- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 15:54:56 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Message-id: <007601c21641$3ca77d10$b817a8c0@laptop600>
Highlights from June 13 telecon: 1. Cynthia, Paul and Wendy's proposal (http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2002/05/cp1-2.html) for checkpoint 1.2, was reviewed with discussion focusing primarily on edits to the minimum level success criteria. A new draft of the proposal based on the discussion can be reviewed at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2002/06/17-cp1-2.html. 2. Gregg and Ben are working on a new checkpoint for Guideline 1 that is focused on providing information needed for unambiguous decoding of the characters and words in content. The new checkpoint will address the issue of missing vowel marks (such as in Hebrew) and will incorporate discussion of character set remapping (text must map back to (whatever international group says) character set) 3. New Issues (tracked with experimental issue tracking tool): * Accessible rebroadcasts (see http://cgi.w3.org/ETA/issues.php3/wai/wcag/?issues_id=647) * Character encoding (see http://cgi.w3.org/ETA/issues.php3/wai/wcag/?issues_id=649) * real-time or interactive presentation and deaf-blindness (see http://cgi.w3.org/ETA/issues.php3/wai/wcag/?issues_id=650) * checkpoint (or definition) about use of standard character set (see http://cgi.w3.org/ETA/issues.php3/wai/wcag/?issues_id=648) 4. (General Comment) In discussing the checkpoint 1.2 proposal, John Slatin suggested that we should avoid using language that ensures that the user can achieve the author's intention. Instead, we should say that the author has provided an equivalent that achieves the purpose of the content.
Received on Monday, 17 June 2002 16:55:16 UTC