WC previous checkpoint 6.1 - in intro?
CS Fits in guideline 1.
WL Idea is to talk about before.
JW Good idea to keep in checklist.
WC Some people only read checklist, do we
MM checklist very useful
CS current TOC could be checklist. current document shorter than 1.0 checklist.
JW Make statement if haven't read all of it likely to misinterpret.
CS People will print shortest thing and miss warning.
MM Print shortest, links to more info. When go there online, if have one page quick checklist, this links to everything, links to full text. People will not in general read whole doc then go to checklist. Get most info in shortest time.
WC So, william's guideline guide.
WL Work's on 1/2 a screen.
CS When i was working on, i was printing stuff off and using offline. Dangerous to provide only headings w/out more info.
KHS Link to techniques?
WC Yes, but will. Added section to intro. Question is, does 6.1 go into guideline 1 or into the intro?
CS, MM put in guideline 1.
KHS reads the text of it.
WL fits in one.
JW Right. devices are not user agents. The actual guideline would need to be written to include compatibility with user agents.
MM Does the W3C have a style guide or list of definitions?
WC Working on a unified glossary.
Action: Katie make sure transformation filter in glossary.
Action: WC add to issues list when glossary ready make sure our terms comply with the glossary.
Resolved: reword Guideline 1 to say something like, "Design content that can be presented according to the needs and preferences of the user and the capabilities of the user agent and the device(s)."
WL What about assistive technologies?
KHS looks at glossary.
WL Upstages other checkpoints if put first.
WC Put at end for now, order will likely change.
WL DOesn't it include text equivalents?
JW No, specific to backwards compatibility.
WC Make content backwards compatible.
DB Need to clearly state that it is backwards compatible. It is way too vague. Clearly state what mean. Not reasonable to say support all that old stuff.
JW Yes, an open issue. Based on charles proposal for baseline support.
Resolved: move 6.1 to end Guideline 1, try to find another way to express "graceful transformation" in the future. Encourage feedback on wording.
Resolved: Open issue - ordering of checkpoints.
WC 6.2. Intro? redundant?
CS Like it as a checkpoint. At end of guideline 4 is good.
WL Different from 4.1?
CS Huge difference.
JW pick a language then use accordingly.
WL DIfferent?
CS Can pick HTML 4.01 and not use labels, or pick html 2.0 and fit with accessibility.
JW In choosing technologies, consider these criteria...
WC 4.1 becomes "choose" 4.2 says "use"
MM Merge them into "choose and use"?
WC could also be "choose and author".
Resolved: keep 4.1 (6.1) and 4.2 (4.1) separate. consider combining later. Change wording of 4.1 (6.1) to "Choose languages and protocols that support the use of these guidelines".
WC Guideline 2. JW do you feel strongly between difference of browsing and navigating?
JW Browsing - can exclude certain types of elements not navigating. Reading a filtered version.
WC Propose then to drop navigate and only use "interact"
JW In glossary need to describe browser and navigate. Refer to Raman's thesis. The two are differentiated and explained.
Action JW: send Katie the URI to Raman's PhD thesis.
Action KHS: pull in Raman's definitions of browse and navigate from his PhD thesis for discussion.
Resolved: Guideline 2. Design content that can be interacted with according to the preferences and needs of the user.
WC First use of acronym expanded (note in 3.6).
WL There is no "first" i can come into a document anywhere.
JW The note assumes the expansion is in the document, but it might be in an RDF document.
MM Perhaps an "until user agents" issue may be completely handled by user agents.
WL Certain acronyms have about 12 possibilities. It may be o.k. for us to require that "here and after this is X although different in real world."
Resolved: Remove note in 3.6 about first occurrence of expanding an abbreviation. Move to open issue, include use of glossary.
WC 4.2 - backwards compatibility with ATs different than user agents?
JW Depends on our definition of user agent. If include AT then doesn't matter.
Resolved: the issue of backwards compatibility is covered by our resolution during this meeting to add 6.2 to 4.1.
JW Before next meeting, list those points which we would like public review. Such as "use of the term graceful transformation."
WL I don't think we should delay publicizing this. Just do it.
DB Shouldn't we make sure that we all read it first?
KHS and CS agree.
JW When we agree to release it, it doesn't mean we're satisfied with every point only that this is the direction we are heading.
WC Like to give people one week to review, gives me one week to get it published before I leave town, then gives 1 month for review before face to face. Hopefully we'll have comments to discuss at the face to face.
Resolved: make a decision to publish next week, publish the week after, receive one month of feedback before f2f at plenary.
WC AU/ER requested Thursday afternoon to discuss open issues with AERT. Likewise we could request feedback on WCAG 2.0.
Resolved: We will meet with AU/ER on Thursday afternoon at F2F all w3c meeting.
JW Part of IG group. They ask us about 2.0, clarifications of 1.0. We ask for feedback on 2.0.
WC Who be at CSUN? WL, WC
WL Could also do the same thing for EO the next day.
Resolved: will have a Q&A session with the IG after CSUN.
$Date: 2001/01/11 22:24:43 $ Wendy Chisholm