- From: Wendy Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 16:45:31 -0400
- To: wai-gl <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Ben and I went through the 61 "General" issues (issues that relate to the Guideline document in general. These are *not* issues related to the General Techniques document.) We divided the issues among the following categories: 1. Editorial 2. Moved to other components 3. Postpone discussion 4. Need proposals and/or discussion 5. Close Two surveys will be available shortly: 1. Need proposals and/or discussion 2. Close ===================================================================== Editorial issues: ---- Issue 213 - diversity in examples. action: editors ---- Issue 216 - numbering proposal status: by default we've been using "G x.x Lx SCx." Propose that we continue using this and don't raise the issue for now. ---- Issue 205 - "Movie" vs. "video" action: @@ wendy or ben make the edits ---- Issue 432 - Addressing the needs of older people and difficulty understanding complex language Status: Editorial. to be addressed in intro and benefits. Discussed some in relation to Guideline 2.2 proposals from Christophe. <http://www.w3.org/2005/05/26-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item05> Determined that we would discuss this benefit on the list. This is an important issue for JIS (issue 1142). Action: Consolidate issues related to aging into one issue? ===================================================================== Issues moved to other components: ---- Issue 392 - Better definition of "audience" status: Kynn's comment is from 2003 (or earlier). The current definition of audience has been in the draft circa 2002, therefore Kynn's comment is still applicable. Editorial. Moved to "introduction" component. ---- Issues 400, 508, 515, 553, 1353 are all related to explaining the principles. John is addressing with his work on Introduction. Moved to the Introduction component. ---- Issue 478 - are additional examples needed? Olivier specifically asks about the contrast guideline while Robertos ask about extreme changes of context. Closed the issue. Opened 2 new issues (1528, 1529) on the respective guidelines. ---- Issue 543 - Make it easier to find specific topics Includes suggestions for a topic index, etc. Moved to "presentation and structure" component. ---- Issue 932 - are screen reader scripts plug-ins? moved to guideline 4.2 ===================================================================== Issues we should postpone discussion on: ---- Issue 393 - Migrating from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0 status: editorial. Part of Last Call milestone. Related issues: issue 501 - understandability and transition questions. concern that the document won't be understandable to the audience, which is related to issue 392 (question about audience). issue 502 - concerns about transitioning from 1.0 to 2.0, about the materials they've developed to educate people about 1.0, and about some of the technical examples that people in their audience would not have the ability to implement/approach. Can postpone discussion, although should begin work on transition support materials and wcag 1.0 errata after the June draft. Need to discuss how/when/who will be doing the work. ---- Issue 753 - review guidelines for consistency (to do) Action someone: review guidelines for consistency in how we address primary content or providing alternative (what it takes to meet the guideline. inherent that if have alternative access as part of content you satisfy, or if alternatives are called out in the guideline) ---- 969 - General Comments on Principle 1 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=969 Summary: Suggests that designers should be discouraged from asking “What is your disability?” and then providing only presentation modes that they consider appropriate to this disability. This is relevant to all of the checkpoints under this guideline, and it would be particularly appropriate to mention this point in the “Best Practice” of checkpoints 1.1 and 1.2. Proposed Action: Suggest that this issue should be addressed at the techniques level and revisited after 4.2 and baseline discussions have reached consensus and techniques for providing alternative presentations are drafted. ---- 1018 - Proposed updated quick tips http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1018 Summary: Proposes an update to the quick tips based on a 2004 WCAG 2.0 draft. Proposed Action: Postpone discussion on this until we've reached last call. The proposed quick tips are very technology specific and we'll need to discuss how these might need to change based on the changes in WCAG 2.0. For example, should we have technology-specific WCAG 2.0 quick tips? ---- 1019 - Divide WCAG 2.0 into guidelines (machine testable) and suggested best practices (human testable) http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1019 Summary: This issue suggests that the guidelines should be categorized into machine-testable guidelines and human testable best practices, leaving no room for gray areas open to interpretation... Proposed Action: Close this issue, citing the introductory guideline text and the requirements document, which outline our goals regarding testability and applicability to a wide range of technologies. ---- 1025 - Text size http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1025 Summary: Proposes adding a criterion related to increasing the size of text. Proposed Action: This relates to issues 892 and 1522. 892 includes a pending proposal, which, once resolved, should address this issue. ---- 1053 - Clarify "alternative versions of sites" (WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 11.4) http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1053 Summary: Requests that we clarify the 1.0 checkpoint about alternative versions. Proposed Action: Revisit this when we're closer to last call. Should be addressed through the development of techniques describing alternative versions. ---- 1077 - Cannot assure content will work with unknown future technologies. 1354 - How can future technologies be taken into account http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1077 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1354 Summary: Comments on the impossibility of ensuring that content can work with future technologies. Proposed Action: Suggest that we revisit these issues when we've reached consensus on the contents of guidelines 4.1 and 4.2. Seems like we can close these as long as the guidelines and SC we end up with adequately support the goal described by this principle. ---- 1142 - Older persons should be included in addition to the disabled http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1142 Summary: Suggests including references to people who are aging. Proposed Action: I moved this issue to the introduction component of Bugzilla. It includes a proposal from Andi that has not yet been discussed and I suggest that this be reviewed in the context of the proposals and issue summaries related to the guidelines intro. ---- 1275 - Notes and Rationale Document. http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1275 Proposed Action: Propose that this issue will be covered through the creation of the "guide to the guidelines" documents we've been discussing recently. Leave open for now. ---- 1363 - WCAG becoming too technical for its diverse audience http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1363 Summary: This issue suggests that the guidelines are losing sight of the aim to address the needs of a many different audiences. Proposed Action: Revisit when we're closer to last call. Without more complete techniques documents, general techniques, guide docs, etc., it's difficult to get a good sense of how well we have or haven't addressed the needs of our audiences. ---- 1420 and 1421 Guidelines/SC not balanced in level of detail http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1420 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1421 Summary: Points out that some guidelines/SC are more specific than others. Proposed Action: These are editorial issues that should be addressed when we're closer to last call. (review for consistency) ===================================================================== Issues that need a proposals and/or discussion ---- Issue 486 - sync with IMS ACCLIP and Issue 846 - add metadata concepts to WCAG 2.0 I think we need more information, but we should also discuss if we want to address this issue. We're waiting for a proposal from Liddy and Jutta. Propose that if we don't have a proposal by the end of June we close these issues since they probably won't be formulated in time for a Last Call draft. Proposed action: wendy send note to Liddy and Jutta to let them know that we need a proposal ASAP. (I reminded Liddy of this when I saw her in Japan in May, so she knows we're waiting for her). ---- Issue 741 - Address Digital Rights Management, Visual Verification issues Action someone: do the research and write a proposal. ---- Issue 834 - WCAG 2.0 Timeline and revised WCAG 1.0 Request to publish WCAG 1.1 by November 2004. Since we didn't and aren't planning on it. Propose that we close the issue by telling them we're finishing WCAG 2.0 and will be providing transition support materials for 1.0 to 2.0. we've also had requests to update the WCAG 1.0 errata and we should discuss when that fits on our timeline. Proposed action: someone take an action item to write proposals for errata related to deprecated and clarified items in WCAG 1.0 ---- 1007 - Requirements for user agents, not content authors http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1007 Summary: This issue suggests that a number of the requirements still seem to be requirements for user agents, not content authors. These include, but are not limited to, parts of Guideline 2 and 3.2 SC 2 bullets 2 and 3. Proposed Action: While many of the criterion have changed since this comment was submitted, they still seem to overlap with user agent requirements. However, I'm not sure we can/should remove this overlap as the author may need to evaluate the requirement based on the technology in use. For example, an author might determine that user agent support for pausing moving or time based content is covered by UAAG for HTML, but that including a control in a custom interface that they are creating may be necessary for an applet or plug-in. I propose that we check with Ian to see if the changes made since last year and the above rationale address his concerns. ---- Issue 1135 - Clarify relationship between ATAG, UAAG, and WCAG Summary: Issue suggests that the relationship between these three guidelines was not clearly explained in WCAG 1.0 and suggests we clarify in 2.0. Proposed Action: Since these comments were submitted, references to ATAG have been added to the introduction. However, the relationship to UAAG does not seem to be well described. Propose moving this issue to the Introduction component of Bugzilla and drafting something similar to the section in the intro titled "Authoring Tools" specific to the role of user agent support as it relates to WCAG 2.0. ---- 1203 - managing focus on refresh http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1203 Summary: Suggests an addition to WCAG about the ability for the UA to maintain focus and position when content is updated or refreshed. Proposed Action: This seems to be partially covered by guideline 3.2 and definition of extreme change in context. It is also partially addressed by UAAG, the DHTML Road map and some of the upcoming changes to XHTML. The reviewer also questions whether WCAG is the appropriate place to address the issue. We should discuss whether this is something we should specifically address in WCAG 2.0. ---- 1445 - Text is not an alternative to sign language for the deaf http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1445 Summary: Suggests that WCAG 2.0 make it clear that there is a portion of the deaf population for which text is not accessible. Proposed Action: Suggest that we discuss this issue. Sign language is currently required at level 3 for descriptions of multimedia, but not for other types of content. We can clarify some of the issues raised here in the guide documents or in general techniques, but including a requirement that all content be available in sign language seems beyond the scope of what WCAG 2.0 can reasonably require. ===================================================================== Issues we can close ---- Issue 503 - a compliment! Action: pat selves on backs. Closed to get our #s down. ---- Issue 659 - proposed format for examples His suggestion is similar to the format we are using for techniques. Propose that we close the issue since this is too much detail for examples in the guidelines. Also, we'll have more explanatory info in the Guide. Action: close ---- Issue 777 - "O'Reilly" version of WCAG 2.0 While this is a great idea, it may not be part of our deliverables for Recommendation or it might be partly covered by the draft or it might be best handled by the documents EOWG produce. Propose that we close the issue. ---- Issue 960 - Meaning of "equivalent" RNID writes, "Where an alternative presentation mode is provided, conformance to these guidelines should require that the user experience be equivalent to that provided by any other presentation mode, not a “best-effort” substitute with reduced functionality or ease-of-access." Not all alternatives will provide an equivalent experience. Believe that in our attempt to write SC as functional outcomes, we have been successful at describing what will make a good alternative. also, this will be dependent on the technique(s) employed to create the alternative. Therefore, do not believe a separate SC is required, because it seems to flow throughout the guidelines/SC. Propose that we close the issue with this (or similar) explanation. ---- 964 - Avatars http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1449 Summary: The reviewers advocate the inclusion of additional benefits describing streaming video and avatar technology for the purpose of delivering sign language content. Proposed Action: I think this one is already addressed in 1.1 benefits. <blockquote cite="http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20050601/#d0e722"> People who are deaf, are hard of hearing, or who are having trouble understanding audio information for any reason can read the text presentation or have it translated and presented as sign language by assistive technology. </blockquote> As the use of avatars and automatic translation of content into sign language becomes more common, the guide to the informative guide and techniques documents could be expanded to include additional details about sign language avatars. Propose that we close this issue. ---- 975 - Adjusting volume, indicating no audio for a video clip http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=975 Summary: This issue suggests that we should: a) ensure that it is possible for volume to be adjusted over a wide range b) use captions to indicate video that does not include sound Proposed Action: I think the issue of audio-contrast is covered by guideline 1.4 and that volume range is a user agent issue. Propose that close the first part of this issue and move the specific suggestions on captioning to general techniques. ---- 1175 - Level of language is too abstract http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1175 Summary: Suggests that documents need review by technical writer with focus on using concise and plain language. Proposed Action: Suggest that the plain language rewrites of many of our guidelines over the course of the last year addresses this issue for the guidelines. However, since the issue was primarily raised against the techniques documents, we should move this issue to the techniques component and review this again when the techniques drafts are nearer to completion. ---- 1179 - Recommendations should include users of legacy technologies http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1179 Summary: This issue suggests that guidelines should address legacy technologies. Proposed Action: This seems to be covered through baseline and the information we included in the June 1 draft regarding conformance requirements. Baselines may or may not include legacy technologies for conformance with WCAG 2.0. In addition, guideline 4.1 currently allows for exceptions to address backward compatibility and repair techniques will provide additional details about user agent support. Suggest that we close this issue. ---- 1180 - Include guideline on changing focus without warning http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1180 Proposed Action: Seems to be covered by guideline 3.2 and definition of extreme change in context. Suggest that we close this issue. ---- 1236 - Issue summary for WCAG 2.0 General issues http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1236 Proposed Action: Closed by this summary. ---- 1259 - Guideline needed prohibiting blinking objects http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1259 Proposed Action: Close. Already covered by GL 2.2 L2 SC1. ---- 1353 - Principles are vague and difficult to understand http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1353 Proposed Action: Close. (Duplicate of Issue #400) ---- 1356 - Phrase success criteria as requirements rather than statements http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1356 Summary: Suggests that SC be worded as requirements, using "must" rather than "as" statements. Proposed Action: Close this issue, citing recent decisions to word SC to describe functional outcomes. ---- 1367 - Who is responsible for accessibility if there are multiple levels of databases? http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1367 Summary: This issue asks how the principles apply to cases where a database is queried by another database and who is responsible for the accessibility of the resulting content. Proposed Action: Close this issue, citing recent decisions to word SC to describe functional outcomes. In the case of the example raised, the author responsible for writing the queries and formatting the output would be responsible for the accessibility of the end result. ---- 1422 - automatic refresh is not a type of content http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1422 Summary: points out an editorial error in the benefits section Proposed Action: Revise this sentence to read, "Examples of functionality that must meet the success criteria for this guideline:" and close this issue. ---- 1423 - wording: replace 'where' with 'if' http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1423 Summary: points out an editorial errors in level 2 SC for 2.5 and two level 3 SC for 3.1 Proposed Action: Close. Specific language is either no longer present in the guidelines or subsumed by pending proposals. -- wendy a chisholm world wide web consortium web accessibility initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI/ /-- -- wendy a chisholm world wide web consortium web accessibility initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI/ /--
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2005 20:45:50 UTC