Minutes from 14 December 2000 WCAG WG

http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2000/12/14-minutes.html

Minutes from 14 December 2000 WCAG WG

Summary of action items and resolutions
·       Action LK: Propose language for WCAG 2.0 that addresses "if you 
have to do this."
·       Resolved: Adopt proposal as errata for WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 3.1 with 
the following change: Avoid where possible using raster-based images to 
represent text -- use text and style sheets.
·       Resolved: Clean up "magnification" per Al's e-mail
·       Action LK: Create a page of examples to test this resolution.
·       Resolved: techniques database, examples of poor and good is key to 
help people determine conformance.

Participants
·       Gregg Vanderheiden
·       Katie Haritos-Shea
·       Wendy Chisholm
·       Cynthia Shelly
·       William Loughborough
·       Loretta Guarino Reid
·       Anishka Perkins
·       Dick Brown
·       Len Kasday
·       Andi Snow-Weaver
Regrets
·       Sean Palmer
·       Kynn Bartlett
·       Jason White

Agenda
Posted 12 December 2000 by Jason White

Summary of W3C Team Project Review
WC Summarizes topics covered.
GV Those that issues that we found sticky, they also found sticky and 
interesting. Our work is different in that most of W3C work specifies a 
technology while we describe uses. In the end, the consensus was that we 
don't want to ignore them but not sure the best way to handle them. 
Afterwards, in discussion with WC, perhaps we publish a technology-specific 
that addresses both where accessible and where not accessible.
KHS Reasonable, people use technologies other than W3C every day.
GV Don't want to be in a position where we only list the checkpoints that 
are accessible and then people assume can meet rest. Want to make clear 
where they don't meet certain checkpoints.
LK Is conformance something we'll be discussing. Will I be able to go to 
the guidelines/techniques and come up with conformance claims or will 
everyone have to come up with own criteria.
WC Not addressed yet so much. Will be soon.
LK Different browser capabilities not yet addressed in new draft.
GV What issue did we not get to?
WC CR exit criteria.
WL How affect CSS?
WC SVG good example.

3.1 Errata
WC Reads proposal for 3.1
CS OK.
WL OK, but would prefer #3 as #1.
LK Would like to see us apply this to specific sites.
GV Our site fails this. There are affects that we can't achieve w/CSS.
CS Then have an out with #2.
GV In a way an out with "when appropriate and support." But, says "avoid" 
which means absolutely not.
LK General issue, it would give someone an out. I would add that the effect 
has to be necessary.
GV I would question that. If there is a text-equivalent (this a P2 by the 
way), then it is not a problem for people who are blind. The scalability is 
achieve with browsers like Opera that can magnify the alt-text.
WC Alt-text in opera is magnified as well as attempts at image.
LK We have "Temple-Helvetica" and therefore I can use text in images 
wherever I want. How do we prevent that?
GV Is it creating a serious problem for accessibility? If I do page as 
Helvetica, then they have one huge alt-text. If the text is there and can 
be scaled.
CS Add-in for IE that scales image.
LK If we take that approach, why have the guideline at all? There is a 
difference in Temple Helvetica (which is not much different than Helvetica) 
vs. a serious affect.
GV Because promotes markup.
LK Could we get this concern into compliance, as in "if you really have to 
do this."
CS People will draw that line in different places.
WC This is an errata for WCAG 1.0, LK can you take an action to propose 
something for WCAG 2.0?
Action LK: Propose language for WCAG 2.0 that addresses "if you have to do 
this."
GV What about avoid where possible?
LK I think that will work.
CS Ok with that. Sounds like what I thought it meant anyway.
Resolved: Adopt proposal as errata for WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 3.1 with the 
following change: Avoid where possible using raster-based images to 
represent text -- use text and style sheets.
Resolved: Clean up "magnification" per Al's e-mail
WC Here's a wrench, what about Anne's suggestion? I would feel it passes 
since it is graphical.
/* discussion about possibilities for arrow images and text */
GV You will either tell people to look at our examples and make their pages 
look like that but always interpretations. In law, we use case law. We 
would have a registry. We can incorporate into techniques document. 
Therefore, we need "alt-text case law." A group will get together and make 
judgement. People can look and say, "that's not what I would have guessed, 
but ok. it's there I understand it."
Action LK: Create a page of examples to test this resolution.
GV Yes. Document discussion.
WC Ties back into ideas of candidate recommendation. Is a process to use as 
move forward.
WL And second agenda item.

Techniques database
GV When we talk about database, I think of where you look stuff up versus 
wandering through it.
WC But documents could be generated and pull from that database.
WL We're going to collect data, good and bad for each checkpoints.
WC The variety of examples is interesting: including databases, whole 
sites, pieces of sits. Another issue from this a.m.
CS Copyright issues?
KHS May have to copy the site.
CS Examples that don't comply may be hard.
GV May have to copy onto our site - can't assume won't change. Another is 
to copy on the site then change the content.
WC UIE used Disney site to show poor usability, but compared to new site is 
much better.
LK Agree with approach. You can quote something for critical purposes, but 
don't recommend it.
Resolved: techniques database, examples of poor and good is key to help 
people determine conformance.
WC Who wants to help design it?
LK How should I start w/my examples?
WL Each a field in the database?
LK All in one page.

$Date: 2000/12/14 22:58:48 $ Wendy Chisholm

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