- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:52:59 -0600
- To: "'WCAG-WG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
As John mentioned in his original post --
The phrase "suggest using EARL for conformance claims" is
the short title used for the entry in Bugzilla.
Under this topic we discussed a number of different ways to report and to
attach notations to web content regarding conformance claims. No consensus
was reached so no decisions are recorded. We don't record everything that
is said at a 4 hour teleconf. We used to try to take notes but they were
short, incomplete and not really what people said. Later people were
criticized for things they didn't say. And people made reference to things
the 'group' said when it in fact didn't say that. Someone said that - or in
some cases - no-one said that. it was just what the note taker who was
pounding away on their keyboard typed from snippets the could catch as the
conversation ran ahead. Also, it took someone out of the call since they
had to do non-stop typing.
So we now focus on capturing the topics, anything we agree on and action
items. That already taxes our notetakers and we have to use several on a
call.
We also do surveys of all issues in advance and can capture information off
of them in making decisions -- or for recording ideas if we don't make a
decision.
At the meeting we told Sorcha that her comments on this would be added to
the open issue.
This has been done. See
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1896
they weren't lost and will be there when the issue comes up again.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Paul Walsh, Segala
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 10:56 AM
To: 'John M Slatin'; 'Ben Caldwell'; 'WCAG-WG'
Cc: sorcha@segala.com; drooks@segala.com; 'Jo Rabin'
Subject: RE: 16 March 2006 Minutes
Hi John,
Please see comments/questions below.
-----Original Message-----
From: John M Slatin [mailto:john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu]
The phrase "suggest using EARL for conformance claims" is
the short title used for the entry in Bugzilla.
Can you point me to Sorcha's comments regarding 'Content Labels' - I only
see EARL in the minutes which is a different proposal.
Our minutes document resolutions.
Please note that the WCAG WG has neither specified nor
recommended *any* particular format for conformance
claims. To date, we have said only what information
*must* be included in a conformance claim as well as some
information that *may* be included.
Yes I'm aware of this John but thanks anyway. This is why I'm asking the
group to *consider* referencing a method of demonstrating conformance levels
in a machine-readable format. This enables search engines and browsers to
make use of information to highlight websites that are accessible to the
individual needs of users.
Visual trustmarks are good but have limited benefit, they may only be
displayed on one or more pages and missed by visitors. Content Labels enable
you to make claims such as 'everything on this domain excluding this
particular URI'. This can be particularly useful for large sites making
adjustments over a long period of time. You can ultimately increase
accessibility awareness through making compliance more accessible to
organisations ;)
Sorry, I didn't mean to go into it here.
Cheers
Paul
"Good design is accessible design."
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Walsh, Segala [mailto:paulwalsh@segala.com]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 10:29 am
To: John M Slatin; 'Ben Caldwell'; 'WCAG-WG'
Cc: sorcha@segala.com; drooks@segala.com; 'Jo Rabin'
Subject: RE: 16 March 2006 Minutes
Hey John,
Many thanks for the feedback. Everything you say should
be included in the minutes, this was my point. From the
minutes of the meeting, it would appear that only EARL
was discussed and Content Labelling wasn't talked about.
It's important to record all the key issues and decisions
of those issues, even if to say that they're still open.
Apologies for the tongue twister :)
Regarding the incubator activity, nice to see you've
understood it well.
Everything you say is true. We plan to come to a final
conclusion about the output of the activity by July! The
specification was written before we even launched the
activity so its like to need minor refinements only.
Also, an EU Safer Internet Plus project called Quatro
[1], has already created the schema for WAI Single-A,
Double-A and Triple-A conformance claims. So, this can be
referenced and/or used today. Note that ERCIM is one of
the project partners.
Regarding the Web Content Label Working Group (WCL WG)
[2], WCAG could reference the output, so any
'refinements' made to the specification won't make any
difference and won't impact the WCAG document in any way.
Does that help?
[1] http://www.quatro-project.org/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/wcl/wcl-charter-20060208
Cheers
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
John M Slatin
Sent: 17 March 2006 14:57
To: Paul Walsh, Segala; Ben Caldwell; WCAG-WG
Cc: sorcha@segala.com; drooks@segala.com; Jo Rabin
Subject: RE: 16 March 2006 Minutes
Hello, Paul. I'll just jump in here.
The Working Group did *not* reach a definitive decision
yesterday about referencing either EARL or WCL. The group
felt that we did not yet have enough information to reach
a sound decision on this important matter.
Therefore, we decided to leave the issue open pending
further investigation. We welcome additional information
about WCL, RDF-CL, etc.
I did read the statement about the WCL Incubator Activity
that you sent us the other day. If I understood it
correctly, the W3C has not yet approved WCL. Again, if I
understood the document correctly, the XG's aim is to
explore the options for a new content labeling scheme;
one of the options under consideration is to consider
whether the existing RDF-CL is adequate for the purpose.
If my understanding is incorrect, please let me know!
To reiterate: the issue remains open. We welcome
information that will help us learn more.
Thanks so much!
"Good design is accessible design."
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
Paul Walsh, Segala
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 5:14 am
To: 'Ben Caldwell'; 'WCAG-WG'
Cc: sorcha@segala.com; drooks@segala.com; 'Jo Rabin'
Subject: RE: 16 March 2006 Minutes
Ben,
I'm unable to speak with Sorcha because our HQ are out
partying (St.
Patrick's Day!). So, can you please direct me to the
section of the minutes that document Segala's request to
reference the use of Content Labels for conformance
claims? I notice you've included EARL, but I'm unable to
find Content Labels.
I've CC'd David because he's a member of the ERT group
and Jo as he's a member of the WCL group with David.
Kind regards,
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Ben Caldwell
Sent: 17 March 2006 00:39
To: WCAG-WG
Subject: 16 March 2006 Minutes
Hi all,
Just posted the minutes from today's meeting:
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/03/16-wai-wcag-minutes.html>
Please let me know if you spot any errors or
omissions,
-Ben
--
Ben Caldwell | <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
Trace Research
and Development Center <http://trace.wisc.edu>
Received on Friday, 17 March 2006 17:53:20 UTC