13 Jun 2002 - WCAG WG Teleconference Minutes


lee, john, chris o'kennan, ben, gregg, eugenia, andi, jason, bengt, paul. wendy, loretta, cynthia


Action Items

Checkpoint 1.2 success criteria

PB CS, WAC, and I discussed real-time audio and video, equivalents for multimedia, and interactivity. PB goes through the proposal.

JS The test is in whether the user understands what the author meant and how can you tell?

PB summarizes the criteria: audio description, dialog and sounds captions, descriptions and captions are synchronized, if real-time real-time provided (with exceptions), if real-time...missed the end of it.

ASW #6: if the web content is not time-sensitive, does this checkpoint even apply?

GV Time sensitive and time dependent are different?

PB Yes. Time-dependent - something that happens in a sequence (e.g. and audio stream). Time-sensitive - must be understood and known at time of broadcast.

WAC coverage of carnival versus need to prepare for emergency (e.g. storm or other situation).

GV If not time-sensitive but not interactive, transcript sufficient.

PB Interactivity requires specific attention. The important part for this is syncrhonized equiv with

GV If this then...transcript is sufficient #6 is more of an exception than a success criteria.

JW Lots of issues with wording.

GV hard to do some of these. not sure all can be minimum level.

WAC We can have exceptions for things, like the FCC suggests. They have clear list of when to apply or not.

PB We're getting into regulatory language (as opposed to guidelines). Where to draw the line? If you want to have an accessible advertisement, then you could refer to these guidelines and not just look at the exceptions.

GV This is a line we decided to cross a while ago. We decided that you either have to have levels of accessibility - this is what we think is basic - or define what accessibility means. If you do that, then every checkpoint and every level has to be done. Always someone who couldn't use it.

PB It's not that I disagree (level 3 is necessary for some people). My preference would be not to include...it's the type of exceptions we're laying out. Certain type of people don't have to do it. Rather than levels themselves. Like to see, "here's how to make the real-time audio accessible.." not draw the line on who does or doesn' t have to do. Then people can say, "we conform everywhere but here."

GV According to minimum criteria they can say they conform. People would have to make up separate set. If we write in a way that people can't use them...if they can't refer to they will create their own.

WAC I still like the idea of a menu. Suggest a few profiles. Can we really write something that will work for every government and every organization who wants to have an accessibility policy? If 508 had selected an exact subset of WCAG, would that have been such a bad thing (i.e. instead of taking a subset and changing it, quoting a subset).

JW Reworking would be a good idea.

GV I agree that it shouldn't matter who is generating the content, but the nature of the content is important. Levels: the top-level would be mandated would be mandated if it doesn't go too far. Important for consumers have to be in minimum level rather than putting everything in there.

PB The one that bothers me most is advertisement part. Everything central to site content...from broadcaster, depending on perspective, advertisement not central to programming...although for broadcaster it is.

GV I have a problem with leaving the ads off...if it's a way to learn about products, then everyone should be able to get that info.

CS Line between content and advertising is much softer.

PB Keep a phrase about advertising?

GV I would drop the ads less than 5 minutes, or change to "completely different than what the content is."

PB If the ad is central to the content, it would need to be accessible.

GV Different materials might be treated differently depending on the importance to the user.

CS Ads can make whole page inaccessible if done not accessibly. Content and ad are more mixed together than on TV.

JW In other places, distinguish based on technical features. Here based on what the content amounts to, its purpose, and the social function it serves.

CS Anyone object to deleting bullet about ads from #4. Best way is outreach rather than putting in guidelines.

/* discussion of rebroadcast. Proposal suggested. Refer to issue #647 accessible rebroadcasts. */

PB currently #6 becomes exception under 3?

CS delete the word "sufficient?"

GV word "not" needs to be added to 6. #4 - is primarily textual means? suggest we drop it. would not need to be captioned...already not covered don't need to except it here. someone who can read captions, can read it.

PB no where do we require that the text of captions be in format accessible to a screen reader. for someone who can hear, not an issue, but a deaf-blind issue.

GV If deaf-blind, no reason to synchronize unless interaction.

PB Right, that's what I'm thinking about.

JW Defined text somewhere so that it means machine-readable.

GV Yep, it's there. How word #5?

PB we still don't have a solution for interactive for deaf-blind.

GV or emergency info. If the functionality can not be provided in text

level #3, #1 - "text 'script'"

/* discussion of what sort of file this needs to be */

JW we were going to add a checkpoint that make it clear that when we mean text is provided, it needs to be provided in some standard charcter set. here, we could refer to that elsewhere in the guidelines.

LGR saw it at one point, but not sure where it went.

JW Issue about where it goes. Rework of guideline 1, it fits there.

/* discussion of text. opening issue 649 and assigning to Ben and Gregg */

Action WAC: ask the I18N group to fill out: "text must map back to whatever the I18N group says"

GV umlout maps back to U.

JW Unicode contains those.

LGR It's overflowing 16 bits right now.

PB Have we closed problem with interactive time sensitive stuff? Can a refreshable braille handle streams of text?

JW Should exclude real-time.

Open Issue #650: Is there a way to allow individuals who are deaf-blind to perceive and keep up with accessible presentation of a real-time or interactive presentation?

JW stop the presentation?

JS Was in 1.0.

PB That is partially a UAAG issue and partly WCAG.

GV There is the ability to freeze things, but not play things at slower speed (author can't do) has to be UA.

PB It is a UA issue but the author can provide controls or not. If embed media players, can choose to embed controls.

CS You can embed an activeX control.

GV I Have players that argue...

CS It depends on how you do it. If you embed the player rather than a file. If you click a link, the system figures out what player to choose. if embed player, can download on the fly or points to piece of software.

GV Do not have a guideline that says pause...

WAC Think this relates to guideline 5.

GV There is checkpoint "...allow users to control..."

CS Feels more like a technique.

Open issue: where do we create a requirement that presentations be pausable and backable?

CS Not if it is streamed.

GV Can in Tvio.


2 features: dump of everything, search


$Date: 2002/06/16 00:18:22 $ wendy chisholm