W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2005

Addressing accessibility in SpecGL (was: Draft minutes telcon 20050411)

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:32:15 +0200
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: "'www-qa-wg@w3.org'" <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1113388335.3928.111.camel@stratustier>
Hi Lofton,

Le lundi 11 avril 2005 ŗ 17:53 -0600, Lofton Henderson a ťcrit :
> At 06:39 PM 4/11/2005 +0300, Dimitris Dimitriadis wrote:
> >[...]
> >#1087 - Address accessibility requirements
> >http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1087
> >         * We agreed during our discussion with the WAI CG to include in 
> > our new
> >"Beyond conformance" section to include a new subsection about
> >accessibility and possibly other horizontal domains considerations;
> 
> Did we actually agree to that?  Or did we just say that we'd consider 
> it?

My recollection is that we agreed to do that.

> >let's try to quickly think about what to present and how to present it,
> >and get someone an action item to draft a proposal
> >(dh) Can we quickly see what should appear in this section and see who
> >can make a draft? Right now we have wording such as "define internal
> >process" and "do a thorough review". Add a bit of verbiage explaining
> >more about this.
> >(tb) I can take a stab at it.
> 
> This does not feel smart to me, adding a potentially controversial section 
> of new stuff after Last Call, when we're considering going to PR. 

Why should this be controversial? I think the idea is mainly to give
pointers to XAG and the PF WG wrt accessibility; we certainly don't want
to go to deep in the details, simply elaborate a bit on what we said in
the intro.

>  Yes, it 
> would be non-normative, but still...I feel that we are taking a risk with 
> our plans and schedule.

I agree there is certain risk with regard to our schedule; I suggest
that we wait for Tim's proposal, and if you still think it's too
new/controversial, we can still decide to revert our resolution.

> How about this idea instead, as a compromise ... invite WAI to write some 
> sort of document about quality & accessibility, and maintain it in their 
> Web space, and promise a reference and link to it from SpecGL?

That's basically what we're going to do; i.e. link to XAG (XML
Accessibility Guidelines), and the WAI Protocol & Formats Working Group.

Dom
-- 
Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org


Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2005 10:32:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:20 GMT