- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 17:46:35 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Time: 20:00 UTC (4 PM US Eastern, 10 PM France, 8 AM Friday Eastern Australia) Number: +1-617-761-6200, passcode 9224 irc.w3.org 6665, channel #wai-wcag Our agenda items are below. PLEASE READ and think about these items in advance so we can knock em off. Also, the topics for the Face-to-Face are posted at the end of this message. If you have anything else you think should be addressed let us know. See you Thursday Item 1: [#891] 2.1 level 3 rewording Goal: Adopt new wording - or identify issues. Introduction by: Gregg Vanderheiden <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0690.html> Item 2: [#829] Linear reading order should be level 1 Goal: Harvest issues. Get suggested solutions that address the issues. Reach consensus in this meeting or end up with an action item for refinement of proposal? Introduction by: Michael Cooper <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0723.html> * TTF thought linearization of page (2.4) should be level 1 - currently level 3 * Some agreement on list * Rebuttal that Web is a transformative medium and expecting an author-provided linearization is meaningless Item 3: [#830] Requirement for page title should be level 2 or level 1 Goal: Harvest issues. Get suggested solutions that address the issues. Reach consensus in this meeting or end up with an action item for refinement of proposal? Introduction by: Michael Cooper <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0726.html> * Guideline 2.4 has a level 3 SC that says, among other things, a document title was considered. TTF thought providing the title should simply be expected, not considered. Also guideline 3.2 has a level 2 SC that page titles should be informative. Requirement to provide title should be at least as high as requirement to make it informative. * Question whether all forms of content have a titlable "page" to which this can be applied Item 4: [#831] Structural emphasis evident really a user agent issue? Goal: Resolve to remove the level 3 criterion? Action item to refine the criterion? Introduction by: Michael Cooper <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0728.html> * Guideline 2.4 has a level 3 SC that structural emphasis must be evident on various low-fiedlity display. TTF thought that if author follows requirement to provide semantic markup, the styling would be a UA issue and can't necessarily be impacted by author action, short of designing for and testing dozens of UAs. * Suggestion that existence of CSS is a case in point that the boundary between author responsibility and UA responsibility in this case may be a gray area. Unsure where to draw an arbitary line that includes or excludes this requirement in WCAG. Topics for July 2004 Face to Face - conformance, scoping - tying documents together; design and flow of materials; links to html, css, and general techniques from wcag 2.0 - checklists (normative vs informative) - checklists form and format - 1.0 to 2.0 migration - Ideas for Next draft 1.1 1.2 Conformance text migrating from 1.0 to 2.0 text overview of documents and how they fit together. an image? links to techniqes/gateway other issues from bugzilla numbering success criteria - planning and next steps For Thursday and Friday techniques discussion - checklists - linking between documents - prepping html techniques for publication - prepping general techniques for publication - prepping css techniques for publication? - prepping gateway/traffic cop for publication - testing and test suites
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2004 18:46:38 UTC