- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 13:09:06 -0700
- To: <public-wcag-teamb@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <0DAF2B31FBCEB6439F63FA7F91601F74A984A1@namail3.corp.adobe.com>
Present: John, Becky, Bengt, Loretta Open Failures: Failure due to using tabindex to skip link groups </wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Failure_due_to_using_tabindex_to_skip_link_g roups> : ready for survey Failing to update a site map to reflect changes in a web site </wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Failing_to_update_a_site_map_to_reflect_chan ges_in_a_web_site> : recommend removing Open Sufficient Techniques: Status, including current assignments, recorded at Sufficient Techniques </wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Sufficient_Techniques> ; other Team B members are encouraged to volunteer to help write these up. Due date: 3/17/06, but post them sooner if possible Open Advisory Techniques: Not reviewed; there may be techniques that should be removed. Loretta's issues: - Add Use 'color,' 'background-color,' 'border-color,' 'outline-color,' and dynamic pseudo-classes to specify colors </wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Use_%27color%2C%27_%27background-color%2C%27 _%27border-color%2C%27_%27outline-color%2C%27_and_dynamic_pseudo-classes _to_specify_colors> (from 1.3.2 Boneyard) as advisory technique to Understanding GL 1.3? Resolution: Leave in Boneyard, consider later as advisory technique for 1.3.2 - Has Using h1-h6 to identify headings </wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Using_h1-h6_to_identify_headings> been approved? Resolution: Loretta to check with commenters - Nonstandard test procedure for Using p for paragraphs </wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Using_p_for_paragraphs> Resolution: Becky to fix - Reference to working version of example on Becky's web site for Using functions of the Document Object Model (DOM) to add content to a page </wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Using_functions_of_the_Document_Object_Model _%28DOM%29_to_add_content_to_a_page> ; also in Positioning content based on structural markup </wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Positioning_content_based_on_structural_mark up> , Failure due to changing the meaning of content by positioning information with HTML layout tables </wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Failure_due_to_changing_the_meaning_of_conte nt_by_positioning_information_with_HTML_layout_tables> , Failure due to changing the meaning of content by positioning information with CSS </wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Failure_due_to_changing_the_meaning_of_conte nt_by_positioning_information_with_CSS> Resolution: Becky is working with Ben on what to do with these - Are white space failures for 1.3.1 General or Plain Text failures? (I think we want these to apply to HTML, too, but then we may need to change the titles of the techniques) Resolution: survey change of name for these failures to make them general - Do we think that draft technique "Identifying information that is identified by shape or position by additional characteristics that are programmatically determined." would satisfy SC 1.3.5? Resolution: survey removing this technique - Should we include the examples in the Boneyard of How To Meet 1.3.5 in the technique? Resolution: include first example in existing technique - Should SC 3.1.1 contain the advisory technique Specifying the direction of text </wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Specifying_the_direction_of_text&action=edit > ? I18N recommends against relying on it. Resolution: postpone until we review the Advisory techniques - Something is wrong with the last example in Linking to definitions </wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Linking_to_definitions> . Part of the example shows the markup, and part of the example is rendered using the markup. Which did we intend (to show the markup or to show the result)? Resolution: edit wiki to display markup - Is the Skipping link groups technique in SC 2.4.1 a duplication of the other techniques? Resolution: changed name of technique, Becky to write - Does the example in SC 2.4.2 make sense? Resolution: remove example - Does the metadata example in 2.4.4 make sense, since none of our techniques discuss metadata? Resolution: remove example - Is the CSS technique in SC 2.4.6 appropriate? Does it belong as an advisory technique for 1.3.2? Resolution: moved to 1.3.2, to be considered further when we review the Advisory techniques Loretta Guarino Reid lguarino@adobe.com Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering
Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2006 20:09:32 UTC