11 October 2001 Minutes WCAG WG telecon




Summary of discussion

I hope this accurately summarizes what we agreed on as we went along. Please advise.


Conformance collection


CS Abitliy to mark which comply with. Assert minimal level, plus these three things.

WC A, AA or just a minimal level?

CS Like fluid. Less concerned with level. Really like idea of metadata.

JW Minimal level, beyond that identify checkpoints.

AS, LRG Like it.

JW 2 propositions:

CS Make human readable.

WC Right, use WART. What is the affect on other things? Simplify ATAG conformance? no more relative checkpoints?

CS Tools then generate conformance claim.

JW Have to have by CR period.

WC Less likely if not as easy as putting logo on site?

CS Don't get rid of logo. Logo for humans. Could just use the logo, doesn't enable searching and filtering.

JW What would the logo link to?

CS Something a lot like a privacy statement. Human readable form of conformance assertion.

WC +, +#?

CS Accept whatever.

ASW Plus, plus number might be hard to maintain.

JB Multiple layers of normative?

WC A, AA, A+, AA+. in 1.0 65 checkpoints, 2.0 only about 20.

JB A+7 does concern me, difficult to maintain. Also don't know what you're getting.

JW CS's proposal, minimal level. Everything beyond be identified in conformance claim.

JB It confuses the picture. Public reaction to privacy statements is fairly negative. Too complex. Too difficult to understand.

WC Claim conformance to technology-specifics?

CS Keep it simpler. Hope that accessibility claims be less legalese than privacy. But, same reasons might apply. Could just be "WCAG 2.0" further info in metadata. If tools done well, few humans have to read.

JW RDF statements should be the primary way of claiming conformance. Beyond core level, checkpoint identified individually. May or may not use diff scheme for human-readable.

WC HTML and CSS logos, just say "HTML". but they don't have minimum requirements. With only 20 checkpoints, can we really divide them up? Real choices come in implementation at technology-level.

CS The things we can't test for, that might not be normative, be good to have a way to say that.

WC non-normative is a different issue.

JW Any problems with one way to claim conformance - checkpoint by checkpoint RDF claim? if basic core level has been met?

TL Not fond of A+7. Plus should link to page with what those are. The place to put it, is in metadata. If logo involved, spit out metadata.

WC Don't think we can agree on how many levels, but at least minimal level.

ASW Can at least agree on minimal level.

LRG Concerned about informative vs normative.

JW Criteria to decide if checkpoint in core or not.

CS Why decide on WCAG 1.0 scheme and what is wrong with it?

JW The guidelines were about accessibility so the criteria of priority level and conformance based on how accessible the content was. This based on impact on satisfying or not the checkpoints for identifiable groups of users. Decided on 3 layer distinction.

CS GV's argument, is that severe combinations of disability disrupt this scheme. Also, idea of reasonableness. Difficulty for the author factored into the priority scheme.

WC Possible thing, but increases complexity, would be to have user priorities at guideline/checkpoint leve, but author, although heavily biased towards users, at technology level.

JW Already have a consensus item that difficulty not taken into account since what is difficult for one person is not for another.

CS Example of advertising. Don't know the answer. Gets into difficulty.

JB Yet another animal. In that case, it is completely possible to make the distracting in the ad go away. Important to try to hold on to clear set of factors. Technical feasibility is important. The content provider may have context in which they are not able to claim AA or A. Therefore, shouldn't say they are. If they have to use things which make a site inaccessible, then say "i can't make it accessible due to constraints."

CS I was thinking, that if they complied with some checkpoints, but didn't meet min. criteria, they can claim conformance with some checkpoints. If distraction ends up in minimal set, is there a way for the author to say, "this particular checkpoint is not applicable...i thought about, made progress..." not technical feasibility but other feasibility.

JB That's naming another factor - perhaps contextual feasibility.


CS Useful in our conformance reporting, a way to say "I don't comply with this and here is why."

JB Would that mean that somebody show up with A conformance and metadata say fine print subtraction? Or show up with no overall conformance level.

CS My guess, no conformance level. Not logo compliant. Things they had done would show up in searches for things they had done.

JW Under assumption that what they don't conform w/is not in core. 2 options as I outline in my mail:

We're tending towards the 2nd.

CS Makes metadata more useful. Tools for policy decisions w/out creating policy.

JW Write exceptions in conformance claims rather than in guidelines/checkpoints.

ASW Have to put in metadata of checkpoints we don't meet? Not sure how to do on 8,000 pages.

CS Not do on existing pages. Have to do a site level way to do it. If assert this page conforms but doesn't conform w/2.5, there is a way to express.

ASW Something allowed but not required. Unrealistic that people would do, unless required.

CS May be true, but couple situations where they might. Not likely to apply to legacy content. If get tools to generate metadata when generate content, more likely to happen. If convince search engine to incorporate, then people will use if help them appear in searches.

WC Think more likely people do A+ rather than less than minimal. People want to brag.

CS Yes, minimal less likely, but should still be possible.

Action WC: Make sure this is possible in EARL.

JW How decide in core or not.

CS 3 axes:

WC by disability - part of consensus statements under discussion. issues: discrimination, but also help prioritize for audience.

CS Informative rather than normative.

JB Agreed

JW Impact. GV might propose new definition to impact-based consensus statements.

WC Modularization proposal - conformance but not priority.

JW C4 - should not be able to claim conformance by disability. Exclude modularization proposal.

WC Not my understanding that it got rid of modularization. That was more about functionality in some aspects.

LRG What was the modularization proposal?

JW Device and modality independence should be separated from either comprehension or navigation/interaction or all three be separate. Minimum: what we have in 1 and 4 be device and modality independence and what we have in 2 and 3 be treated together or as 2 modules.

CS An interesting idea. Concerned that we have so many different axes. Might make more sense to do modularization than priority.

JB Advantage?

CS Simplified conformance claim over having A, AA, AAA.

JB Help designer, how does it help the user?

CS Depends on how you define user group. Tools could be used to help get preferred content. More plug-ins a burden? If install some software, installing more an issue?

JB Invariably, yes. When pay high dollars for screen reader, often run out of prepaid installations. They can't get the next upgrade version. Current version may not accomodate the plug-ins. Problem with all assistive technologies (eye-gaze, screen magnification, etc). WCAG can't ignore challenges on UA end of the picture.

JW If more modules, could have separate conformance claim for each. Human readable conformance claim.

CS Use smaller words than "device independence."

JW GV had some fundamental objections to modularization proposals. Primarily, interaction among the modules. Distinction between normative/informative would tend to sort out the problems with cognition than modularization.

CS Good point.

LRG Agree with 2nd point. When we get down to developing success criteria, these may sort themselves out.

JB Pressure put on cognitive strategies, when get down to it, be sent off to further research.

JW Even if had good success criteria, still have issue with impact.

WC Agree, research. WWAAC developing a tool.

JW Deal with those checkpoints and come back to how this affects priorities.

WC Finish up last conformance statement - C5/C6 re: impact of user. But - guess that is the question we are answering and realize we need to work through sticky success criteria first.

JW Use an impact based criteria to try to classify checkpoints to implement conformance ideas.

CS Not sure if best way. Get consensus on the criteria for priority then apply.

WC Not convinced that we need priorities. In 1.0 we had 65 checkpoints. We only have 22 now.

JB 22 is still a big number.

WC Kynn used to say 7+/-2. So, sure, we could do that.

CS KB talks of a policy toolkit. People create their own groupings. W3C thinks I need to do these 10, but my org decided we only do these 5.

JB Concerned that anything that encourages fragmentation in what is accessible. We do work to encourage authoring tool developers to implement a minimum/core checkpoints. Lose critical mass for software developers.

CS Don't think it gets in the way of doing that, but gives you more of an ability to assert what you've done. W3C say, "we want these X things." Seems that w/508 and some companies that develop own standards is that they are kind of using the guidelines but rewriting, rearranging, etc. Seems that the assertions would let you say, "I do what the W3C suggests," "I'm 1/2 way to what W3C says," etc.

JB That encourages fragmentation. Lose critical mass to push authoring tool developers. Thought 2.0 working on more easily implementable package. My impression is that the group has not failed at producing something that would be more readily adoptable. That type of strategy be a fallback.

CS Not incompatible. Providing markup language prevents policy.

JB We're not a policy organization.

CS Seems that there are 2 tasks before us:

this is what calling a "policy toolkit" - might be misquoting Kynn. Might be useful to let organizations set their own staging rather than set priority levels.

JW Issue: whether define a core? If so, what basis. One possibility, let the content developer decide what to do first and in what order.

JB This WG has a great deal of value that you can add to define what a core is. What the group did for 1.0, while not perfect, was a huge contribution to the field. Hope you can do that again. If you can define a core priority set it will be huge value added to the field.

JW Need further discussion to decide what goes in core or non-core.

WC Initial stab?

JW Believe GV is going to. If not, then I might attempt. I can put forward a list of the ideas that have been circulated.

$Date: 2001/10/11 21:46:42 $ Wendy Chisholm