on this page: attendees - outreach updates - Dublin meetings - WCAG 2.0 Working Draft, EOWG perspectives - next meeting
Draft comments on WCAG 2.0 for additional discussion:
agenda in e-mail list archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2003JulSep/0073.html
DS: Working on radio programme about blindness and facial disfigurement and disability rights.
Please register if you're attending; info available at:
Focus for discussion during this teleconference. Does the conformance model appear to be:
SLH: Discussion of WCAG 2.0. We should start with conformance model and then go on to points from last week. First discuss conformance model. Is it clearly understandable and usable? transitioning from 1 to 2?
SP: before we get onto conformance - the document doesn't have a background section, explaining why change, conformance model of WCAG 1. Would help transition. Only says that WCAG 2 is based on feedback from 1 and addresses wider range of technologies.
SLH: I've written that down. Let's focus on conformance model now, and get back to that later. You sent some comments to list. Do you want to summarize?
SP: In 1.0 we had priorities 1, 2, 3 and now we have Core and Extended. Also not very comfortable with the Core+ level. Thirdly, mapping of checkpoints, some of the priorities seem to be changed (don't correspond).
SLH: First comment from SP, Core and Extended versus priorities 1, 2 and 3. What do people think about the relationship?
PG: People who know 1.0 expect Core to correspond to priority 1, Core+ to priority 2, and Extended to priority 3. I was also wondering how to translate Core and extended into French. Third point, Core+ could be dangerous. Some people think that they have done a good job but don't even reach priority 1, they want something easier.
SLH: You are saying that people are asking for something less than priority 1?
JB: Helpful if the terms were put in the glossary for the document. Clear focus on what is intended by the words Core and Extended, beyond the model.
SP: Nowhere in document are the terms defined. In WCAG 1, priority 1 is essential, priority 3 is desirable, but in WCAG 2.0 the terms are not defined.
SLH: So do people think it is important to define these terms? Anyone opposed? I think someone last week spoke of new wine in an old bottle. In 1.0 there were three levels, now there are two. Is that clear?
DS: It's a big shift in meaning, transitioning from 1 to 2.
JB: I had problems with people and organisations knowing what to do with the levels. I always encourage people to go for level 2, but many only do 1.
MK: I was in Finland and read article that recommended people only go for A.
SLH: I think that the transition will be difficult, but the new scheme easier for new people. Any recommendations about how it can be made more clear? JB, MK are your comments in favor of Core and Extended?
MK: We'll have to make new laws.
JB: Agree with DS that it will be difficult to transition. Will be difficult in any case, but need to communicate how to relate to conformance model. If you do Core, you're doing the accessibility across a range of disabilities, more than with priority 1 with WCAG 1.0. I'm trying to think how we as a group can help communicate whatever conformance model they settle on.
SLH: Ties in with what SP was saying. Seems like some checkpoints have moved around. Transition will make life easier for people. Priorities have changed. Not always 1 to 1 relationship. Technologies have changed. Might be easier not to relate them. Regarding what JB said, we can discuss that next. Assume that [WCAG WG] will go for Core and Extended, and what we as a group can do to help.
DS: Seems to me there should be an EO document that bridges between the versions. We shouldn't necessarily explain the bridge between the documents, but EO should to something.
MK: Would be nice, if we had a document AA, to have a tool to show me what to do, the differences.
SLH: (To MK) are you suggesting we could produce the tool?
MK: No, but it would help people.
SLH: Have to think about what things are good for EO to do and what for WCAG WG.
PG: SP spoke about the mix between the two. People would have no idea why they are mixed up. It would be a good idea to do a document to explain the priorities. About EO's role, we need to be ready to explain the need for Core and Extended, we could give an example, like a bank for example, and it's role in everyday life, to show the need for one level or another. We have a book in French that explains with examples the need for one priority or another.
JB: WCAG WG is preparing an impact matrix, that they started for 1.0 and we could check with them what it's status is. Intention was to go point by point giving examples of the effect of each checkpoint. EO may want to elaborate on that. Maybe update "How People with Disabilities Use the Web". they had called it an Impact Matrix. If they haven't abandoned it, we could split the effort.
DS: Sounds great idea to me.
SP: After each checkpoint there is a benefit section.
DS: Going back to JB's idea, we could contribute. The idea of a matrix is a clear [compact] way of looking at it. Seems like there benefits sections are different.
JB: A benefits matrix might be advantageous as well. A separate view.
SLH: Any other comments on that tangent?
DS: Change of philosophy over 1.0. Usability more priority. We could contribute by explaining this.
JB: What do you mean by usability, [of the document or of the web content covered by WCAG]?
DS: Of the document.
SLH: More comments about Core and Extended?
SP: What about Core+n? Could lead to more confusion.
JB: My concern is that they won't include enough in Core. If Core provides more than WCAG 1 priority 1, I would be happier. If not it would cause problems over conformance claims. Wonder if it might be safer to play with Core rather than Extended. Extended is additional level and picked from. Wonder if Core, partial Extended and Full Extended might be better.
SLH: Think JB saying Core might not provide sufficient access. For example Section 508 leaves out people with cognitive disability and some for low vision. If Core does enough it might be better to granulate claims in Extended section.
DS: I agree with what JB says. I agree with the idea of Core. You're trying for a whole concept of accessibility.
SP: Discussion highlights that the terms have to be defined. Must be explicit.
JB: [explains understanding]
PG: My understanding is that Core+ decreases meaning of Core. I would prefer only two levels. Will fragment meaning. Is it harder to achieve Core+?
SLH: Core will provide more access than WCAG 1 priority 1.
PG: Will be harder to achieve.
SLH: [comments]
PG: People want a label, like priority 1 or Core and if they can't achieve it, they will give up. Many companies here want a label to please their clients.
JB: Encourage you to look at it in terms of being comfortable with change. You're right in describing a transitional reaction by companies. But doesn't merit giving up concept of Core.
SLH: [?].
CC: Looking at conformance claims section. JB, you're closer. 3 and 4 should be reversed. Core sounds to me like inclusive term. Must say about conformance, I saw Core, Extended and Best Practices. Confusing. Best Practices is not a level to achieve.
SLH: Need to deal with it another way. It needs to be something like Core, Extended and Extended+. Let's brainstorm.
WL: Last sentence in Extended is bad.
SLH: Don't criticize when brainstorming. Talk about leaving Core alone. People who go beyond Core want a way of showing it.
CS: Some way of saying an extension [of the level].
DS: Like PG said, fragmentation. Granularity, is where fragmentation emerges. Way to talk about Extended is the same as way to talk about Core. Some kind of ribbon to bring in best practices.
SLH: Are you saying don't accept anything except Core and Extended?
DS: Not really, but we need some way of ... cautious about what CS said.
SP: Do we need to give a name to it? Leave it at Core or Extended? Today there are organisations that implement all priority 1 and not all.
AC: It's normal to only implement only part of Extended.
JB: People want a slap on the back. Must switch bullet points 3 and 4. Can't [understand] Core+n. It seems negative.
CC: Core Extended and Core Extended Plus.
MK: Core Extended optimal.
PG: Once I was asked to explain A, AA and AAA..
SLH: Out of brainstorming mode. Go back to purpose of all this. Reason for giving more than just Core and Extended is to allow people recognition for doing more than Core even though not all of Extended. As AC said, most people only do part of Extended. Is it necessary to have the middle designation, more than Core?
DS: Seems a little vague to me. Major part of the idea is to give people a reward for doing right thing. Lacks language that gives a clear picture of person getting pat on the back.
CC: Don't see anything here for a category giving credit for doing everything. Four categories, Core, Core+, Extended and Optimal. Doesn't cover all people. Nothing to indicate compliance with best practices.
SLH: Best practices are not for compliance.
JB: Best practices are used in this document as examples of how one might mark up to achieve conformance, even though it may not be optimal for a specific person. Like techniques, but not same. Doesn't impose specific narrow requirements.
CC: Best practices are confusing.
SLH: Which sounds best Core, Core+ or Core Extended?
CC: Need Core Extended.
SP: A, AA compliance.
DS: Word Extended doesn't imply complete. Last week we recommended dropping best practices part.
SLH: [clarification] Some people recommended.
WL: Should be dropped (from conformance levels section), could be drop out clause.
CC: Implies another level.
SLH: Does everyone agree that listing best practices with levels is confusing?
[All agree].
SLH: Best practices are not defined, I think.
WL: WCAG uses priority levels, but for conformance, use A and AA.
JB: That is one of the most troublesome things in 1.0, I hear in feedback. Organisations that follow our reasoning find it so confusing that they use other systems.
SP: Like ISO9000, a company can claim WCAG 2.0.
SLH: He (SP) means doing WCAG 2.0 Core or WCAG 2.0 All. There's an inconsistency.
SP: It should be defined.
SLH: Now it's defined that Extended means all Extended.
WL: How about Core and All.
SLH: It's just too.. simple! [laughing] Some people claim that you can conform to all of WCAG and it still be unusable. Wouldn't like to use the word optimal, as it might imply optimal design.
DS: You mean optimal indicates more than just WCAG. All of what?
JB: Who said Core Extended?
CC: I did.
DS: Looking up optimise in my Thesaurus [reads word list].
JB: What do other W3 groups use, that use the core idea. I think CSS does.
MK: They use modules. Advanced.
JB: Prefer to avoid modules. I could research terms used in W3C documents.
JB: Sounds like an advanced technology.
SLH: Core, Extended and something else.
SP: Core, Core+ and something for complete.
DS: My thesaurus for "all" says "every single one, complete."
CC: Entire, unabridged, absolute. Comprehensive, thorough, exhaustive.
WL: Still want Core+.
[word lists from various people].
JB: One comment made repeatedly is that Extended is not a very solid word. Maybe better to use it for an extension to a level, and use another word for full compliance.
WL: Does this mean they should change the name of the levels?
JB: Talking about the model and the naming of the model. We might not come up with an acceptable recommendation.
SLH: MK on IRC has written Core, +Extended and Comprehensive.
SLH: Most people think there should be something between all of Core and all of Extended. Also, if we have Core, something in middle and Extended, then Extended doesn't sound like the highest level of achievement.
CC: Definition of extended, think you said should be top level. Looks like it applies to one checkpoint. Need to change wording Sounds like only have to fulfill one checkpoint.
WL: Is it possible that term extended checkpoint is confusing? Extensive might do? Term "extended checkpoint" gives idea that a checkpoint could be extended.
SLH: Tangent to talk about "extended"?
JB: I like MK's word "advanced". Not advanced technology but higher level of access.
SLH: Checkpoints are classed as Core or Extended. What might be another term for checkpoints beyond core?
SP: Enhanced.
JB: Core and Enhanced.
CC: [referring to word Enhanced] Positive spin on it.
JB: Sounds a little frilly. But like it.
WL: Problem is that they are completely different checkpoints.
JB: Shouldn't sound like separate checkpoints.
SAZ: Core and Accessible?
WL: Optional?
SLH: Let's think about term for middle layer.
SLH: Section about where and how to indicate conformance claims. Metadata, site accessibility statement. JB, CC do you think it's too complex?
JB: Feedback for [transnational] oversight bodies, site with millions of pages. So much granularity in a claim like that, that it would be impossible. SP you work for an evaluation tool company.
SP: We run through all pages, and the most used pages.
DS: Think SP is bringing up the practical realities of how this is approached.
WL: Third bullet, I think answer should be no. Don't think we should require a statement. That's what'll happen.
SLH: JB, did you say it's too complex?
JB: I agree with him. We need to give into reality. Level Core+ would be great, but requiring a statement would be too much.
SLH: Is there any hope of requiring people to state which extended checkpoint they have complied with? Does anybody disagree?
CC: Don't see any benefit in stating which point is complied with. If someone wants to say which they did, OK, but they can't be obliged to.
WL: People want to know whether it's compatible with their screen reader.
SLH: That's the idea of giving metadata. People can choose to go only to sites that are accessible to them.
JB: Keep it simple. Only one page that covers all kinds of situations on a site.
WL: Is there still an EARL group?
JB: [replies].
SLH: Is there a consensus that it's not feasible to require a statement of which extended checkpoints are met, but to recommend an example of how to report it if the site owner wants.
MK: I would ask people to do that.
SLH: We would recommend it, but not require it. As JB said, that's reality.
WL: make it an extended checkpoint, to provide metadata.
SAZ: HTML headers can provide metadata, like encodings. Could also work for WCAG conformance.
SLH: Not reliable. With logos even.
SAZ: Interesting idea, though, I think.
WL: Already exists on one of my web sites.
SLH: Need a reality check on what is desirable and what's possible in real world. Missed SP's point from beginning of meeting, get back to it next week.
29 August 2003