Agenda, reading, and questions for tomorrow's call (and beyond)

Hello,

The WCAG WG should ensure that WCAG 2.0 is consistent with and contributes 
to the goals of other WAI deliverables, including the "Web Content 
Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [1], the "Authoring Tool Accessibility 
Guidelines 1.0" [2],  the "User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [3], 
the "XML Accessibility Guidelines" [4], and the WAI Glossary [5]. (this is 
proposed text for our new charter)

One of the primary intersections between the documents is 
conformance.  Tomorrow, we will look at some of the issues related to 
conformance and UAAG.  We will start the session with Ian Jacobs summarizing:
  - How did UAAG 1.0 solve the problem of conformance flexibility?
  - How did UAAG 1.0 solve the problem of subjective requirements?

This will lead into group discussion of the following questions:
  - What can we learn from UAAG 1.0 and the UAWG's experience?
  - How can WCAG 2.0 reference UAAG 1.0?
  - What user agent features does WCAG 2.0 assume are implemented?

Required reading:
   1. Gregg's conformance proposal [6],
   2. UAAG 1.0 Conformance [7],
   3. Lee's checkpoint 5.4 proposal [8],
   4. Ian's response to Lee's proposal [9],
   5. Ian's comments on WCAG 2.0 [10]

Conformance is one of the stickiest issues we have to deal with.  As we 
will hear from Ian, the UAWG wrestled with conformance issues for quite a 
while.  Where the WCAG WG wrestles with the "Write clearly and simply..." 
checkpoint, the UAWG wrestled with "DOM access to HTML/XML content" 
[11].  They used many strategies to reach consensus one of which is 
conformance profiles.

Recent issues related to WCAG 2.0 conformance:
   1. If we have "Level 1+" and "Level 2+" can
       someone claim Level 2-?
   2.  How does a developer declare the scope of
        their claim?
   3. What if someone tries to exclude a necessary
       part of their site?  e.g., All of the site except <uri>
       is included the claim and <uri> is the final step
       required to purchase something from the site?
   4. Can someone exclude 3rd party content in the
       scope of their conformance claim?
   5. How do you claim conformance for an aggregation
       services that pulls together accessible pieces to
       create something that increases accessibility for
       a particular type of user?
   6.  Claiming conformance is making an assertion that
        you satisfy a certain level of success criteria.  A
        conformance claim at the Minimum Level is an assertion
        that claims many things, including that (with the current
        4.1 proposal) they have reviewed all content  "with
        these things in mind." What if their site has
        1,000,000 pages, will they be able to conform at the
         minimum level?

Expectations of tomorrow's call. Participants should expect to:
  - leave with a better understanding of the UAAG 1.0 conformance profiles.
  - learn about some of the hurdles that the UAWG had in moving UAAG 1.0 
through the W3C Recommendation process.
   - discuss the current WCAG 2.0 conformance proposal in relation to the 
UAWG experience and brainstorm about possible ways to apply that experience.

Participants should *not* expect to:
   - solve the conformance issues related to WCAG 2.0 in 90 minutes.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/xag
[5] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/Glossary/printable.html
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003JanMar/0150.html
[7] http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/conformance.html#Conformance
[8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003JanMar/0114.html
[9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003JanMar/0144.html
[10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0020.html
[11] http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/guidelines.html#tech-dom-access-api

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/--

Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2003 20:44:44 UTC