31 May 2001 - WCAG 2.0 Telecon

Minutes taken by Andi Snow-Weaver. (Thanks, Andi!)

In Attendance:



Action Items and Resolutions:

KHS and LGR: Incorporate suggestions and feedback to PDF Techniques Doc, Review SVG text flow issues as suggested by Gregory
KHS: Begin including feedback and suggestions into Introduction to WCAG 2.0
PB: Will help continue with the Introduction once back from vacation

PDF Techniques Document

JW: PDF Techniques discussion

WL: Date of latest draft?

JW: What were the issues brought up in last call?

KH: Loretta adding info in intro to describe what a page description language is, differences between PDF 1.3 and 1.4

WC: At last meeting, were talking about language and how to identify language. Need to add checkpoint to guideline 1 that discusses color and contrast. Katie and Gregory were to come up with a checkpoint under guideline 1 about how to handle language markup.

WC: Language issue came up in reaction to discussion of PDF techniques.

JW: Vigorously oppose the language checkpoint in the WCAG 2.0 guidelines.

KH: Where does "Generate the text of your document..." belong?

GV: Sounds like "table linearization" concept

JW: The requirement for everything to be provided as text is guideline 1

GV: Feels like 1 to me. Information has to be fundamentally extractable.

GR: SVG has similar text flow issues - have to use markup to indicate how to render something non-visually. Should work with Charles for synergy.

GV: Logical structure may jump to another page of document

LG: There is a way to indicate that. Want page to be readable as well as the document. These techniques are for PDF renderers, not authors.

GV: Recommend "Render characters and words in reading order within the page"

GV: "Generate the text of your document...." should be "Ensure the text of the document...."

WL: Abstract does not match audience. Abstract is written to web content authors.

JW: Keep going through the issues. Edit the abstract for another meeting.

KHS: Provide structural groupings

JW: Structure requirement. Belongs under guideline 1.

GV: Belongs under 1.4

KH: Document navigation

JW: Belongs under guideline 2

WC: 2.1 and 2.2

KH: Provide expansions....

GV: Belongs with comprehension

GV: "Note: this guideline applies only where the content provides its own user interface" does not belong.

LG: Left over from cut/paste. Remove

KH: "Set document protection to permit access."

GV: Sounds right where it is. Only reason you need to set this is so that AT can interoperate with it.

JW: Belongs with guideline 4

WC: Several suggestions from May 17 meeting to be incorporated

LG: Also several comments on the mailing list

WL: Why isn't this under ATAG rather than WCAG?

JW: Defining what makes a PDF file accessible is our responsibility.

Introduction to WCAG 2.0

JW: Next item on the agenda is to discuss Paul's intro to the guidelines.

WC: Katie worked on it as well

KHS: Want to talk about the individual disability categories.

WC: At last meeting, asked Gregg to take to steering committee meeting. What should be on the list?

JW: Decided this was too specific for steering committee.

GV: SC agenda had item dealing with cognitive issues but not anything about listing the disability categories

KHS: Integrated Paul's work into www.w3c.org/wai/gl/intro.html. Need common language across all WAI documents about what disabilities we are talking about.

WC: Reading disabilities don't seem to be represented

GV: Need to add learning disabilities: dyslexia, dyscalculia, ADD, and ADHD

GV: Mental health disabilities are different from the other categories. Emotional disabilities (ED) not represented. How would you design a page that would be accessible to someone with ED?

KHS: Don't want to leave people out

GV: But don't want to put people in if we're not doing anything for them. {agreement to remove mental health disabilities from list}

GV: Change "Cognitive and Neurological Disabilities" to "Cognitive Disabilities". Leave seizure as a separate category

JW: Age-related is a cause of the other disabilities but is not a disability itself

KHS: Specific, large target audience

GV: Nothing about being "old" that keeps you from using the web. Vision, cognitive problems are what cause the problems.

WC: Would be helpful to highlight under multiple disabilities

GV: Move example (retiree) to "Multiple disabilities" section.

PB: Not all old people have multiple disabilities

GV: Neither do all teenagers. These are just how the examples are labeled.

GV: Add skeletel disabilities to Physical Disabilities section; i.e. people who don't have arms, etc. Motor should be Neuro-muscular.

GV: Do we need the two categories in physical disabilities? There are so many kinds of physical disabilities. Don't need breakdown if solution is the same for all sub-categories. The ATs are quite different but page design is not.

KHS: Looking for consistency across documents. Set of documents deals with more than page authoring.

GV: Trying to minimize the amount of information we give them that they can't do anything with. LD people do not want to be listed under cognitive.

JW: Collapse list as much as possible for guidelines and put detail in glossary. Glossary is cross working group deliverable.

GV: Blindness and low vision, Deafness and hard-of hearing, Physical, Speech, Cognitive, Learning, Seizure, and Multiple are the categories

KHS: If we do this, WCAG and "How people use the web" will look totally different.

JW: Need good general categories that are relatively uncontroversial, clarify in glossary.

JW: Other controversial issues with the introduction?

WC: "Compliance" should be "Conformance"

JW: Introduction should not be longer than the document itself

WC: What is the idea behind the Optimization Techniques documents?

PB: There is a difference between making something generally accessible and making something that is optimized for access by a particular disabilities group.

GV: Need to allow for server-side as well as client-side solutions. If we try to provide guidance on designing content for particular disability group, do we have the resources to do it for all of them? It's not really part of what we were chartered to do.

GV: Should separate the server-side/client-side concepts. Recognize that there are times when you may want to optimize for target groups. WAI will provide a page that points to guidelines that are provided by others. Not endorsed by W3C.

WC: Cynthia already talking about server-side techniques. Trace has different style sheets. Propose we move this to server-side techniques. Paul should work with Cynthia on them.

GV: Most people read these guidelines as "page author" guidelines but server-side and PDF techniques are not for page authors. Need something in introduction that addresses this.

KHS: Could go in "Broad nature" section

WC: Agree. Could also come under "Conformance" section

PB: Currently listed under "Limitations"

GV: Remove "usability" label. Add paragraph that "there will always be subset of people who will not be able to use the site. May want to target content for certain groups. Point to another page for these guidelines"

WC: Techniques documents are hard to find in WCAG 1.0 because embedded after every checkpoint. Helpful to have a list.

GV: Links should be "HTML Techniques", not just "HTML", "XML Techniques", not just "XML"

PB: Some define usability and accessibility as the same thing. If we distinguish our document as accessibility, not usability, it will be controversial.

GV: Our document is about accessibility and usability. One person's usability is another person's accessibility. First paragraph does not reflect that we have any Priority 3 items.

KHS: Tried to meld Paul's and Wendy's introduction

PB: Would like to continue editing introduction but will be on vacation next two weeks.

{Katie will do it}

GV: Use combo of Wendy's and Paul's Purpose paragraph

Next Meeting:

Thursday, June 7th, 2001 @ the usual time. (20 hours UTC (+1-617-252-1038))

$Katie Haritos-Shea 06-02-2001$