2. Close issue 374 [2]

3. Conformance 

    - defn of 3 groups 
        (many ideas last week, but did not get finished 
          with discussions.  Notes based on discussion below). [3]  

   - consensus about whether or not all of the 3rd group 
      need to be met to claim 3rd category of conformance?  

   - what do we want to call the 3 levels of conformance 
         - should we coord w/EO
         - is the naming more of a marketing than technical issue?)

4. if time, tables for layout, issue 487 [4]


Open issues for conformance: sampling and aggregation. related to scoping 
and logo.

[1]  --------
Issue 506 - Definition of structure
Action: write a definition of structure that clarifies difference between
using structured layout vs using structural elements (in definition of

Issue 556 - Guideline is difficult to understand
Action: Write a proposal to clarify the level 1 #1 criterion.

Issue 669 - What is meant by "emphasis"
Action: Write a proposal to address or clarify use of "emphasis" and visual

Issue 405 - General issue about knowing how to interpret how apply to html
w/out reading the techniques.

Action: Write a proposal that clarifies the Level 1 #1 success criterion.
Issue 704 - In-line warnings and options to deactivate are good, but a User
Agent could also handle this in most cases
Action: This issue could be addressed with some additional text in the
benefits describing how user agents may handle this in the future.

Issue 707 - Example is vague
Action: Write a proposal that clarifies the example or propose a different
example that will help clarify the intent of the guideline.

[2] Issue 374 - How do AT users learn what makes structure distinct and how
these distinctions can be specified?
Yvette proposes this is a user agent issue.  Does anyone disagree?



   Are testable.   Some success criteria are machine-testable. Others
   human judgment. Success criteria that require human testing are 
   capable of yielding consistent results among multiple testers.

    1. Do not set limits on content or presentation;
    2. Achieve a minimum level of accessibility through markup,
        scripting, or other technologies that interact with user agents,
        including assistive technologies;

    3. The working group felt could be reasonably be applied to all Web 


   1. Build on Level 1;
   2. Increase accessibility both though additional facilitation of user
agent based        
       accessibility and through content and/or presentation that provides
       accessibility without requiring intervention by user agents or
assistive technology;     
   3. The working group felt could be reasonably be applied to all Web


1. Go beyond Level 1 and 2 to increase direct and user agent enhanced

[4] Issue 487 - are tables for layout a violation of 1.3?
Currently under discussion on the list.  Good example to discuss for June
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2004 08:56:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:49 UTC