11 April 2002 WCAG WG telecon minutes


General updates

ASW I've almost finished with the mappings between the new WCAG 2.0 and IBM, WCAG 2.0 and 508, WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 1.0. I will send to the list.

Next F2F

WAC please say yes, no or maybe if could make a meeting the week of 15 July in Austria in conjunction with ICCHP conference.

WAC Is anyone's answer is different between the weeks please tell me.

Ben - can't overlap past 20th.

WAC Overall consensus seems to be an issue with money rather than conflict of scheulde, therefore, I will try to make it as inexpensive as possible.

WAC JS - any word on guide dogs visiting UK?

JS Still waiting for answer.

WCAG 2.0 redraft

JW Any comments?

LGR Status of section 5?

GV Still working on.

ASW I will likely have comments once I'm done with the mappings.

GSW Somewhere we need to explain what this means in the real world. Some people may not know that a UA can or can not do a particular thing. It would be updated every few months to let people know what capabilities the browsers have.

JS Is that provided by browser watch?

yes and we should be linking to external info that we know about.

MM I have been thinking about how people could submit this info to us automatically.

PB When is the next draft?

GV Goal was this week, but have more to do. Trying to incorporate stuff from the F2F. Suspect 5-10 days. It is behind schedule but moving forward.

JW A first attempt at the conformance scheme is also in the works.

Issue #68

Related to the current checkpoin 1.2 (in GV's restructuring proposal)

GV "If web content is a real-time broadcast..." Proposal:

  1. try to take live web-time broadcast and characterize in some way. a sporting event (a professional production) from a web cam pointing out a window to see the weather.
  2. minimum and non-minimum. minimum should not be that every one of these apps is required. perhaps if there is that info available you have to post it, but does it need to be generated?

JS If not providing some kind of description, does not conform.

GV If a company says, "our site is accessible" but have a camera out the window and the camera is not on the web site. It has nothing to do with a conformance claim.

CNN news feed over internet needs to be caption and described?

gian yes

john yes

jason policy

asw yes

gv should - yes, needs to be accessible - yes, in our statements - policy

jw doesn't need to be to be accessible?

webcam of old faithful used in classroom. problem with teacher's educational design?

js does the site provide data about the height of the geyser?

gv real-time event, how high did it go today. tell me how high it went today. even if described, might not mention the height.

js static text description is fine, doesn't need real-time updates.

gv for the lesson, would not work since correlating weather and height. the lesson could be made accessible w/out the person w/the disability making the measurement.

radio news program

jw collate text transcript

gv collated? only if multimedia or interactive.

jw text transcript. after the fact.

wac how after the fact? minutes, hours, days?

jw couple of days?

gv it may need to be real-time...

wac but there are other sites...but people have their preferences.

gv equivalent facilitation.

js what if one of our new media conglomorates one is a print-out, another is radio, 3rd is tv adn they all have web sites and drawing on the same sources. The radio does live audio broadcast, ...

GSW They are separate they should be.

gv if one plays the audio from the video and get the feeds...

gsw as long as there were links between them.

gv text descriptions also there...

jw in the earlier example, in providing a description and caption, generally the author provides enough info for the person reading it to understand what the author intended. might not be available in captions or description.

gv also idea of static description of geyser that gave you (along w/sound) all of the info - info of stereotypic event, raises the question of ... if a multisensory presentaiton that each sensory track must be presentable in the other senses...whether they need to be synchronized is available before or at the same time as the audio, or synch if timing is important. doesn't say everything has to be synch only when there is a reason.

wac how do we define when it is important?

gv when necessary...

wac for a success criterion, define necessary.

gv i can't think of a way around use of "sensory" but in a multi-sensory presentation, all of the information along any sensory track needs to be available in a fashion that can be presented using other senses. these alternative need to be synchronized w/the standard presentaiton whenever synch needed for comprehension, when the info from the diff senses (auiod/video) presented at same time to understand relationship to each other b. some type of interaction is required so the indie needs to carry out an action in specific point in timed presentation c. if static presentation of the alternative, needs to be prior or simulataneous to timed presentation.

action gv: clean up this language and send to the list.

js only describe things not inferred from the sound track.

gv right, it says "all significant visual info" what you said makes more sense.

LGR accomodate deaf-blind?

gv yes b/c the sound track also has to be in text. but we have to be careful. all that is common to both disappears.

/* reads current success criteria */

JS can you say "weren't available so can't do them?"

gv this gets back to "are we trying to say is this accessible or they should be forced to make them accessible" what is above or below the line...it has to be here someplace. if not provided, not accessible.

jw an argument on the list last week was that policy considerations regarding accessibilty should not be used to influence technical requirements. guidelines define what needs to be done to make something accessible not under what circumstances something has to be accessible.

gv minimum and beyond get into that. otherwise everything be in the minimum. the whole list is definition of accessible, but to conform...wheelchair ramps - to be accessible can't have any slope of any kind, and in U.S. the number is 1:12 and some people can not get up that. There is a level that says "do at least this much."

GSW A is like having wheelchair access around the back of the building, but AAA is a ramp to the front door.

gv a ramp to the front door is not accessible to many people in wheelchairs b/c they can not get up that ramp. therefore, is that bldg accessible if there is a slope that people can not get up?

gsw you could have a mechanical thing to lift people up. A - people get to the info, but takes a while. AAA - easy to access.

gv accessible vs efficiently accessible. how to deal with ramps to front door?

gsw perhaps AA?

gv A something that not everyone can do.

gsw accessibility is that everyone could do it - eventually they could get there but could take a while.

gv i understand that point, but if there is anyone who can not access a web page then it is not accessible. then all web pages have to be usable by someone who is deaf, blind, and retarded. if we decide accessibility will not have any limits then i am not sure how to do that.

jw in the proposal that i've been working on, the first level in the conformance scheme is that it removes significant barriers to accessibility along the dimension of the checkpoint, but there may be people who still can not access it even if this minimum is met. The next level will increase the range of people who can access it as far as one chooses to go. for those who can access already (since minimum met) then it will become easier for them.

gv the goal of complete accessibility is that you get all the way down the list. to rewrite simply - you rewrite, picture it, do other things to present things to people with difficulty processing.

$Date: 2002/04/11 21:40:08 $ Wendy Chisholm