27 Jun 2007


See also: IRC log


Shadi, CarlosI
Johannes, CarlosV, Reinhard


Comments on WCAG 2.0 Working Draft

CI: "Baseline" was clearer to me

<scribe> ...new concept mixes responsibility between content developers and User Agent developers

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: if UA's don't use accessibility features of a technology then it is a UA problem, not an accessibility problem
... "current state of technology" is very diverse amongst assistive techs
... not sure why user agents are mentioned, should be more separation between ATAG, UAAG, WCAG

SAZ: there needs to be a balance between the puristic approach and the more pragmatic -theortical accessibility support doesn't work in real life

CI: you will always find a UA or an assistive tech that fails in something
... the level of support is not mentioned -100% or just some support?

SAZ: comments from perspective or eval tools developer?

CI: concept of transaction doesn't seem clear -what is a full process?
... for example, purchase process may be different depending on the login of the user
... do all different variants need to be considered?


Item #9

CI: difficult for external reviewer to know all the possible paths and scenarios of a process


SAZ: how about if in the guidelines there is a brief mention that sometimes internal knowledge of the application and processes is needed to evaluate this requirement
... to acknowledge that external reviews aren't always simple because the internal processes (and branches/paths etc) may be hidden or unkown
... and elaborate a little more on this in the "Understanding" document
... to help guide evaluators who want to *review* web sites (as opposed to developers building the site)

<CarlosI> Statement of partial conformance

CI: statement of partial conformance could be a backdoor
... "everything is ok with my CMS, but i can't control my content"
... can be an excuse, need to be able to control the conformance level

<CarlosI> except for error periods

<CarlosI> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20070517/Overview.html#uc-239-head

CI: blanket conformance claims for whole Web sites should be avoided, hardly exists in reality
... for example claims for whole sites will most usually have exceptions
... i'm missing a note or some kind of clarification

SAZ: do you agree that the basic notion of the conformance claim is based on Web pages rather than whole web sites?

CI: understanding of "set of Web pages" may be different -like domains, directories, etc

SAZ: can you draft these comments

CI: also have another comment on resources
... will put them together and send a draft by tomorrow

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.128 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/06/27 15:14:01 $