- From: Robert Neff <robneff@home.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 08:32:06 -0700
- To: "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
The URL for 508 is http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/ good reference and you can see the type of questions that are being asked. very glad that Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division is doing this cheers! ----- Original Message ----- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Sent: Saturday, July 24, 1999 7:32 AM Subject: Minutes from 22 July WCAG WG Teleconference > Hello, > > Please find below the minutes from the 22 July > WCAG WG Teleconference. > > - Ian > > 22 July WCAG WG Teleconference > > Chair: Wendy Chisholm > Scribe: Ian Jacobs > Present: > Charles McCathieNevile > Jason White > Dean Denmon (Lighthouse International) > Rob Neff (US Mint) > > Summary of Action Items: > > Editors: > > 1) Make the errata page more visible from the WAI GL home page. > 2) Draft a proposal on clarifying 3.3 thread and send to > GL list. Once "approved", add to Techniques, FAQ, and errata page. > 3) Request to EO WG that they point to/highlight Techniques as place > for clarifications. > > Rob: Send us usability data to GL list. > > Chair: In two weeks, put on agenda a discussion of what questions > to ask about guidelines to Rob's users (and for others as well). > > --------- > > Agenda 1) Discussion of checkpoint 3.3: > > JW: No need going over old ground. Clarification > of cross references. > > CMN: Not so sure. > > /* CMN explains background of issue to Dean */ > > CMN: Three conformance levels is a good thing. RN > has suggested that either we change checkpoint > priorities. But since they're based on impact, > we're not in a position to do so. JW has talked > about a compliance profile - you specify which > checkpoints you comply to. But this is too complicated > in my opinion. Difficulty in current explanation is that > it's not clear how it works in practice. In my message > today, I discussed 11.1, 6.1, 3.3. Note that CSS > spec discusses interaction between HTML and style > sheets. If you are using HTML elements and attributes > in addition to CSS, then you are still using style > sheets for your control. The inclusion of FONT is > not the accessibility killer - it's the inclusion in > place of structural markup. > > JW: So how does HTML presentation markup interact in the > cascade? Do user style sheets still override? Are there > implementations that follow section 6.4.4 of CSS2? > > CMN: Amaya gives you user style sheets. IE gives you user > style sheets. When you get user style sheets, the > cascade has worked (though survey is not exhaustive). > > JW: To move forward, I recommend making clear cross > references (e.g., in FAQ). I don't think we should > revisit the basic requirement. > > CMN: We should make clarifications in promotional material. > And in the Techniques document, point these things out > (e.g., section 6.4.4). Need to say what counts and what doesn't > for implementing style sheets. > > JW: Other observers have arrived at the same conclusion. > > RN: Some of the verbiage of WCAG 1.0 concerns me. People will > take these things verbatim. Visit > http://www.usdoj.gov/cot/508. People creating a checklist for > accessibility. Follows an older version of WCAG. A lot of "N/A". > The feedback that I'm getting: People are going to say "N/A" > to a lot of things. > > WAC: What are they saying "N/A" to today? > > RN: What they don't want to do or don't understand. How are > people going to fill out the form accurately? How are managers > going to know that the checklist is right or wrong? > > RN: People say "CSS, no, we don't trust style sheets." > > CMN: The way we need to address "caveats" or "explanations" > is to provide clarifications. > > RN: People don't take the time to read the notes. > People don't care about the conformance logo, they > care about accessibility. > > JW: Can't prevent people from misusing the document > or not reading carefully. > > RN: My proposals have been to create a summary clarification. > > CMN Proposes: > a) List requirements before doing a new Recommendation release. > E.g., boost visibility of Techniques document. Also make > guidelines leaner in the next version. > > JW: Some surveys are showing that people spend most of their > time in the techniques document. > > CMN: But a number of people don't: those with more understanding > of the topics. > > b) Make clarifications in the Techniques Document, FAQ. (CMN Notes > that lack of explanatory information in guidelines document > forces people to look at Techniques document). > > c) Tell EO to point people to Techniques Document for clarification. > > > RN: We need to write to least common denominator. A lot of secretaries > are managing Web sites. I propose renaming "Errata" to "Addendum". > Make more visibile from WAI GL page. (IJ: This can be done already.) > > JW: I don't think guidelines should be written for "low comprehension > level". Up to EO to do promotion. I think it would make the guidelines > work to simplify further (since some is inherently complex). EO > should be writing summaries, tutorials, etc. People should even > be encouraged to start with tutorials. > > Action Editors: > > 1) Make the errata page more visible from the WAI GL home page. > 2) Draft a proposal on clarifying 3.3 thread and send to > GL list. Once "approved", add to Techniques, FAQ, and errata page. > 3) Request to EO WG that they point to/highlight Techniques as place > for clarifications. > > RN: Proposes changing the title of the errata page to include > mention of clarifications. Add link to FAQ from errata page. > > CMN: Need EO to point people at Techniques document. > Also need to get EO group to draft how-to use. > Ensure visible links from GL/EO home pages to techniques doc > and other clarifying documents. > > RN: I have some usability issues with the document and not > being able to touch bytes. > > /* Ian compares stable published documents and dynamic pages */ > > IJ: There's no "best document". There are many pages and many > slices that are important. Each serves a particular audience. > > JW: Use WAI home page as a starting page. > > WAC: We need to put all GL-related documents in one place: the > GL home page. Before trying to fix more, let's > > Action RN: Send us usability data to GL list. > > RN: People using Word, Front page, dream weaver, .. > > WAC: So people not using guidelines. > > RN: We need to make the checklist easier to use. > > WAC: Cross refs don't appear in checklist. > > RN: People will take checkpoint text verbatim in checklist. > Need clarification there. > > CMN: Perhaps use GL page as the primary reference point? > > Action Chair: > > In two weeks, put on agenda a discussion of what questions > to ask about guidelines to Rob's users (and for others as well). > > CMN: I publish (on the Web) the questions and answers in my > presentations I give as part of my slide shows. >
Received on Saturday, 24 July 1999 08:37:46 UTC