24 January 2002 WCAG WG minutes



Requirements document

Jo Miller's review.

JM proposes "Each requirement must be verifiable"

GV Easiest fix.

Resolved: "Each requirement must be verifiable"

JW Doesn't cover most recent discussions.

JM asks why include, "innovative, internationalized"

WAC to highlight accessible can be innovative and internationalized

Resolved: no changes

JM proposes, "WCAG 2.0 will clearly identify who will benefit from each requirement"

Resolved: change to "WCAG 2.0 will clearly identify who will benefit from each requirement"

JM A1, A2, A3 are shorthand, can we make them clearer?

A1 - Cannot make products accessible to all

GV There are always going to be people who will not be able to use something. We can't create guidelines that will be so inclusive that they will include everyone including someone who is blind, deaf, severely retarded, and has a particular kind of cerebral palsey. Can you make it longer? If it's a consensus item, we have to change it as a group.

JM is it trying to say that the requirements acknowledge that accessibility to all users is not possible.

GV Proposal, "The group acknowledges..." difference between our assumptions and what wording will be included in the guidelines. "The group acknowledges that accessibility to absolutely all users is not possible."

LS Could we also say, "the aim is more to make your site accessible to as many people as possible."

JM That's A3

GV Yes, the 3 go together.

JM In A2, get rid of "how to draw the line?" have we agreed that we will draw a line? we've agreed to strive to make things as accessible as possible to as many people as possible.

GV We do have to draw a line about what is in or not in the guidelines. Propose, "how do we decide what gets into the guidelines?"

JM Do we want to ask a question.

GV A2 "our target is to make things to as many people as possible given the need to have practical techinques and criteria." A3 We will expend our best efforts to identify techniques, criteria and examples that would cover the greatest range possible . Combine A2 and A3?

JM Good point.

LGR Put them all together.

LS You have to have practical verification of success, it is a concern b/c there is a lot you can do that is hard to test. Does that mean we shouldn't include that?

GV This is not discussing testability, this is talking about techniques.

LS We've discussed and the consensus is clearly that we need criteria.

Resolved: a1-a3 will become a1 as proposed.

Graham Oliver's review.

WAC 1 and 2 from Graham: 1 is covered by edits in response to JM's issue. site - is under our control. I don't see this as being an issue.

GV "site could be confusing." propose "examples" instead of "example sites."

GSW needs to be more than one page.

WAC Example sub-site.

JW example content, leave it open ended.

JM Right. Page sets.

Resolved: sample content

N3 - normative is determined by objectiveness -- ease of establishing consensus on fulfillment

WAC GO doesn't like the use of the word "objective" since it is a subjective term.

JW We recently discussed to focus on testability rather than objective. This doesn't reflect it yet.

LRG What if we got rid of the word "objective" and just said, "normative is determined by ease of establishing consensus on fulfillment"

WAC Think it confuses the ideas regarding testability. I would suggest deleting.

GV It could be deleted. We've gone beyond it in the other items that follow. When we want to remove one what do we do?

WAC C6 similar, "[Deleted during consolidation.]"

ES If you delete N3 where you say "determined" then how are they determined?

JM comes from n5

AP the way that I read N5 is that testability is a requirement. Things that are normative are testable.

GV Don't want to define normative.

AP Yes, I want a definition of normative.

WAC We could link to one.

Resolved: delete N3 replace with [Deleted during consolidation.]

G1 - Our document should be written as clearly and simply as is appropriate for the content, with links to definitions. We should go with the clearest and simplest language that someone can propose as long as it is accurate.

JW GO disagrees b/c of how we have defined our audience.

GV He said it should either say "written as clearly and simply" or "appropriate for the audience" rather than content.

WAC fine w/that. Our audience is defined in #4.

JW Rather not change it, it reflects what we've agreed to.

JM Is there anyone who shares the concern?

[no comments]

JM AG asked if we can rephrase s1

S1 - serving content in different forms is an acceptable way to comply with the guidelines as long as equivalents for all of the information are provided in the different forms and it is all available through the same URI (though it may be linked to it) (server side solutions are acceptable - as specified)

GV Believe he raised this due to recent discussions, however, it clearly states that server-side solutions are acceptable. "serving content in different forms to different users is an acceptable forms..."

LGR Break into 2 sentences?

JM Agreed.

LGR serving content in different forms is an acceptable way to comply with the guidelines. equivalents for all of the information are provided in the different forms and it is all available through the same URI

GV They are tied together since both need to be there.

PB Rather than saying "for diff users" more accurate to say "in order to acc. diff user needs and/or prefs..."

JM Yes. Same user in different situations.

GV Agreed. "serving content in diff forms in order to meet user needs or preferences is an acceptable way to comply w/the guidelines as long as...and it is all available from the same URI. linking to alternate forms is allowed. "

LS Maybe that you should have to put the link before any inaccessible elements?

JM Agreed. Not something to clarify in requirements, but in guidelines and techniques.

GV "accessible, findable links is allowed..." then we can explain findable in the guidelines. We'll make these changes, let the list know it will be published, and go forward. Does the WG want to review it again?

JW post edit and let people comment. if no major objections publish.

GV Only want comments on the changes, therefore only post those.

Resoved: make changes, post, and hopefully kiss next week to publish by the end of next week.

active participants

GV Any comments on what went out today?

/* GV reads through mail sent today */

GV overall comments? proceed to put the list up (of contributors). if there is someone who can't come to the mtg but want to work on that you contact the chairs. we can give you work assignments.

LGR It is good, particularly alternative ways to participate.

JM Good. Helpful to know to contact you when things are changing. No reference to the black satin jackets.

GV Any concerns of putting up a list of contributors? Concern that some contribute more than others, but all on the same list. If someone really wants to put in effort, we will provide a mechanism if they contact us. I'll post a list of people. I know I will miss someone.

checkpoint success criteria for 3.3

JW Thanks and congratulations for all of you who finished all of your action items. Would it be possible to rewrite them in a concise clear way similar to the other checkpoints?

JM WAC did a bit of that in her response.

GV Saying that it should be done on all pages?

LS where it is instructional, it is extremely important, where selling something less important.

GV Moving them into criteria language, you have to do every one. If it doesn't always have to be done, the exceptions have to be stated in the item.

LS I tried to specify instructions slightly differently, I feel that instruction is a big plus for the web. where there isn't any direct instruction involved, there are things that are less intense. e.g. having only one action clause per sentence makes sense in instructions, but too strict in non-instructional text. (scribe note: lisa is hard to hear. this might not be the best capture of what she said)

JM If we have a criterion that is content specific, e.g. "use only one main clause in instructions" should that go in techniques if only to a specific subset of content?

LS I don't think so.

WAC UAAG and ATAG do something similar. e.g. UAAG has requirements for checkpoints and the checkpoint might apply differently to a media player than a text browser. JW and I discussed something like this this November.

JW Some of what LS includes apply to 3.4 instead of 3.3. The action would be to separate that out.

WAC I took the 3.4 action last week. Still have work to do. In reading LS's realized some was for 3.4. Will include those bits in my write-up. Look forward to what LS does with rewrite on 3.3.

LS Might not get to this week.

LGR Volunteers to work with LS on 3.3.

Action LGR and LS will work on LS's initial comments on 3.3 to write them in language that is more testable.

GV If we can get the content to be as good as we can, but "how to structure so that everything falls off the talbe except things that meet all of our tests." there is so much in here for everyone to look at and keep in mind, even if we can't everyone to do all of them. Would be great if we all had a card taht we could keep with us as we review these things.

Action JW will draft a list of items to think about when drafting sucess criteria

GV I can work with you. Want to write a short and sweet set of bullets. Let's look back at consensus items as we write these.

$Date: 2002/01/24 22:47:04 $ Wendy Chisholm