06 Jun 2002 - WCAG WG Teleconference Minutes


Avi Arditti, JohnSlatin, Wendy, Eugenia Slaydon, Jason White, Lisa Seeman, Lee Roberts, Bengt Farre, Gregg Vanderheiden, Ben Caldwell, Andi Snow-Weaver, Paul Bohman, Loretta Guarino Reid


Matt May, Cynthia Shelly


We discussed 4.1 for quite a while. GV will propose new wording to the list this week.

GV and BC will be busy until next Tuesday preparing for a major Trace-related event, so the earliest we'll get the updated internal draft will be later next week. in the meantime, Wendy will update the issues list and make some edits to the source and Jason will chase up the wording for some of the checkpoints in Guideline 5.

Action Items

Checkpoint 4.1

LS I didn't see a new draft coming and heard rumors about it going to TR thus I got worried.

GV What is going to TR is a snapshot of where we are at this point to give the public an idea of where we are. We want to put it up there every X number of weeks from now on. If you have comments, we could catch them today. Whatever we don't get through, we'll put in a reader note that says we are still trying to figure out various aspects of this issue. No concrete has been set.

JW The W3C TR page is the page that people from the public are likely to go to to find latest drafts. it doesn't set anything permanently. It's not ready for last call. We have a number of issues. Any comments?

LS It's better, but don't have it in front of me. I also have issues with the success criteria. I was not comfortable with the wording or the levels of success criteria. Perhaps there is an assumption in 4.1. When we say "clearly and simple writing" you could get a screen reader and put to level 2. A screen reader won't help a person with autism. Not only think about people with low literacy, but also with perception. Then talking about things that are vital. No other way around it. Author must clarify through markup or rewrite. I think it is all testable. Why was that all left out at level 1.

GV You seem to ask 3 questions. When you ask people to write simply, different groups be written simply and differently. If we want people to do 2 different things, we should have 2 checkpoints. However, thought we had asked people to not change the content. If I have to write it in different ways for different people, that feels like changing the content.

LS It's x-disability and x-checkpoints. We're asking people to write simply and clearly. These separate things can be done at the same time.

GV Do you have a specific suggestion? I don't know of anyone who is comfortable with any wording about this one. It is hard to write something that is a practical thing to ask people to do.

LS An example where catering to one disability excludes another?

GV If I have a paper that describes new paradigm for assistive technology and universal design. Most people don't know what "paradigm" means. I can rewrite so people understand. To rewrite for someone w/an IQ of 40 or 60, could do a shopping site...have to get rid of information as you write for lower and lower IQs. You are eliminating information as you make it easier.

LS For someone that is autistic, it can complement the other accomodations that you are putting in. e.g. you need to say what is implied, you need to be literal, and break things into steps. They do not need to be removed for other users, it is simpler for everyone. You're not losing content, you are clarifying it.

GV I write a paper. For the people it is written for, it works well. I am intending it for all people who work in universal access, not excluding any disabilities. However, if I want to write it for someone who is autistic, first I will have to find out more about what is needed and the paper would become too long for the rest of my audience. If we who spend all of our time in this area and can't do it for our own work, how can we expect others to do it.

JS Are you envisioning (in the case of your paper) that there are people in your audience who have autism? On the list, the trend was toward "write for your intended audience" you can't assume there are people who don't have some of the disabilities in question. However, don't have to make it comprehensible to entire universe of readers.

LS The meaning of what you are trying to express, we can't ask people to change that. I think there is consensus on that. How you present those concepts, you want to think about the skills required to understand those concepts. In your case you require people to have an IQ above a certain level. You have to be able to understand technology. Some forms of autism, there is probably something like semantic pragmatic in your audience. I think you want to look at what the meaning is in your page, and what would exclude people to get at that. You've said, "that's not easy." That's a valid point. Did you take a look at the markup I posted? Many of the tools are already there. People like Boeing are using controlled language. If we can put them together, we could find a way.

GV Level requirement to markup in RDF?

LS Not requiring, but a link to the lexicon. Like a style sheet, link to a lexicon. Then you can cascade lexicon. Second part, is use markup to override lexicon. for example, to mark something as sarcasm. colloquialisms should be in lexicon. However, if literally want to say "go fly a kite" then you should mark that as literal. Renderings can happen at the user end.

GV These are great things. If you can do 2 things:

  1. create a list of different strategies (e.g. cascading lexicons)
  2. (this goes for everyone) identify if this is something that goes into the list of strategies - something to consider or something to require (at at which level)
  3. if it should be required, bring up the item separately from the level of conformance it should be at. sometimes people get stuck on the conformance and the idea (item) gets left out.

LS Let's make a list and don't consider which level they go out, until after we have the list.

JW LS, Jo, and others worked on it earlier this year. GV tried to incorporate as much as possible into the draft. Perhaps someone could go through the archives to make sure that nothing was missed.

LS I've already done that. This week, I sent an email w/things that were left out but that had been brought to the list in the last year. Sent a list of email with pointers to emails.

JW It was a slightly different request. What I haven't seen is someone take the current draft and check it to see if in earlier work that has been left out in the recent draft.

LS That's what I thought I did.

GV /* acknowledges Ben help in the work on the drafts */

JS I remember this past week, the message where Lisa listed the messages and things not incorporated.

Action GV: (with help from ben) create a document that is a master list of ideas related to 4.1. These will have 3 levels: fairly solid, possible (need work), future.

GV If father says "son, do this." son responds "right." however, depending on how he responds, he could mean "wrong." e.g. "riiiiight" = sarcasm.

LS I have an answer for how to do it.

GV When we talked about using class...

WAC We are at one hour, could we try to come to consensus on a way to move forward for this next publication to TR?

GV The 4.1 checkpoint be a rendition of "write as clearly and simply as [appropriate | possible] for content." Not talk about audience. Then no success criteria levels. provide a partial list of ideas and a note about it being under development.

JS Maybe be a bit further and say that the list will be broken out into different conformance levels. Give some indication of what might happen to them.

GV We have a checkpoint...

WAC 3.1 and 3.2 have lists of additional ideas.

GV Say that we will handle like those. Checkpoint text ok?

LS, JS Yes

GV Having no success criteria listed?

no opposed

GV Provide a list of those that we know of that are solid, cause partial?

no opposed

GV For example, see 3.1.

LS Not sure about. We're not sure that's it's final format.

GV We're saying it might be like that. It's just a draft.

LS Change "appropriate" to "possible".

GV Note oK?

no opposed

GV Aside from the word "possible" do we find these are ok to move forward to publication?

no opposed

GV We'll put this out to the list for everyone to read. LS proposed "possible" instead of "appropriate". Only thought, if I am writing a psychics paper, the simplest language possible would be 1st grade but that would not be appropriate.

LS It's not possible to write the meaning of a psychics paper for 1st graders. I can't imagine it's possible.

GV it's college level content therefore can't be written that far down.

LS Right.

GV Since it's a draft, I can live with that. Others?

JS I am not comfortable with it. For the reasons you cited. I can imagine situations where I *could* write more simply than is appropriate. Part of the issue, we're using the word content in several ways. The meaning is not content. The content are the words, images, markup. What that means is not on the page.

GV 2 suggestions:

GV Then, "write as simply as possible for the purpose of the content." If a riddle, let's it be a riddle.

LS That's excellent.

GV If we make that change, can we use possible?

JS probably.

JW Using brackets, is good. Makes it clear we're not sure.

GV Nominate that. Won't hold TR for it.

LS A good time to say what the problems are with the word appropriate?

GV When we get past TR.

Other issues before publishing to TR

WAC note on 1.2 to point to issues list which in turn should point to CS, PB, and my proposal.

JW Also a note on 2.1, since GV and I have an action to rewrite.

WAC move big pieces of notes from 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 to issues list.

Action WAC update issues list, move notes to issues list, link to issues list.

Action JW check with CS on wording for guideline 5 text.

$Date: 2002/06/06 21:36:42 $ Wendy Chisholm