08 February 2001 WCAG WG telecon minutes

Summary of action items and resolutions


Katie, Wendy, Jason, Marti, Annuska, Matt, William, Loretta


Cynthia, Gregory, Rob, Gregg, Dick

Techniques for WCAG 2.0


Technology-specific checkpoints - updated 6 February 2001.

Jason's suggestions published 7 February 2001:

  1. Merge XHTML into the HTML requirement list (only treat it separately where issues of modularization are relevant).
  2. Checkpoint 1.1 does not, in my opinion, apply to CSS. To what extent should CSS be treated separately from HTML/XML?
  3. We should think of a better term than "technology-specific checkpoint", not only is this a cumbersome term but it invites confusion with the checkpoints in the guidelines. I would propose instead to call them "techniques", defined as follows: A technique is a concise statement of an implementation strategy which satisfies one or more checkpoints. Often, techniques are specific to a given web-related technology. In the actual document, techniques would be sharply distinguished from the following: a. Code examples. b. Discussion. The existing structure of the Techniques document would be maintained--that is, there would continue to exist a set of core techniques, together with technology-specific techniques for (X)HTML, CSS, SVG, SMIL, client-side programming (i.e. scripts), etc.


WC Appropriate wording? Examples in a separate file.

JW Call it techniques rather than technology-specific checkpoints.

WC This be techniques and sub would be examples. Imagine a separate page for technique, has examples, screen shots, etc.

JW Yes.

MM How cross-referenced with other technologies? What about scripts?

JW A different document for each technology?

MM Link back.

WL A database with everything. Press javascript and get everything.

JW Published as a document, each technology has its own document.

KHS Techniques for HTML, Techniques for CSS, etc.

JW If everyone agreed, then we can begin drafting them. When we come to conformance requirements we can determine if they have a role in conformance scheme.

KHS Calling techniques is good. Separate page is good.

JW A core that goes across technologies, like 1.0.

KHS In general think people will go to specific ones.

WC Those of you who had volunteerd to work on this, thoughts?

LGR This was the direction we were headed already.

JW Any issues regarding modularization should be separate, but the standard usage issues should be combined.

Resolved: Accept Jason's edits to the WCAG 2.0 Techniques draft.

Scribe note: refer to "template for making techniques" submitted to the list by lisa seeman 5 January 2001.

Resolved: Editors (per sean's list) should begin writing techniques using the latest draft as a model.

Until user agents

MM What are the technologies we are worried about?

JW Would you propose that checkpoints that have a choice state it more explicitly?

MM Start with the features we are concerned about and see how to relate those to checkpoints. 2.2 says "user agents may offer control of..." Most do not that clearly relate a checkpoint to a specific technology.

JW It is theoretically possible that a UA offer control of it in one case and not another. e.g. SVG vs. other graphics formats. Provides control over for one and not another. That's the type of complexity that we need to consider.

MM Perhaps then start with the end-user affect we're looking for. Perhaps it's a technique. Qualifying the user agent

WC What about WML?

JW Superceded by XHTML Basic. Therefore which modules to use.

WC Thinking a lot lately about screen readers and their interaction with browsers. Where they break the access to the web by overriding browser support of features. Like jaws not allowing IE to link to id's.

AP - convey user experience based on which technology they are using. How does it impact a user. e.g. space for alt-text - what is the impact for the user. I tried out Jaws and WindowEyes, this is the information we need to include as we move along. So, here is the technique and here is the affect of the user.

MM Then we end up with a long list.

JW There are differences between Europe, America, ...

WC We don't have to show them every example, but some better than none.

JW Certainly.

WC I would love to see a production line. Say Matt writes a technique then passes it to Annuska who checks it out with Jaws, then to someone else to test with browser X, then browser Y, etc.

MM Yes. Quality Control. I have Jaws 3.5 and PWWebspeak

JW EmacSpeak

KHS Jaws 3.7

AP Jaws and WindowEyes

KHS Think of it as a matrix.

WC Also other software - scanning, reading software for reading disabilities, etc.

JW Also screen readers that work with braille displays.

KHS We'll have to have a baseline that everyone will work towards. Do most people use X? Should we make it work with X since most people use.

WC MM do you know about Quality Control?

MM Yes.

WC Could you help write a testing procedure for techniques? The procedure that we use to determine if something is accessible would then be included for others to use.

Action MM: work on a quality control testing procedure for techniques.

WC Perhaps work with ERT to develop tools to help us evaluate.

KHS Brookstalk being given with IE6.

$Date: 2001/02/08 22:29:46 $ Wendy Chisholm