Status of GL 1.3

I have updated the status of GL 1.3 in the attached table. We have 
proposals for at least one sufficient technique with tests for each 
success criteria.  Some of these techniques have been recently updated 
based on comments from the 1.3 survey [1].  See the table for links to 
each draft technique.


We still have some work to do on open issues.  I have updated the table 
with links but have tried to provide more detail below.
#1605 suggest removing functionality from GL text:. RESOLVED at  Jan 5 
meeting to remove functionality for GL text. 

#1309 - definition of programmatically determined  - discussed at Jan 5 
meeting but no resolution. Still open. 

#1795 - asks, " Which structures, then, are "perceivable" for purposes of 
this criterion"? AND #1863 - questions the current definition of 
structure.  See discussion thread Perceivable structures (very long)  [2]

#1607 and 1608 -  Yvette and Gregg to review 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 to address 
programmatically determined,  guaranteeing visual access at level 2 and 
making the wording consistent.  Proposal made to the list[3] and survey[4] 
created but not discussed.  Of the 12 people completing the survey, 9 
agreed to the proposal changes to the 1.3.2 SC text and 3 did not.  An 
alternate proposal was suggested, "When information is conveyed by color, 
the color can be programmatically determined or the information is also 
conveyed in a manner that does not depend on visual perception."

#1879 - suggests an update to the intent section of 1.3.2. I originally 
included this in the table of work for 1.3  but since it deals with 
non-normative content this is not required for last call. 

#1766 - Missing glossary entries - variations in presentation of text 
should be defined.  Proposal was made [5] and surveyed[1] but at Jan 5 
meeting this was sent back to team b for further revision.  There were 
issues with "variations" and what it means. There were a few proposals 
that suggested not using the term "variation" but specifying changes in 
fonts, styles, and voice.  Of the 13 people competing the survey 9 
accepted the proposal, 2 accepted with proposed changes, and 2 thought 
that a definition was not needed.

#1767 and 1789 which suggest that this SC should be at a higher level. See 
research and proposal at [6]. This was surveyed [1] but not discussed at 
the Jan 5 working group meeting.  Survey results are non-conclusive. Of 
the 13 responders to the survey, 9 ranked putting it at level 1 as their 
first choice.  The issue of testability was raised as was the ability to 
achieve this for all content.

#1851 - proposal to promote this to level 1 to better map with 508 req. 
for accessible forms  This was also surveyed [1] but not discussed by the 
working group. Of the 13 responders, 7 ranked putting it at level 2 as 
their first choice. The group was evenly split about not minding it a 
certain level, 5,4,6 for level 1, 2, 3, respectively. Four don't want it a 
level 1 with 1 each who don't want it at level 2 and 3.  Note that not all 
responders completed both the don't mind/don't want and ranking questions. 
 


[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/jan0406gl31/results
[2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-teamb/2006Jan/0028.html
[3] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-teamb/2006Jan/0018.html
[4]  http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SC1323wording/results 
[5] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-teamb/2005Dec/0003.html 
[6] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-teamb/2005Dec/0010.html 

Becky Gibson
Web Accessibility Architect
                                                       
IBM Emerging Internet Technologies
5 Technology Park Drive
Westford, MA 01886
Voice: 978 399-6101; t/l 333-6101
Email: gibsonb@us.ibm.com