- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 17:55:13 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- cc: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
my comments with CMN, Jason's with JW On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Jason White wrote: I would like to propose several areas of potential development which may be considered by this working group for inclusion in the next version of the guidelines. Most have already been raised in discussion: 1. The design of XML applications, including document formal grammars, to ensure accessibility. 2. The use of scalable vector graphics (svg) to provide interactive descriptions of visual content and, possibly, as a basis for generating tactile graphics. At the moment, all that the guidelines are able to require is that textual labels be associated with images and with the active regions of image maps. Are any further checkpoints required in relation to svg? CMN I don't think there are chcekpoints that spring to mind, but SVG will rovide a great set of techniques. JW 3. Sign language translations of documents (is there an overlap here with W3C's internationalisation work?) CMN Yes, there is an overlap I think. Which means we should look at techniques for doing this stuff (that is probably still in the area of research - at least into finding out what the state of the art is). I guess this will mean we have to look carefully at our internationalisation stuff. JW 4. There should be a review of terminology in the guidelines and techniques document to bring it into conformity with the definitions established by the Web Characterisation Activity. These are currently at the working draft stage: http://www.w3.org/1999/05/WCA-TERMS/ 5. The construction of "directly accessible" client-side scripts. Should there be more specific checkpoints in this area? CMN I suspect we do need more checkpoints. But we probably need to examine it first in techniques for doing this. JW 6. Checkpoints relevant to cognitive disabilities should be reviewed and, where possible, improved, on the basis of well founded research in this field. CMN Yep JW 7. The advantages and drawbacks of using metadata to classify web content as to its accessibility, reading level, etc., should be considered. For example, in addition to a visible icon and conformance statement, should documents conforming to the guidelines also be marked with appropriate metadata? CMN Yes, they probably should. There is in fact a checkpoint that says that... charles McCN
Received on Saturday, 31 July 1999 17:55:25 UTC