- From: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
- Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 09:14:24 -0500
- To: "'jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au'" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Regrets for this week, and possibly for next week as well. On the road again... John John Slatin, Ph.D. Director, Institute for Technology & Learning University of Texas at Austin FAC 248C, Mail code G9600 Austin, TX 78712 ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524 email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu web http://www.ital.utexas.edu -----Original Message----- From: Jason White [mailto:jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 2:13 am To: Web Content Guidelines Subject: Agenda Thursday, 8 August, 2000 UTC (4 PM US Eastern, 10 PM France, 6 AM Eastern Australia) on +1-617-761-6200 passcode 9224. Agenda 1. Principles for allocating success criteria among the three conformance levels: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JulSep/0122.html See also the proposed consensus items at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JulSep/0123.html (these aren't expected to be controversial as they reflect choices already taken by the group). 2. Level 2 assurance requirements: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JulSep/0114.html 3. Checklist generation (combining guidelines with technology-specific material from techniques documents). What should be included in checklists and how should they be created? 4. Checkpoint 5.3 (issue raised last week). How can the success criteria be defined more precisely? Is there an overlap with checkpoint 5.2 (see checkpoint 5.3, success criterion 3)? 5. Checkpoints 1.3 and 3.1: the principles are distinct, but there appears to be an overlap in the success criteria themselves which should be corrected. Also, surely a "linear reading order" should be at levels 1 or 2? Any items in this list not considered at the meeting will be placed on next week's agenda.
Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2002 10:14:32 UTC