- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:32:11 +1100 (EST)
- To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
The next meeting will be held on Thursday, 14 September at 20 hours Coordinated Universal Time (4 PM in Boston, 10 PM? in France, 8 AM Eastern Australia), on the W3C/MIT Longfellow bridge: +1-617-252-1038, with the following agenda: 1. Structure of working group deliverables and their respective audiences. The following documents have been proposed in an effort to satisfy the needs of different communities that are interested in guidelines related to the accessibility of web content: a. An overview, presented in relatively non-technical terms, intended to introduce key concepts developed in the guidelines and to explain the nature of the requirements. This would be aimed at a broad audience. b. A technical specification, written as clearly simply and precisely as possible, of the requirements constituting the guidelines, which would be applicable across a range of technologies in an attempt to generalize, in a principled fashion, the requirements of accessible design. Audiences: technology developers, other W3C (or external) technical working groups concerned with accessibility; web content developers who wish to apply the guidelines in novel situations or who are seeking elucidation of the technology-specific checklists; policy analysts who want to understand the technical requirements of accessible design in detail; educators teaching principles and concepts of accessible design; authoring tool and user agent implementors striving for a better understanding of accessible design; others? c. Technology-specific checklists which provide concrete, verifiable requirements relative to specific standards and/or technologies: (HTML/CSS, SVG, XML, SMIL, DOM/scripts, other W3C and/or non-W3C technologies). Audiences: web content developers (with a range of expertise but assuming some familiarity with one or more web-related technologies), educators, authoring tool and user agent implementors (via references in the respective guidelines in these areas); web site evaluators (those engaged in verifying compliance with access requirements); all of the audiences mentioned in connection with item b (above), when examples of technology-specific implementation requirements are needed in order to understand the requirements as expressed at a more general level; others? d. Techniques documents: providing detailed discussion of the technology-specific checklists together with explanations and worked examples. Audiences: web content developers; accessibility evaluators; tool implementors; educators; others? Questions: 1. Can we agree upon this or a similar structure as the basis of the working group's deliverables? If not, what alternatives should be considered, taking into account the various demands which the needs of different communities impose on the nature of the guidelines? Can we be more precise as to which audiences are relevant to which parts of the document set, and what assumptions should be made regarding the level of technical knowledge to be expected, and the terminology to be employed, in each of the documents? 2. Which documents should be developed as W3C Recommendations, with normative conformance criteria? Which should be published as W3C notes, having an informative status but being easier to change at short notice? 3. How should we manage the documents so that readers with different needs will be directed to the material that is best suited to their requirements, expectations, skills and interests? Discussion of these questions on the mailing list prior to the meeting is, as always, encouraged.
Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2000 20:34:19 UTC