minutes

 Reception on telephone call very bad (for us Aussies at least) – so
apologies if minutes are not accurate. Get back to me with changes. 

W3C teleconference

08.03.02

ATTENDEES:

Gian Sampson-Wild

Jason White

Andi

Loretta

Wendy

Lisa

Lee Roberts

Dina Slydon

Ben Caldwell

Jenae ??

 JS: Agenda: F2F meeting agenda, finish guidelines for next working
draft for internal publication (ready for F2F meeting)

WC: Draft agenda published on meeting page. Saturday 9am- techniques
breakout session. Andi published first draft of HTML techniques.
Afternoon meet with WAI interest group (2- 4 or 1.30- 3 TBD). Sunday
morning meeting with EO, Sunday afternoon WCAG WG (checkpoint 3.3 and
3.4). 

GSW: When should telecon people attend?

WC: Saturday afternoon and Sunday afternoon for those joining by phone.

LS: Can only attend F2F by telecon on Sunday, so can Checkpoint 3.3 and
3.4 wait until then?

WC: Couple of issues of WCAG 2.0 that need to be clarified by W3C. Has
everyone registered? Important to have the right size bridge

JW & GSW: Have not registered.

WC: List of attendees not public. If anyone has any ideas for agenda,
please send to list or email Wendy directly.

Andi: Would success criteria be a good agenda item – to ensure
testability

JW: Would be worth discussing at a teleconference.

?? Could come out in techniques breakout session

WC: Could I have an idea who will be working on what techniques/ideas on
breakout session on Saturday morning… need to break into sub-groups of
similar interests. So can people show up with some idea of what to talk
about.

WC: EO will have frequently asked questions – Lisa and Graham to write.

LS: Finished draft, hasn’t been posted to the list yet. Will chase that
up.

WC: Has it been sent to EO?

LS: It’s been sent to someone because we have received feedback.

WC: Please chase it up and send to WCAG and EO ASAP so people can
consider it.

WC: Any other topics to take to EO? EO – produce curriculum, quick tip
cards, business cards, a lot to support technical work in guidelines
group, make things easier to read and to reach a wider audience. Do we
have any questions for them or things they need to review? Please send
to the list.

JW: There may be some EO documents we will be asked to review. Therefore
there might be some messages to the list before the F2F to review.

JW: Next draft is for internal use for the WG, plan to refine it further
before made public.

LS: Will Checkpoint 3.3 be rewritten?

JW: Jo is still working on it, and would like LS to be involved. Issues
that Jo has found, will have been put into an email, and wanting to work
with LS on it. Action item still open.

LS: ???

JW: Work on proposal of success criteria and work on any concerns that
could arise from that proposal.

LS: Right that checkpoint 3.3 does not belong there, but where does it
belong? Feedback from people in disability community- have contact
details, so perhaps have them join in this discussion. Maybe we should
email draft, and see how they would like to word it. 

JW: proposal was we get a draft for revised success criteria for 3.3,
then incorporate issues of other checkpoints. Either done as a proposal
in near future, or when next internal draft comes out

JW: Any other issues people would like to discuss?

JW: Discussion on the list for rewording the guidelines.

GSW: From email, three sections

GSW: Like it, because it splits into sections that show the areas that
help people with disabilities

LS: Rewrite it to group the information, if you were trying to give a 4
minute talk about accessibility, what would the groupings there be?
Looking at all the guidelines people were writing, split into three or
four comments and if people really followed them without WCAG they would
have an accessible site

GSW: Isn’t this what Paul has done?

LS: Don’t think by themselves it is possible to follow them, second
option isn’t descriptive enough.

JW: Serious problems with Paul’s proposal, because when talking about
the guidelines, they are supposed to say ‘what are the
properties/qualities of a web site to be accessible’, and current
sections really capture the guidelines, therefore much more useful and
more convenient way of categorising, as opposed to the platitudes in
latest proposal. LS proposal interesting, as high level guidelines
always were supposed to capture guidelines underneath. Somehow we need
to capture the main concerns of a guideline. We need some kind of
explanation on how to implement these things, even if not stated in
contents of guidelines and checkpoints. Do we want additional
information for people to approach the task appropriately.

LS: Problem with accessibility is people get caught up on success
criteria. Modular approach – could have various different ways, main
point make sure people know why they’re doing what they’re doing.

JW: Whenever interpretive questions arrive about a certain guideline
questions should be to the principle of the guideline, does the
implementation of the checkpoint follow the spirit of the guideline.
Checkpoints are details, whereas main concept is in the text of the
guideline.

Andi??: When discussing whether information belongs under one checkpoint
or another we go back to the guideline.

JW: Need more comments on proposal to see if it goes anywhere or not.
Would people like to review over the next week or so.

??: Can’t make any decisions until author joins us teleconferences.

GSW: Does Paul ever make it to teleconferences?

JW: Yes

JW: Clarified agenda for F2F meeting, 3.3 checkpoint and high-level
guidelines.

Cheers,
Gian
 
Gian Sampson-Wild
Accessibility Specialist
 
Member: Web Content Accessibility Group Working Group
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
 
Stanley & Milford
A Software Communication Group Company
Level 16
644 Chapel Street
South Yarra VIC 3141
Australia
Tel. 613 9826 5829
Fax. 613 9826 8336
Mob. 0404 498 030
Email gian@stanleymilford.com.au
Web: www.stanleymilford.com.au

********************************************
This message contains privileged and confidential information intended
only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the
intended recipient of this message you must not disseminate, copy or
take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in
error, please notify Software Communication Group immediately. Any views
expressed in this message are those of the individual sender except
where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Software
Communication Group.
********************************************