Minutes from 18 January 2001 WCAG WG Telecon

Available at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2001/01/18-minutes.html

Minutes from 18 January 2001 WCAG WG Telecon

Summary of resolutions and action items
·       Resolved: Guideline 1. Design content that allows presentation 
according to the user's needs and preferences. Add piece to text 
immediately after Guideline 1 that prefs based on devices/user agents. Add 
open issue to flag that device capabilities are current or what could be 
acquired?
·       Resolved: Under Guideline 1. "for more information about user 
capabilities, device, etc... Refer to the working draft "How People with 
Disabilities Use the Web" for more information and user scenarios, 
particularly to find out how people with disabilities use assistive 
technologies.
·       Resolved: leave 1.5 as it is. Add to issues list: use something 
instead of word "content."
·       Resolved: Checkpoint 1.7 Content remains accessible when newer 
technologies are not supported or turned off.
·       Open issue: Checkpoint 1.7 avoid term graceful transformation. 
incorporate idea of backwards compatibility.
·       Resolved: Guideline 2 Design content that allows interaction 
according to the user's needs and preferences
·       Resolved: Checkpoint 2.2 Minimize content that interferes with the 
user's ability to concentrate. Then below instead of "disorient the user 
and" say "interfere with ability to concentrate and focus on the main 
content" Also, "User agents may also offer control over this effect."
·       Resolved: leave Checkpoint 2.3 as is.
·       Resolved: leave Checkpoint 4.3 as is.
·       Resolved: incorporate Judy's comments. Change idea in status from 
"internal use" to "request feedback."
·       Resolved: Leave checkpoint 1.2 as is, but add to issues list: WCAG 
2.0 does not address the case of an audio-only presentation that requires a 
timed response. GV proposes to modify checkpoint 1.2 to read, "Synchronize 
text equivalents with multimedia and time-based interactive presentations" 
Others feel that this might be addressed by a combination of 1.1, 1.2, and 
2.4.
·       Resolved: Describe what the illustrative image is (associated with 
checkpoint 1.1) and move it to checkpoint 3.4 as an example.

Participants
Jason, Len, William, Dick, Donovan, Matt, Aniska, Wendy, Gregg, Loretta, 
Andi, Cynthia
Regrets
Gregory

Ian's comments on 12 January draft of WCAG 2.0

Ian's proposed wording to Guideline 1
JW Add hardware and software environment to make it clearer.
GV yes, much better.
LK Environment pretty technical - what about "the hardware and software 
that the user uses." Can't figure out a better wording right here. It's 
still a fuzzy term but can't think of a better wording. Just raising a flag.
JW A definition in the glossary?
LK Yes, that would make me happy.
GV What if remove word environment?
MM Worried about hardware and software - it's extremely broad. Someone 
could claim problem with accessibility if only have 8 megs of ram.
LK Adding word environment doesn't help that problem.
MM User agent and device(s) is more descriptive.
WL Device(s) also have 8 meg ram problem.
MM Yet capabilities are not included in the list immediately below it.
LK This wording implies design for what the user currently has or what the 
user could get.
GV User and their devices.
JW user agents are not devices.
LK Needs depends upon what user agents, devices they have.
WC Propose to stop after user preferences, and immediately following say 
that prefs and needs include device issues. Also, open issue that flags 
Len's point (the device capabilities they currently have or could acquire).
Resolved: Design content that allows presentation according to the user's 
needs and preferences. Add piece to text immediately after Guideline 1 that 
prefs based on devices/user agents. Add open issue to flag that device 
capabilities are current or what could be acquired?
ASW Device capabilities should mention assistive technology.
WL Already refer to "How people with disabilities use the web."
Resolved: Under Guideline 1. "for more information about user capabilities, 
device, etc... Refer to the working draft "How People with Disabilities Use 
the Web" for more information and user scenarios, particularly to find out 
how people with disabilities use assistive technologies.

Proposal for checkpoint 1.5
WC Propose leave as is, see what happens with glossary.
ASW agree.
JW change content to "semantics" or "meaning."
MM Philosophical issue. Content is content. It is well known and used and 
everything on a page. I would tell people working on glossary that we have 
issues if they try to do something different.
WL You'll have those issues no matter what you put in instead of "content."
JW I think content is best avoided given the ambiguities. Leave as is and 
put on issues for work later on.
WL Control how content is displayed. Does it then become presentation?
Resolved: leave 1.5 as it is. Add to issues list: use something instead of 
word "content."
MM Then replace "c" in WCAG.

Transform gracefully
WC IJ does not have a proposal. We left this as an open issue last meeting.
GV A theme not a checkpoint.
WC Main idea is "backwards compatible."
JW Add to glossary.
GV Sounds like a general concept. When turn something off is not backwards 
compatible.
JW "Remains accessible"
MM "transform" bring to mind XSLT. What about degrade?
GV Is derogatory. Ensure that content remains accessible when technology is 
not supported or turned off.
ASW Issue is not so much wording for checkpoint but specifying what people 
must support.
GV What does "technology" mean? My computer? If HTML is not 
supported...we're not saying any arbitrary technology.
WC Problem with "newer."
GV What about non-text technology.
WC Propose to remove the checkpoint and move to open issues list.
GV Do we have something that covers the issue of applets?
WC Perhaps "use specs according to spec" or "provide text equivalents"
JW Content remains accessible when newer technologies are not supported or 
turned off.
LK When technologies that are not accessible to all users..
GV It could be accessible to all users but I may not load them.
Resolved: Checkpoint 1.7 Content remains accessible when newer technologies 
are not supported or turned off.
GV priority? if the person could have used a technology that could make it 
accessible then it shouldn't be a P1, but everything else should be a P1.
Open issue: Checkpoint 1.7 avoid term graceful transformation. incorporate 
idea of backwards compatibility.
MM Worried about "newer" won't amount to much. It will be hard to 
understand. Until we can figure out what we're trying to say, this 
shouldn't be a checkpoint.

Guideline 2
Resolved: Guideline 2 Design content that allows interaction according to 
the user's needs and preferences

Checkpoint 2.2
LK what about "Minimize content that will distract the user"
WL disorient.
GV Animations and blinking text would distract, not sure how disorient.
CS No more porn sites, eh?
GV No more advertisements?
WC Minimize content that interferes with the user's ability to concentrate.
GV Yes, distract too strong. Then below instead of disorient say "interfere 
with ability to concentrate ... on the main content."
LK Why saying minimize rather than don't do it?
GV Can't tell people not to have banner ads.
WC Give users control of content that interferes with the user's ability to 
concentrate. Then below instead of "disorient the user and" say "interfere 
with ability to concentrate and focus on the main content"
GV Restrict to one section does not apply. Therefore, give control to turn 
off or ??
MM People couldn't comply.
CS Shouldn't be goal of authors to turn off advertising.
WL If you preclude user options...
MM The user can choose to circumvent the technology, but if you prevent 
advertisements, then the advertising industry is gone and there go the sites.
JW What is the accessibility requirement?
LK On one hand we should leave it out, on the other we need mechanisms to 
handle them. That mechanism should not be by changing the guideline but 
something that applies to any guideline. Any guideline is suspect to 
exemption if poses a problem.
GV This will have to be a priority 3 or end up with a problem if you 
mandate that people can turn off banners.
LK Every guideline will have a case where it causes a genuine hardship. 
Under compliance build in that if it is a severe problem you don't have to 
do it.
CS Depends on what is content - advertising could be the main content and 
the news article is distracting from advertiser.
MM The burden should be on the people causing the animations.
Resolved: Checkpoint 2.2 Minimize content that interferes with the user's 
ability to concentrate. Then below instead of "disorient the user and" say 
"interfere with ability to concentrate and focus on the main content" Also, 
"User agents may also offer control over this effect."
MM If content provider is person designing ads, then they can address some 
of these issues.
LK Still need a definition of minimize.
GV Whenever get into area of mental processes we can not deal with 
"complete" for example we can deal with complete blindness and complete 
deafness but not completely distractible.

Checkpoint 2.3
WC Propose to leave as is.
GV As it is reworded, much clearer.
Resolved: leave Checkpoint 2.3 as is.

Checkpoint 4.3
JW leave alone.
CS agree.
ASW Agree.
Resolved: leave Checkpoint 4.3 as is.

Judy's comments
WC Need abstract, editorial comments to intro, get rid of WAI logo, etc. 
Editorial
WL Change "internal use" to "capture feedback" intended to change.
Resolved: incorporate Judy's comments. Change idea in status from "internal 
use" to "request feedback."

Checkpoint 1.2
GV "Synchronize text equivalents with multimedia presentations" add 
"time-based interactive"
WC what about interactive media?
GV Where timing is important - interaction has to occur at specific 
times....with interactive or multimedia
ASW Synchronize text equivalents with time-based multimedia.
GV no, an audio track is time-based and a transcript is ok. Could put links 
that say "now" and solve it.
LK What about if I'm deaf and my wife is not and we're listening to a radio 
program, then I miss the jokes when she laughs.
WC Think this could be covered in some way by this checkpoint, 2.4 and 1.1.
JW I think 2.4 could be expanded to include this issue.
WC Add a note under 1.2 as place holder but don't change 1.2 for now. move 
to open issue list.
GV "If there is time-based interaction, alternatives must be synchronized 
or non-time based must be provided."
Resolved: Leave checkpoint 1.2 as is, but add to issues list: WCAG 2.0 does 
not address the case of an audio-only presentation that requires a timed 
response. GV proposes to modify checkpoint 1.2 to read, "Synchronize text 
equivalents with multimedia and time-based interactive presentations" 
Others feel that this might be addressed by a combination of 1.1, 1.2, and 2.4.

Checkpoint 1.1
GV The graphic ought to be explained.
WC uses a d-link.
GV No, this should be in the content of the document.
Resolved: Describe what the illustrative image is (associated with 
checkpoint 1.1) and move it to checkpoint 3.4 as an example.

$Date: 2001/01/18 22:54:29 $ Wendy Chisholm

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