4 April 2002 WCAG WG telecon



Summary of action items and resolutions

R1 Consensus item

GV Proposal:

R1: WCAG 2.0 deliverables should be more understandable and usable by a wider audience than was anticipated for WCAG 1.0, including policy makers. While the WCAG WG does not set policy, harmonization of accessibility requirements helps drive demand for supporting implementations in Web applications; therefore WCAG 2.0 should be readily understandable, reference-able, and/or adoptable by policy makers who wish to increase harmonization of Web accessibility requirements

JS proposed rewording:

It should be easy for policy makers and individuals responsible for implementing policy to understand, cite, and adopt WCAG 2.0 and related deliverables.

/* no comments */

WAC Process reminder. We came close to posting this to the Technical Reports page of the W3C. This means it gets wider circulation. This point held us from moving forward. If everyone is ok with this, we will publish to TR.

GV I'll post, we'll let it sit for a week. We'll update the Requirements doc and ask people to look at this in context. If looks good, we'll pass to Judy and then process to TR.

Action GV: Post updated language for R1 based on today's discussion and update Requirements document.

Proposal for reorganized WCAG 2.0

GV Any comments?



GV (summary of discussion from F2F) Layers of conformance per checkpoint. Some checkpoints are binary but other are more continuous. There are some things you can do on all sites, some things you can't. It might depend on the type of site. Not clear how this will all work, but that is the general idea.

JS There is something appealing about multiple levels. An org can set targets and phased-in implementations.

MMi We start with WCAG Level AA. There are several we want to comply to, but others we can't. Therefore can't claim AA. Levels are being used, but as sign posts but we won't say "we'll get to this one now" we are using them but not in the way described. difficult to know what form will suit everyone.

GV We have a consensus item that says "there should be a minimum." Also, we need a way to report the conformance claim. Ability to claim what you have done beyond the minimum. It would be useful to be able to do it. Someone could say, "Level A on all, but on 9 out of 10 I got AA, here's the things that I did."

KHS It's good.

MMi If you comply to X, Y, Z you get A. If you do more, you get AA. Are we talking about individual guideline and quoting level of compliance to that guideline?

GV Yes that's the idea but it has not been adopted.

WAC Clarification "9 out of 10" you mean pages or checkpoints?

GV I meant checkpoint, but it could apply to pages as well.

WAC Have thought a lot about in ERT WG. For info on EARL.

AP A, AA, AAA it might be helpful to introduce new terminology. Previously, # of checkpoints you met. If you do within checkpoint if a minimum bar, use something new to refer to that.

GV Good point. Suggestions?

LGR Will there be a layer beyond minimum that we will define?

GV don't know. I've heard people (particularly policy folks) say that it's useful to have a guidance from a goup like ours (we who have expertise) - what is more important?

WAC Idea of profiles - e.g. education vs ecommerce.

ASW Our checklist is similar to this - with minimums and then further things that are recommended. We don't prioritize between minimums. Do you have the resource to prioritize at that level.

GV Let's try to order them and see what it looks like. If they fall into layers, great, if not likely a mistake to force them into something artificial.

ASW If people can't get to next level, not motivated to anything.

GV If are layers, people always able to report granular.

MMi If the min set requires looking at every checkpoint in some way, might be less likely to do. P1 in WCAG 1.0 are relatively short list. Don't want lots of checkpoints, wants small list to start with.

KHS They need to look at it, or won't know what to do.

AP Look at it could be daunting.

MMi Definitely look at, but it's not one group of people. There are some people that have to look at them all, but when give to people to do, they don't want to see a larger set than what they have to deal with.

GV In 1.0 there were 65 checkpoints, in 2.0 there are 20.

MMi then each probably has more work than the 65?

GV 65 had lots of techniques. Techniques will tell you how to accomplish.

MMi less to accomplish?

ASW To some extent, yes b/c the technology has improved.

MMi if less to achieve, then are we concerned about people using older techs?

GV Yes, continues to be an issue. Particularly in section 5.

LGR Really less to do? I thought more.

MMi Might be fewer checkpoints, but overall same amount of work. I've never had problem placing lots of checkpoints to some people, ok. But placed in front of people who have to do the work, more of an issue.

CS People can filter that list. It doesn't say who has to do them.

GV It does mean that if we say "do X" if they filter out one, they could get no compliance listing.

MMi could be rough on a company who is doing their best but happen not to have done one of the checkpoints in any form.

GV If you look underneath it, see the level, we did all of the obvious things and easy to do in this category. Then do that. But if that's a weak test, don't put it in the minimum set which is worse. Perhaps get all 20 points in front of the designer if they look at it.

MMi I don't mean to be cynical, in some corporations you ask people to take a look, often things need to be spelled out. What is obvious is not.

GV If the alternative is that you take the checklist off,

WAC We're discussing hypothetical situations about a proposal that isn't concrete yet, perhaps MMi when we have something you take it to the developers to get a reaction?

CS See this in other organizations as well.

JS Do we believe that all of the checkpoints apply to all web resources.

CS No. my opinion. There are not techniques for every technology for every checkpoint. Some are not applicable in some technologies.

JS Therefore, we're not asking people to do every checkpoint, but they have to ask themselves, "is it applicable to my situation."

GV Right, it would pass. If it does X, it must do Y. If it doesn't do X, it passes. However, if impossible to do in the technology, then it fails.

CS gif example - can't embed text equiv into gif, but combo of html and gif you can make accessible.

GV gif fails, but page passes.

Action items from last few meetings

/* summary of work going on */

#8 from issues list

GV Several that we are tracking on the old version. Are they things we can get rid of? I think this makes no sense in terms of what we are doing. It would have to be reasked in terms of what is being proposed for conformance. Overcome by events.

CS 2nd

resolved: #8 closed

#9 audio descriptions

GV The way we have structured, it is clear what is being asked. Theoretically it is possible, but is not today. The SR would not know when it is safe to talk.

MMi When it appears, but that's not when it should.

resolved: #9 closed


WAC No mechanism to do it, although would like to do.

Resolved: issue 22 - move to techniques issues list.


Resolved: move issue 27 to techniques issues list


WAC If easier to test, more likely to be accessible. Side benefit of following other checkpoints.

Resolved: 33 closed - overcome by events.


GV Need to reword so that does not refer to older versions, e.g. "transform gracefully".

Resolved: Updated wording of issue 38


JS Do existing technologies support?

GV SMIL, mpeg, current lagnuage is:

Checkpoint 1.2 Provide synchronized media equivalents for time-dependent presentations.

GV The question is, do we want to change it to "multimedia and time-based interactive." or we could have it stay this way, and have the language be a lower priority (beyond minimal requirement). That would capture the idea but not necessary for today.

Action GV: propose wording for issue #41


Action WAC: what is allowable for a W3C recommendation in terms of visual and audio presentations?


GV no longer use this wording.

Resolved: 57 closed - overcome by events.


GV Provide multiple me

resolved: left open.


GV A subset of 50.

WAC made clear by putting "informative" in headings

Resolved: 63 closed.


GV Tolerance is no longer in here, so we can get rid of this one.

Resolved. 67 closed.