- From: <gian@stanleymilford.com.au>
- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 16:51:24 +1000
- TO: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Message-Id: <H00000e000527895.1028789483.tux.sofcom.com.au@MHS>
regrets... won't be able to make it next week either :( > -----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 Thursday, 8 August 2002 02:48:39 UTC