Jason White, Avi Arditti, Matt May, Loretta Guarino Reid, Wendy Chisholm, Cynthia Shelly, Eugenia Slaydon, Chris O'Kennon, Gregg Vanderheiden, Ben Caldwell, Lisa Seeman
John Slatin, Gian Sampson Wild, Lee Roberts, Roberto Scano, Marco Trevisan
Refer to these messages:
GV The goal was to be a general set for benchmark criteria. If it didn't apply to all sites, then not web site accessibility guidelines then "content guidelines for the following kinds of sites..." As you go deeper into the levels, come to these for guidance on anything, including tuning your site.
LS Things that don't need to be done on each site, but... "not every site has graphics, thus not every site needs an alt-tag, but those w/them need to use them. those with semantic meaning need to have alt-tag."
GV Can do that in wording. "all graphics that pass the following tests..." there is some non-text content that we can't have text equivalents for. if it doesn't apply, the worded in a way that people understand "comply by default."
GV My 1st post talked about success criteria and levels 1 and 2 were meant for all types of sites.
Resolved: we have consensus on the first post and will add to the Appendix of the requirements doc.
LS "Should not require tech expertise" - a pandora's box.
GV There are lots of schools and places that have Web sites. If we require hand-coding in order to comply then it could be impossible for people to code using tools. They could use nothing about the accessibility unless they learned HTML.
CS Most people can learn HTML in an afternoon.
/* lots of discussion - support and dissent */
LGR Difference between adding paragraph elements vs marking up tables.
MM Also, matter of doing it right.
LS Therefore, only can do if there are tools. Not sure that the tools exist thus people never get to level 2. Are we making guidelines or policy? The point of the levels is to help policy makers and other decide what they want to implement. This is a stumbling block to promoting accessibility. It's level 1 and requires tools.
CS in the way that we don't rely on current state of technologies, shouldn't rely on tools.
GV What if something in Level 1 that requires an artistic skill or something.
WAC We need to remind ourselves that we are describing what makes accessible content. ATAG relies on WCAG to describe what the characteristics of content that make it accessible not how to create it. We need to remind ourselves of our focus and scope.
JW agreed.
LS There will always be people who can't do something that doesn't mean it can't be done.
GV Agreement that we need to do something on the wording. Any suggestions?
LS Let's get rid of that requirement.
JW Delete it.
BC What about "extraordinary technical expertise?"
GV If later we are doing something along those lines we can capture it later and add it.
Resolved: this statement is gone.
CS There is a similar requirement in level 2.
GV "without great burden" that meant...it could be a barrier to generate a site translated into all other languages. it's possible to do, but a great burden.
LS it might be a great burden to do some things, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't recommend it
JW There is a different way to go: eliminate "great burden" and base level 2 have met objective test, in level 2 improve quality and completeness, in level 3 extra fine-tuning steps to make it accessible on more dimensions.
GV If so, then can never introduce new ideas at level 2 or 3. It will always be a better implementation than at level 1.
JW It doesn't have to be the same thing, just something that better addresses the problem. It doesn't have to extend something listed at level 1.
GV Do you have wording for that? You said remove "great burden" and only leaves "achievable."
JW I'm not sure the new suggestion will work, but it's something to consider. The idea is that it meets a higher standard of accessibility of the issues identified by the checkpoint.
GV A criteria or rationale?
LS A scenario: sometimes people haven't got all of the downloads that they could have. A criterion might not reach level 1 - a user could download a free screen reader rather than using magnification software. At level 2 putting less responsibility on the user as to which scenario they've created. We're not asking them to buy software over $1,000 but we would expect them to upgrade.
GV Criteria or guidance?
LS Could go in criteria.
GV But that means, whatever that is not true for cannot be at level 2.
LGR Some way to access the content (at level 1).
LS It might not be the way of their choice.
LGR What does that translate into in a technical sense.
LS Like a minimum baseline. For level 1 - users would be barred from it. If these aren't done, people can't access the info. At level 2 can't access at scenario of their choice. I'm thinking of navigation buttons w/pictures. The alt-tag will have that info but hard to get to with a magnifier. People prefer to use magnifier than screen reader. It's not level 1 since you can access the info, but level 2 because it is not the scenario of the user's choice.
JW We don't draw that distinction in setting the levels. Plus, the driving concept between 1 and 2, is that in 1 we have addressed the issue in the checkpoint. Level 2 you are improving the quality with which you address the issue. Three adds even more. It doesn't give us sharp thresholds but those is the underlying concepts.
/* more discussion on this */
JW between 1 and 2 do we have anything clearer to say that we haven't said? 1 will be required to make something minimally conformant and that every checkpoint will have to be satisfied. at 2, implementors start making choices about which areas they want to focus on.
LGR Not sure how to decide what level something goes on based on these descriptions. Perhaps that's where the expert judgement comes from.
CS Went through and didn't think we had much trouble sorting into. Thought that testable was one criteria as well as important and applicable. Everything else was level 2. Do we need 3 levels?
GV Level 3 - should be someplace to write down stuff that don't really expect everyone to do. But, people who really want to show extra effort can have a way to do so.
LS accesskeys on important elements. you have more than that many links. how can it be human testable?
CS human test: put access keys on the heading. human can test that the accesskeys make sense,
GV We don't require accesskeys.
CS the HTML implementation of keyboard access.
LGR didn't we decide that once past level 1 could claim specific checkpoints.
GV Yes.
LGR Thus level 2 is a shorthand for conformance claims.
GV Level 2 was to have people try to reach for the next level.
LGR We've thrown some organization around the checkpoints, by importance? There are lots of ways to organize the checkpoints.
GV Can you define hard w/out making relevant to technologies?
LS Perhaps "more?"
CS why not "miminum, other testable stuff, other good things."?
JW 1 satisfies or addresses issue in checkpoint, ... /* repeats earlier proposal */
GV In a sense these are success criteria for the success criteria.
CS Where did level 3 come from?
GV Everything in 1-3 are testable, advice are not testable. This is advice for ourselves.
LS If level 2 is really easy, everyone will go for.
GV No one said "really easy" said "not hard."
CS At one point we said "all at the same level." Then came up with "minimum." When did level 3 happen?
LGR WCAG 1.0 has 3 levels. Started w/the assumption that we should maintain that.
GV The proposal was made with 3 levels. We had no levels then there were 3.
CS I thought there was one level and a minimum set w/in that level.
JW Could you postpone that issue until we've sorted out 1 and 2?
GV Let's leave level 3. If it's an empty set then we'll delete it.
JW better to avoid concept of hardness and think of something else.
GV We got rid of it.
CS level one has "wide applicability" and don't like "achievable."
GV It's gone.
CS Not expect many people to do Level 3?
LS Want them to look at and make up their own mind.
GV "done on all sites and require effort, commitment and design."
LS Not so important...is that difference worth the work?
WAC concerned about effort. in level 3, e.g. 2.2 depends on how it is designed. it could be no effort to get there or a lot.
GV Ok. it's gone. out of criterion and as a comment.
JW Perhaps say that Level 3 solves the issue the checkpoint deals with as far as it can.
WAC Concerned that tying to techniques again.
GV Control of the server? What about hosts that don't let you do that?
CS They can complain to the ISP.
WAC Or change ISP.
GV Do we want to have level 1 or 2 that require...
JW Always have a choice of technologies. If choose a combo that the only way requires a server-side solution then you implement it or change choice of solutions.
CS Table until we run across an example.
GV Want to post these as rules for level 3.
CS Delete it until we run across an example.
Resolved: deleted.
GV All that's left: things that are testable that aren't in level 1 or 2.
CS Advice is everything that isn't testable.
WAC Think we should combine level 1 and 2, make "advice" level 3. Therefore, level 1 and 2 are testable, level 3 is not. A lot of important things are going to get lost since they aren't testable.
GV Won't get lost. Since you have to read them in order to conform.
JW Not really a level 3. You bring in at level 2. "In order to meet testable requirement in Level 2 have to look at qualitative." thus, not another level, but things you have to take into account.
GV Trying to invent level 4 was the same idea was that be dropped. JW pointed out that the list becomes a part of level 1 and 2 by reference. If we start putting as checkpoints...e..g. "use shorter sentences." a lot of them are "head in that direction..." you can't check them off.
WAC being able to make a claim is testable, but they still need to do some tests and think about it. We aren't really increasing the testability. They have to do tests of some sort to determine if they can make the claim, even if they are subjective tests. Some determinination will have to be made.
GV If worded in a fashion that can check off then go into level 3.
GV Good thing to document why not using "can use, easy to use, etc." I'll post what we've turned this into.
LS Concerned about "waiting for research." What are we waiting for?" It was a side comment.
JW We weren't looking for state of screen readers but techniques that could be used to build the tool to solve the problem.
GV Minutes say that LS and CS took an action about language translation software.
/* some people continue to discuss this issue. Is not minuted. */
$Date: 2002/08/08 22:13:16 $ Wendy Chisholm