Re: Summary of action items, resolutions, and open issues from the F2F

Charles,

>   ·       Action CMN: Take this requirement to the ATAG WG - provide an
>   annotated wcag 2.0 with information about facility of implementing
>   requirements in tools.
>
>Does this mean that ATAG should come back with something that says whether
>we think we can write techniques better based on WCAG 2? (in any case, it is
>outstanding).

Gregg requested that the AU WG write up how easy it is to implement WCAG 
checkpoints in authoring tools.  It seems we agreed at the meeting that a 
good way to provide this feedback was for AU WG to go through each 
checkpoint in WCAG 2.0 and give some indication of how easy or hard the 
checkpoint is to implement.

Thinking about it now, ER could also give useful feedback. Reading through 
AERT is already an annotated WCAG 1.0.  Notice how many techniques say, 
"ask the author to...." that's an indication that we could not figure out 
an automatic way to check or repair something.

There is not much more clarification in the raw minutes (which I am still 
cleaning up).

Gregg, do you have any more to add to this?  How do you anticipate the WCAG 
WG will use this information?  This was part of the discussion on 
priorities.  Do you expect that this will affect priorities?

Thanks,
--wendy
--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--

Received on Wednesday, 11 October 2000 14:15:19 UTC