W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2005

RE: Catch me up here about baseline and f2f meetings

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:10:30 -0600
Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B7AE02E@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Joe Clark" <joeclark@joeclark.org>, "WAI-GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Joe Clark wrote:
<blockquote>
Perhaps I missed this in the mass of messages with similar or identical 
subject lines, *but* at the Boston f2f did we not decide-- and how 
delicious it is to be able to use "we" in that context-- that Ben had to

be given whatever help he needed to finish his evaluation of how UAAG 
intersected with WCAG 2 before we made any decisions on baseline?

Was that conclusively decided to be unnecessary at CSUN, or did someone,

as, for example, the Working Group chair, decide that previous
discussions 
pretty much hadn't happened at all and simply pressed on regardless?

I'm just trying to understand how we got from a stage of "Let's finish 
this research" to "We definitively know what we don't need" in the span
of 
a single meeting.
Thanks for asking, Joe.

Ben did in fact provide an analysis of UAAG as baseline as an attachment
to his message "Some additional thoughts on baseline"  (21 March 2005,
available at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0636.html#star
t).  I believe this message was a follow up to our sessions on Sunday
morning, which are roughly summarized in Gregg's message "Baseline Notes
on Flipcharts from Meeting" (20 March 2005, available at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0638.html).Ben
's message, the notes Gregg posted, and a an oral review concerns raised
by the Sunday morning discussion of baseline fed into continued
discussions on Monday, which in turn led to the proposals presented in
Gregg's "Key Results" message of 22 March (available at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0642.html).

Wendy is working on compiling the minutes of the LA meeting and they
should be available soon (scribing was done by several people, so things
have to be collated and checked before being posted to the GL site).

If you (or anyone else) would like a more detailed description of the
process we followed in coming to our conclusions, such a description can
be provided.

John
</blockquote>



"Good design is accessible design." 
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/


 



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Joe Clark
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:34 pm
To: WAI-GL
Subject: Catch me up here about baseline and f2f meetings



Perhaps I missed this in the mass of messages with similar or identical 
subject lines, *but* at the Boston f2f did we not decide-- and how 
delicious it is to be able to use "we" in that context-- that Ben had to

be given whatever help he needed to finish his evaluation of how UAAG 
intersected with WCAG 2 before we made any decisions on baseline?

Was that conclusively decided to be unnecessary at CSUN, or did someone,

as, for example, the Working Group chair, decide that previous
discussions 
pretty much hadn't happened at all and simply pressed on regardless?

I'm just trying to understand how we got from a stage of "Let's finish 
this research" to "We definitively know what we don't need" in the span
of 
a single meeting.

-- 

     Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
     Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
       --This.
       --What's wrong with top-posting?
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2005 21:54:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:36 GMT