Re: WCAG face to face meeting agenda

a more diffinitive breakout of the checkpoints.  I suggest breaking out tags
and other items as sub headings.

also suggest these be broken out in a matrix so we know the prioirty of
every thing there as this can be used for a quick look-up and reference.
something like a matrix.


----- Original Message -----
From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 7:04 PM
Subject: WCAG face to face meeting agenda


>
> 9-10:30
> Introductions
> Requirements document for next version.  What is required for the next
> version? There has been initial discussion about making the guidelines
> easier to read, easier to navigate, and ensuring that they are less
> HTML-specific.  What else is needed?
>
> In what ways can we generalize the guidelines? Which checkpoints should be
> pushed to the technique modules because they are technology specific?
What
> about Web applications?
>
> Related reading:
> minutes from 2 March telecon - Charles' discusses applying the checkpoints
> to SVG and how we need to generalize them:
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/meetings/20000302.html
> minutes from 9 March telecon - collection of agenda items and discussion
of
> generalizing the guidelines:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/meetings/20000309.html
> Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 -   tried to be as general as
> possible.  Should we use this approach as a model?
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203
> WCAG 1.0 - here's what we have to work with:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/
> The latest techniques document and modules
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WD-WCAG10-TECHS/
>   including the non-w3c technologies module
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/non-w3c-techs.html]
>
> The goal of these 2 discussions is to create an initial skeleton of a
> requirements document.
>
> 10:45 - noon
> It has been suggested that the needs of people with cognitive and learning
> disabilities are not adequately addressed in the guidelines.  How should
we
> address them?
> [related readings:
> e-mail from Anne Pemberton:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1999JulSep/0219.html and
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1999JulSep/0191.html]
>
> It has been suggested that the guidelines are not easy to read and
> difficult to navigate.  How should we approach usability testing the
> guidelines for ease of use and understanding?
> [related readings?? Info from Jakob Nielsen?]
>
> WAI quicktips - discussing how to order, allowing people to take some
with,
> showing examples in other languages.
>
> The goal of this discussion is fill out the requirements skeleton a bit
> more.  Hopefully assign action items for investigation.
>
> 1:00-3:30
> How should we address the design of markup languages in the guidelines?
> [related reading: XML Accessibility Draft by Daniel Dardailler
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/xmlgl]
> How do we express timeliness?  Currently, we use the "until user agents"
> clauses. What is an easier to understand method to use?  What about the
> future of the User Agent Support page? [User Agent Support
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/Resources/WAI-UA-Support]
>
> 3:45-5:00
> timeline, accepting action items and long term plan
> next face2face
> [related reading: draft timeline http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/timeline.html]
>
> if we have time, the following items were also proposed:
> impact matrix - how to incorporate into a guidelines document.
> user agent support page.
> DOM
> Meta data
> Quick tests and validation
> accessibility of graphics
> new technique modules: MathML, VRML, etc.  [related reading: Formatting
> Object Considered Harmful by Hakon Lie
> http://www.operasoftware.com/people/howcome/1999/foch.html]
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 14 March 2000 23:20:02 UTC