Key results and recommendations from Face to Face

 

At the WCAG Face to Face in Los Angeles March 21, 2005 the working group
made very good progress on our key questions regarding baseline and
structure.   

 

On structure we reached agreement on an overall structure  - and are now
putting it together in a form that is easy to review.  We will submit this
to the list as soon as we can get it pulled together with some examples.
Basically it is not terribly different than what we have but straightens
things out and makes the roles of the various documents clearer.  

 

On baseline we reached consensus on the items listed below.  The consensus
was unanimous with the following people in attendance: Jenae Andershonis,
Mike Barta, Doyle Burnett, Ben Caldwell, Wendy Chisholm, Michael Cooper,
Becky Gibson, David MacDonald, Loretta Guarino Reid, John Slatin, Andi
Snow-Weaver, Makoto Ueki, Gregg Vanderheiden, Takayuki Watanabe

 

These are submitted to the list for review.  

We will accept comments from the list - and then consider the following
items for formal adoption with revisions to accommodate list comments.

This review for adoption will take place at the working group teleconference
on March 31st  2005 . 


There were 5 consensus (unanimous) items from the meeting.  


1) Can't use UAAG as Baseline


It was concluded that UAAG 1.0 does not resolve the baseline issue because
it does not resolve key questions like whether script support is provided.

We will therefore not be relying on UAAG as a baseline.


2)  WCAG not set any explicit baseline


WCAG will not set an explicit baseline; instead, external decision makers
will make baseline assumptions or requirements. These include [but are not
limited to] governments, customers, companies, managers, and authors. 


3) WCAG written as functional outcomes and not assume user tools and
technologies


WCAG will not explicitly state what technologies are supported or what tools
users will have at their disposal. WCAG criteria should be written as
functional outcomes (see clarification #1) and therefore should not be
specific to any technologies such as scripting, css, etc.  


4) With regard to baseline and techniques:


1.	Techniques can not be more restrictive than guidelines otherwise
techniques become normative.  [and Techniques should never be normative.] 
2.	Techniques documents may provide multiple techniques and those
techniques may differ based on user agent assumptions. For example, we could
have 2 techniques: 1. how to make scripts accessible for user agents and
assist. tech that support scripts 2.  how to write content in such a way
that if scripts are turned off the content degrades gracefully (i.e., still
usable w/out scripting).  however, these two techniques are not mutually
exclusive and one or the other is used depending on what technology choices
are made. 


5) Tests not set baseline


Tests will not set a baseline.  Multiple tests may be provided to correspond
to multiple techniques.


Clarifications: 


1.	Scripting is used as an example because that has come up often.
These assumptions also apply to plug-ins, etc. 
2.	Functional outcomes  - may require tweaks of existing guidelines or
success criteria 
3.	Conformance claims are not addressed by the resolutions from 21
March 2005. This requires future work. 

 

 


Action and timeline items from Face to Face:


Before 24 March telecon


*	Each person think about consequences from resolutions from 21 March
2005 


At 24 March telecon


*	Discuss consequences from resolutions of 21 March 2005 
*	Discuss long-term plan 


By 28 March 


*	Mike [Gregg, Michael, John] - Impact assessment per guideline and
success criteria 
*	Michael [Becky, Ben] - Impact assessment for techniques (classes of
techniques: conformance, informative, additional) 


At 31 March telecon


*	Consider for adoption resolutions from 21 March 2005 

*	Impact assessment per guideline and success criteria 
*	Impact assessment for techniques (classes of techniques:
conformance, informative, additional) 
*	Status reports on Guideline 4.2 proposal and conformance claim
assessment/proposal 


By 4 April


*	Wendy [Ben, Mike] - Proposal to discuss/solve conformance claims
(impact assessment) 
*	Loretta [Mike, David, Andi] - Revisit guideline 4.2 issue summary
and generate new proposal for Guideline 4.2 


At 7 April telecon


*	Proposal for Guideline 4.2 (from LGR, MLB, DMD, ASW) 
*	Conformance claim assessment/proposal 


By 11 April


*	John [Ben, Michael, Wendy, Gregg, David, Becky] User analysis for
structure and structure proposal/prototype for 1.1, 1.3, 2.4, 3.1, and new
4.2 


14 April telecon


*	Discussion of structure prototype 


By September - be stable enough for WAB Cluster work to move forward on
evaluation suite.  Minimum: Candidate Recommendation?? (check timeline)


 


 


 

Gregg

------------------------

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848  
For a list of our list discussions http://trace.wisc.edu/lists/

 <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>