Minutes from 18 January 2001 WCAG WG Telecon

Summary of resolutions and action items


Jason, Len, William, Dick, Donovan, Matt, Aniska, Wendy, Gregg, Loretta, Andi, Cynthia



Ian's comments on 12 January draft of WCAG 2.0

Ian's proposed wording to Guideline 1

JW Add hardware and software environment to make it clearer.

GV yes, much better.

LK Environment pretty technical - what about "the hardware and software that the user uses." Can't figure out a better wording right here. It's still a fuzzy term but can't think of a better wording. Just raising a flag.

JW A definition in the glossary?

LK Yes, that would make me happy.

GV What if remove word environment?

MM Worried about hardware and software - it's extremely broad. Someone could claim problem with accessibility if only have 8 megs of ram.

LK Adding word environment doesn't help that problem.

MM User agent and device(s) is more descriptive.

WL Device(s) also have 8 meg ram problem.

MM Yet capabilities are not included in the list immediately below it.

LK This wording implies design for what the user currently has or what the user could get.

GV User and their devices.

JW user agents are not devices.

LK Needs depends upon what user agents, devices they have.

WC Propose to stop after user preferences, and immediately following say that prefs and needs include device issues. Also, open issue that flags Len's point (the device capabilities they currently have or could acquire).

Resolved: Design content that allows presentation according to the user's needs and preferences. Add piece to text immediately after Guideline 1 that prefs based on devices/user agents. Add open issue to flag that device capabilities are current or what could be acquired?

ASW Device capabilities should mention assistive technology.

WL Already refer to "How people with disabilities use the web."

Resolved: Under Guideline 1. "for more information about user capabilities, device, etc... Refer to the working draft "How People with Disabilities Use the Web" for more information and user scenarios, particularly to find out how people with disabilities use assistive technologies.

Proposal for checkpoint 1.5

WC Propose leave as is, see what happens with glossary.

ASW agree.

JW change content to "semantics" or "meaning."

MM Philosophical issue. Content is content. It is well known and used and everything on a page. I would tell people working on glossary that we have issues if they try to do something different.

WL You'll have those issues no matter what you put in instead of "content."

JW I think content is best avoided given the ambiguities. Leave as is and put on issues for work later on.

WL Control how content is displayed. Does it then become presentation?

Resolved: leave 1.5 as it is. Add to issues list: use something instead of word "content."

MM Then replace "c" in WCAG.

Transform gracefully

WC IJ does not have a proposal. We left this as an open issue last meeting.

GV A theme not a checkpoint.

WC Main idea is "backwards compatible."

JW Add to glossary.

GV Sounds like a general concept. When turn something off is not backwards compatible.

JW "Remains accessible"

MM "transform" bring to mind XSLT. What about degrade?

GV Is derogatory. Ensure that content remains accessible when technology is not supported or turned off.

ASW Issue is not so much wording for checkpoint but specifying what people must support.

GV What does "technology" mean? My computer? If HTML is not supported...we're not saying any arbitrary technology.

WC Problem with "newer."

GV What about non-text technology.

WC Propose to remove the checkpoint and move to open issues list.

GV Do we have something that covers the issue of applets?

WC Perhaps "use specs according to spec" or "provide text equivalents"

JW Content remains accessible when newer technologies are not supported or turned off.

LK When technologies that are not accessible to all users..

GV It could be accessible to all users but I may not load them.

Resolved: Checkpoint 1.7 Content remains accessible when newer technologies are not supported or turned off.

GV priority? if the person could have used a technology that could make it accessible then it shouldn't be a P1, but everything else should be a P1.

Open issue: Checkpoint 1.7 avoid term graceful transformation. incorporate idea of backwards compatibility.

MM Worried about "newer" won't amount to much. It will be hard to understand. Until we can figure out what we're trying to say, this shouldn't be a checkpoint.

Guideline 2

Resolved: Guideline 2 Design content that allows interaction according to the user's needs and preferences

Checkpoint 2.2

LK what about "Minimize content that will distract the user"

WL disorient.

GV Animations and blinking text would distract, not sure how disorient.

CS No more porn sites, eh?

GV No more advertisements?

WC Minimize content that interferes with the user's ability to concentrate.

GV Yes, distract too strong. Then below instead of disorient say "interfere with ability to concentrate ... on the main content."

LK Why saying minimize rather than don't do it?

GV Can't tell people not to have banner ads.

WC Give users control of content that interferes with the user's ability to concentrate. Then below instead of "disorient the user and" say "interfere with ability to concentrate and focus on the main content"

GV Restrict to one section does not apply. Therefore, give control to turn off or ??

MM People couldn't comply.

CS Shouldn't be goal of authors to turn off advertising.

WL If you preclude user options...

MM The user can choose to circumvent the technology, but if you prevent advertisements, then the advertising industry is gone and there go the sites.

JW What is the accessibility requirement?

LK On one hand we should leave it out, on the other we need mechanisms to handle them. That mechanism should not be by changing the guideline but something that applies to any guideline. Any guideline is suspect to exemption if poses a problem.

GV This will have to be a priority 3 or end up with a problem if you mandate that people can turn off banners.

LK Every guideline will have a case where it causes a genuine hardship. Under compliance build in that if it is a severe problem you don't have to do it.

CS Depends on what is content - advertising could be the main content and the news article is distracting from advertiser.

MM The burden should be on the people causing the animations.

Resolved: Checkpoint 2.2 Minimize content that interferes with the user's ability to concentrate. Then below instead of "disorient the user and" say "interfere with ability to concentrate and focus on the main content" Also, "User agents may also offer control over this effect."

MM If content provider is person designing ads, then they can address some of these issues.

LK Still need a definition of minimize.

GV Whenever get into area of mental processes we can not deal with "complete" for example we can deal with complete blindness and complete deafness but not completely distractible.

Checkpoint 2.3

WC Propose to leave as is.

GV As it is reworded, much clearer.

Resolved: leave Checkpoint 2.3 as is.

Checkpoint 4.3

JW leave alone.

CS agree.

ASW Agree.

Resolved: leave Checkpoint 4.3 as is.

Judy's comments

WC Need abstract, editorial comments to intro, get rid of WAI logo, etc. Editorial

WL Change "internal use" to "capture feedback" intended to change.

Resolved: incorporate Judy's comments. Change idea in status from "internal use" to "request feedback."

Checkpoint 1.2

GV "Synchronize text equivalents with multimedia presentations" add "time-based interactive"

WC what about interactive media?

GV Where timing is important - interaction has to occur at specific times....with interactive or multimedia

ASW Synchronize text equivalents with time-based multimedia.

GV no, an audio track is time-based and a transcript is ok. Could put links that say "now" and solve it.

LK What about if I'm deaf and my wife is not and we're listening to a radio program, then I miss the jokes when she laughs.

WC Think this could be covered in some way by this checkpoint, 2.4 and 1.1.

JW I think 2.4 could be expanded to include this issue.

WC Add a note under 1.2 as place holder but don't change 1.2 for now. move to open issue list.

GV "If there is time-based interaction, alternatives must be synchronized or non-time based must be provided."

Resolved: Leave checkpoint 1.2 as is, but add to issues list: WCAG 2.0 does not address the case of an audio-only presentation that requires a timed response. GV proposes to modify checkpoint 1.2 to read, "Synchronize text equivalents with multimedia and time-based interactive presentations" Others feel that this might be addressed by a combination of 1.1, 1.2, and 2.4.

Checkpoint 1.1

GV The graphic ought to be explained.

WC uses a d-link.

GV No, this should be in the content of the document.

Resolved: Describe what the illustrative image is (associated with checkpoint 1.1) and move it to checkpoint 3.4 as an example.

$Date: 2001/01/18 22:55:55 $ Wendy Chisholm