- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:37:58 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Hello,
I have been meaning to send a couple of notes from the
three meetings I attended in Bristol (U.K.):
the device independent workshop [1] and the WCAG [2] and
ATAG [3] Working Group face-to-face meetings. There are eight
points below, some of which touch directly on our work. These
points do not affect us right now and there are no proposals.
1) Techniques for Evaluating Authoring Tools for conformance.
The ATAG Working Group is doing some very cool work designing
techniques for evaluating authoring tool accessibility (refer
to their 13 September 2000 draft [4], for example). We should
also consider such a deliverable. The ATAG WG has come up with
some good ideas and we can benefit from the work they've done
in addressing some evaluation issues. They also intend to
create an interactive tool for helping people with evaluations,
and a well-designed tool could be reused by the UA Working Group.
2) At the Device Independent Workshop, people expressed a desire
for the next draft of the UAAG to cover additional classes of
user agents (e.g., mobile devices). This should be taken into
account as we discuss the scope of the next deliverables we
will produce.
3) The WCAG WG has been spending a lot of time on the structure of
their documentation (refer also to their requirements document
for WCAG 2.0 [5]). There were discussions about granularity
of conformance claims (we've been there, and this seems to
be a WAI-wide issue).
4) Some device independent issues related to user interface:
- People want the same user interface across applications
on a given platform (e.g., mobile).
- Power users (say 10% of users) want customization. They
are a vocal and powerful minority.
5) A comment on WCAG techniques: what happens if you do ALL
of them? Does this lead to a usable site? We could review
the UAAG Techniques with this question in mind.
6) In general, at the device-independent workshop, there was
a lot of discussion about the reality (or limitations) of
author-once-repurpose-often ideal. Many people felt like
"single authoring" was not useful in practice since authors
end up with a kind of "least common denominator" of content
that takes advantage of none of the useful features specific
to a given device. Other interesting topics:
7) Is it really possible to separate presentation
from structure? Some people argued that in some
cases, you have to tailor the content so much to
meet the capabilities of a particular device, that
you actually provide different content (e.g., a
summary), not just a reformatted version of the same
content. In short: One size does not fit all.
Furthermore, automatic transformation of content for
mobile devices was described as a "guess and pray"
process.
8) People were thinking more and more about content
as "applications", not "pages". And thus, how do
you make the application accessible?
- Ian
P.S. For more information, read the meeting minutes
linked below, some of which may not yet be available.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/07/diw
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2000/10/f2f-minutes.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/meetings/f2f-oct00.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WD-ATAG10-EVAL-20000913/
[5] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag20-requirements
--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 831 457-2842
Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2000 09:38:00 UTC