W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-hc@w3.org > October to December 1997

Re: WAI HC, IG accessibility review

From: Judy Brewer <JBrewer@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 23:43:03 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>, w3c-html-wg@w3.org, w3c-wai-hc@w3.org, jmiller@w3.org
Al, I agree with Dan that we need to send unambiguous recommendations to
the HTML WG.  Is it possible to summarize the HC WG results & IG review in
a more definitive way?

I realize after revisiting the status of the "Guide" that the first & last
paragraphs of my suggestions to Al & Daniel regarding transmission of the
report were contradictory (see first message below).

Dan, given our awareness of the HTML WG AC deliverable deadline of Oct 31,
I think our pointer to a timeline running through Nov 10 is in error.  

Dan, Dave, Daniel, & Al, are you available by any chance at 10 a.m. Boston
time tomorrow/Thursday, if I can get the MIT bridge, so we can resolve the
coordination issues on this quickly?

- Judy

>Al, Daniel,
>Dan and I did not specifically discuss transmission of the report.  I
>think sending it as the updated Guide, packaged with the essentials from
>the relevant threads, seems fine.  
>I've just put out a "last call" on the IG list, also with a plea for >more
input on LINK and META.  If we bring in some additional input in >one area
after today, perhaps that is still workable.
<snip, other topic>
>Al, please send to HTML & CSS tonight what you feel is the best summary
>on the discussion to date.
>- Judy

>Not to mince words...
>I started out thinking we could do full diff-equivalent
>Daniel wisely steered us toward a more design-level description.
>The invividual proposals vary in how definitive or how motivated
>they are in the written record.
>We have assessed these as to need/benefit.  We expect y'all to
>apply two grains of salt yet on implementation impact.
>Please ask questions where anything is unclear.
>-- Al

At 04:54 PM 10/22/97 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>Al Gilman wrote:
>> Here is an overview of the results of the accessibility review of
>> HTML4 and CSS2.  Please use the copy on the Web at
>>  http://www.w3.org/WAI/group/HC/report.html
>Hmm... this isn't what I was expecting. I was expecting
>a list of proposed changes, complete with suggested wording.
>The examples are good, and maybe those are enough.
>Editors: what do you think? Are these proposals clear
>enough that you can just merge them in, or do you
>see missing bits or open issues?
>Each of the issues (option, table, desc, ref, media) seems
>to have several proposals available. There are still questions
>to discuss, etc.
>We have just over a week to incorporate the WAI input on HTML4.
>I don't expect the HTML WG to debate the various proposals,
>but rather to review and refine the suggested changes.
>In particular, we need something that won't change, or won't
>change that much. But I see:
>This page will be maintained to try to keep it within 24 hours of
>current with respect to current discussion during the period from
>October 15th to Nov 10th. 
>Am I off the mark?
>Dan Connolly, W3C HTML Working Group Chair
Judy Brewer   jbrewer@w3.org     617-258-9741
Director, International Program Office
Web Accessibility Initiative, World Wide Web Consortium
MIT/LCS Room NE43-355
545 Technology Square, Cambridge MA 02138 USA
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 1997 23:42:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:35:00 UTC