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

July 1, 2004 Agenda

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:36:28 -0500
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <auto-000007456629@spamarrest.com>

Time: 20:00 UTC
(4 PM US Eastern, 10 PM France, 8 AM Friday Eastern Australia)
Number:  +1-617-761-6200, passcode 9224 irc.w3.org 6665, channel #wai-wcag

Our agenda items are below.
An attempt has been made to gather the background so we can have more
efficient discussion  (thanks Michael)

PLEASE READ and thing about these items. 

See you Thursday




ITEM 1) 
[#832] Clear link text - priority and acceptability of supplement

Goal: Harvest issues. Ask group to address each other's issues.  Reach
consensus in this meeting or end up with an action item for refinement of
proposal?

Introduction by: Michael Cooper
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0730.html>
* Proposal from Techniques TF to make clear link text under guideline 3.2 a
level 1 - currently is level 3
* Possible it was level 3 because of ability to use "title" to clarify - but
unclear in UAAG how that should be handled; is not well handled in current
UA
* Discussion/questions on list about reasons this is important for different
people, but some feeling that it is in spite of feeling that it "shouldn't
be"
* Questions about how links used, e.g., for navigation, and whether we
should accommodate that


Item 2)
[#827] Success criterion for separate content from presentation
This item has a proposal but not much discussion on the list.

Goal: raise the awareness of the issue and encourage discussion on list.

Introduction by: Michael Cooper
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0721.html>
* Guideline 1.3 speaks to separation of content from presentation, but no
success criterion address that specifically. TTF would like to create
techniques but needs a SC.
* Concern that this would have effect of banning technologies that don't
provide mechanisms to do this


Item 3)
[#828] definition of foreground and background thread begins:
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0722.html>
ends w/new proposal:
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0733.html>

Goal: Adopt definition or raise issues and assign an action item?

Introduction by: Michael Cooper and Gregg Vanderheiden
* TTF needs clearer definition of foreground and background in 1.4 to write
techniques
* Thought that this is mainly about text over a background
* Latest proposed definitions:
   Foreground Content:  Content that is presented in front of or on top of
other content.
   Background:  Anything that appears under foreground content.  This could
be decorative material or meaningful content. 


Item 4) 
[#829] Linear reading order should be level 1
 
Goal: Harvest issues. Ask group to address each other's issues.  Reach
consensus in this meeting or end up with an action item for refinement of
proposal?

Introduction by: Michael Cooper
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0723.html>
* TTF thought linearization of page (2.4) should be level 1 - currently
level 3
* Some agreement on list
* Rebuttal that Web is a tranformative medium and expecting an
author-provided linearization is meaningless


Item 5) 
[#830] Requirement for page title should be level 2 or level 1

Goal: Harvest issues. Ask group to address each other's issues.  Reach
consensus in this meeting or end up with an action item for refinement of
proposal?

Introduction by: Michael Cooper
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0726.html>
* Guideline 2.4 has a level 3 SC that says, among other things, a document
title was considered. TTF thought providing the title should simply be
expected, not considered. Also guideline 3.2 has a level 2 SC that page
titles should be informative. Requirement to provide title should be at
least as high as requirement to make it informative.
* Question whether all forms of content have a titlable "page" to which this
can be applied


Item 6) 
[#831] Structural emphasis evident really a user agent issue?

Goal: Resolve to remove the level 3 criterion? Action item to refine the
criterion?

Introduction by: Michael Cooper
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0728.html>
* Guideline 2.4 has a level 3 SC that structural emphasis must be evident on
various low-fiedlity display. TTF thought that if author follows requirement
to provide semantic markup, the styling would be a UA issue and can't
necessarily be impacted by author action, short of designing for and testing
dozens of UAs.
* Suggestion that existence of CSS is a case in point that the boundary
between author responsibility and UA responsibility in this case may be a
gray area. Unsure where to draw an arbitary line that includes or excludes
this requirement in WCAG.



 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madis
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2004 16:36:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:30 GMT