- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 20:35:55 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Time: 2100 UTC (4 PM US Eastern) Number: +1-617-761-6200, passcode 9224 irc.w3.org 6665, channel #wai-wcag Agenda for this week 1. Assign action items for open issues 506, 556, 669, 405, 704, 707 [1] 2. Close issue 374 [2] 3. Conformance - defn of 3 groups (many ideas last week, but did not get finished with discussions. Notes based on discussion below). [3] - consensus about whether or not all of the 3rd group need to be met to claim 3rd category of conformance? - what do we want to call the 3 levels of conformance - should we coord w/EO - is the naming more of a marketing than technical issue?) 4. if time, tables for layout, issue 487 [4] Gregg Open issues for conformance: sampling and aggregation. related to scoping and logo. [1] -------- Issue 506 - Definition of structure <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=506> Action: write a definition of structure that clarifies difference between using structured layout vs using structural elements (in definition of "structure"). Issue 556 - Guideline is difficult to understand <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=556> Action: Write a proposal to clarify the level 1 #1 criterion. Issue 669 - What is meant by "emphasis" <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=669> Action: Write a proposal to address or clarify use of "emphasis" and visual presentation. Issue 405 - General issue about knowing how to interpret how apply to html w/out reading the techniques. <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=405> Action: Write a proposal that clarifies the Level 1 #1 success criterion. Issue 704 - In-line warnings and options to deactivate are good, but a User Agent could also handle this in most cases <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=704> Action: This issue could be addressed with some additional text in the benefits describing how user agents may handle this in the future. Issue 707 - Example is vague <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=707> Action: Write a proposal that clarifies the example or propose a different example that will help clarify the intent of the guideline. -------------- [2] Issue 374 - How do AT users learn what makes structure distinct and how these distinctions can be specified? <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=374> Yvette proposes this is a user agent issue. Does anyone disagree? -------------- [3] ALL LEVELS Are testable. Some success criteria are machine-testable. Others require human judgment. Success criteria that require human testing are capable of yielding consistent results among multiple testers. LEVEL 1 SUCCESS CRITERIA 1. Do not set limits on content or presentation; 2. Achieve a minimum level of accessibility through markup, scripting, or other technologies that interact with user agents, including assistive technologies; 3. The working group felt could be reasonably be applied to all Web resources; LEVEL 2 SUCCESS CRITERIA 1. Build on Level 1; 2. Increase accessibility both though additional facilitation of user agent based accessibility and through content and/or presentation that provides direct accessibility without requiring intervention by user agents or assistive technology; 3. The working group felt could be reasonably be applied to all Web resources; LEVEL 3 SUCCESS CRITERIA 1. Go beyond Level 1 and 2 to increase direct and user agent enhanced accessibility --------------- [4] Issue 487 - are tables for layout a violation of 1.3? <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=487> Currently under discussion on the list. Good example to discuss for June draft.
Received on Tuesday, 20 April 2004 21:37:06 UTC