10 Oct 2002 - WCAG WG Teleconference Minutes


Avi Arditti, Ben Caldwell, Bengt Farre, Loretta Guarino-Reid, Gian Sampson-Wilder, Andi Snow-Weaver, Gregg Vanderheiden, Jason White


Wendy Chisolm, Preety Kumar, Lee Roberts, Roberto Scano, Cynthia Shelley, John Slatin, Eugenia Slaydon, Maurizio Vittoria, Doyle Burnett


Look at role of conformance claims in success criteria. Incorporate some of Ian Jacob's editorial comments on the draft. Try to arrange to meet with Ian to discuss items where we lack consensus.

Action Items

[Editors] Edit appendix B  for accuracy and organization in light of other decisions we are making; move it up to the conformance area in the front; modify conformance section  to contain  information required for conformance, and add a section after it including reporting and other non-normative conformance related discussion.
[Gregg] Post something to the list suggesting that we move any conformance claim requirements to level 3,  and that we require them to be done in a certain format, because it would then make the page more accessible by making accessible pages findable. The proviso of this at level 3 depends on there being a standard format in existence that we can cite when we go to press.
[Avi] After finishing his action item on 4.1,  look at putting checkpoints into active voice.
[Avi ]  Iinvestigate status of aerospace guidelines
[Wendy]  Find out W3C policy on status and what is appropriate to include about relationship between WCAG 1 and WCAG 2 in a draft
[Andi ] Check with IBM editor on issue of adjective vs noun titles

Review of Ian Jacobs comments

Andi - I like having consistent terminology among the documents.
Gregg - They should be consistent if they mean the same thing, but it seem like they don't in this case. I think there are some fundamental things we discovered that Ian didn't take intoaccount in his discussion. I recommend deferring part 1 until we can invite Ian to join us.

Andi - What about the point about mixing technical requirements and claim requirements?
Gregg - We had no objective measures, so we either added claim requirement or implied people don't need to pay any attention until level 2 or 3.
Jason - But claim requirements don't come in until level 2
Gregg - Posting claims to the site don't come in until level 2
Jason - I think Ian is suggesting that we should continue to have the review requirement at level 2, but not the additional requirement that a conformance claim be made. To add a requirement for a conformance claim neither enhances the accessibility of the content or the testability of the resultant accessibility
Gregg - It does make it more testable, since you can test for the presence of the claim. But you are right that you aren't testing for compliance.
Jason - Once you pass level 1, you have an option of making a conformance claim or not. He would argue that level 2 should operate the same way. If you are the author, you know whether a review was carried out.
Gregg - Tthe question is whether we should remove the conformance claims
Gian - I remember that we discussed this. We added it to make sure they'd be done properly
Gregg - Authors at least had to assert that they had looked at them and considered them
Jason - Propose that we don't change the requirement to carry out the review. Only remove the requirement to make the conformance claim.
Andi - We should talk with Ian about why we did it this way.
Gregg - If they did EARL, they would do this expicitly. The reasons for doing this was to allow people to self-select pages, and to raise the level of due diligance. It raises the point that we didn't do it for level 1  because some places can't. (Ttheir lawyers won't let them). So legal policy rather than accessibility policy would prevent conformance claims.
Jason - There is nothing in the conformance claims requirements that requires them to be public or as accessible as the content. Could satisfy this by storing the conformance claim off on a hard disk. I don't think it enhances accessibility. It makes it easier for 3rd party verification. But the assertion doesn't actually help the 3rd party determine whether the review was carried out or applied consistently. There is some inconsistency in the way we are using it. There isn't a strong rationale for it.
Gregg - Wth the other ones, you can report with EARL. On this one, without this, there is nothing to report. No,you could report that you did it, even if it isn't a requirement.
Jason - You report that you carried out a review, rather than reporting that you said you carried out a review
Gregg - When people have to write down that they did it, they tend to do a better job than if it is just assumed that they did it.
Jason - Iif someone is claiming level 2 conformance, they'll be making these assertions anyway.
Gregg - Which may be the reason companies won't adopt our logo.
Jason - So we'd leave the review requirement, but remove the requirement for a conformance claim; Wendy was suggestion something like this 3 or 4 weeks ago
Gregg - Suggest that we post to the list a statement that we are considering dropping conformance claims as success criteria or checkpoints. People can still make them, but for all things equally. Float this to the list and see if there are any strong objections. Add comments about why, and the potential downside.
Gian - I still think it is a pretty good idea. Maybe we could move it to level 3.
Gregg - Does it make the page any more accessible to claim it, or does it just make it more likely people will do what they are claiming. We are also doing it because it is testable.
Jason - That applies to the review; whether you hold a review is testable.
Gregg - It is kind of dirty - not really causing better accessibility
Jason - Remove the claim requirement completely, and in the conformance section we need to add info about metadata-based conformance claims. We can discuss the advantage of making the claims and making them available to users so they can filter content accordingly. We can advise about the benefits. We can address it in the conformance section.
Gregg - What would we add?
Jason - A note that advises people of the benefits of selecting contents based on the availability of conformance information
Gregg - A separate section from conformance, but after conformance?, that talks about the value of metadata-based conformance statements. What would we title it?
Jason - One of the issues from last week was whether the info in the conformance scheme, currently in an appendix, should find its way back into the introduction as an extra explanatory section. We didn't make a decision about this, but if we did, we could add the statement there.
Gregg - There seem to be problems with the current explanation of conformance scheme.
Jason - After it is reworked, it could be moved up and the advantages of metadata could be added to it. Or, in the metadata section (not yet written) it could be added there. But it is advisory information, too.
Gregg - I concur. The stuff in the appendix should be moved up to the front, although I hate making the front longer. I also agree that there is additional informtion around conformance and reporting.
Action items: 1) appendix B be edited for accuracy and organization in light of other decisions we are making; 2) it be moved up to the conformance area in the front; 3) conformance section be strictly information required for conformance, and a section be added after it including reporting and other non-normative conformance related discussion. (Editors)
Gian - not clear there would be a problem with the lawyers.
Gregg - your suggestion is to keep it but move it to AAA, since there is no stigma
Gian - It would almost be a guide for how people can claim conformance
Gregg - Should we do it on a point by point basis, or does this relate to something in 5, where one of the items says all the metadata is provided for conformance claims
Gian - I'm not so concerned in terms of having it as a requirement so people will take notice. But I do think it would be good for each checkpoint to have a claim.
Gregg - A good point. A site is technically more accessible if people can searched based on the metadata. People can find it and differentiate it from others.
Gian - So that's a metadata option
Gregg - You could have it be a level 3 in the 5 area, or could have a level 3 criteria for each checkpoint. Is there a natural home for it in section 5?
Ben - Section 5.3? choose technology to support accessibility.
Jason - or introduce it in the conformance section saying there is no requirement to make a conformance claim, except on level 3
Gregg - People may be able to claim it in some areas but not others. Is there ever a technical inability to claim? If you don't have control of the website? Needs to be in a form that is searchable. Which means it has to be something standard. So we'd need to say how it would need to be reported.
Andi - Yes there would need to be a standard
Jason - EARL would need to be the technology, and someone would need to develop the tool for searching. There are issues on how you associate it with content.
Gregg - Action item: post something to the list suggesting that we move any conformance claim requirements to level 3,  and that we require it to be done in a certain format, because it would then make the page more accessible by making accessible pages findable. The proviso of this at level 3 depends on there being a standard format in existence that we can site when we go to press.
Jaosn - I think EARL satisfies the last requirement, but the search tools are a separate matter
Gregg - Isn't EARL still in process?
Jason - Very close to being finished
Gregg - Is EARL going to be turned into a recommendation? or is it a note? Will we be able to cite it?
Jason - Wendy will be able to tell you where it is headed

Gregg - Ian had editorial suggestions: numbering of provisions.
Ben - That is something that needs to happen to integrate with the technical checkpoints
Gregg - Ss there any easy way so screen reader users can get through a list like this more easily than having a long list of numbers?
Jason - I don't think it is too serious a problem. Just 2 numbers after the first decimal point is as far as we go.
Gregg - We go down another layer. Are we going to leave the indented layers under success criteria as plain bullets?
Jason - yes
Gregg - Need to say whether they are part of the checkpoints or notes. We need to make it clear that they are normative
Gregg - Delete sections with no additional criteria? We will do this at the end
Gregg - Active voice rather than passive voice? this relates to whether these are provisions or success criteria. Would like to postpone til Ian can join us. I don't know how to have active past tense. (Some discussion of how to reword.)
Gregg - This would cause of to use something like "a responsible party" and define it, so that we have an "actor" for the active voice.
Currently passive phrasing is not objective and is open to interpretation of who may or must fill the requirement.
Action: After finishing his action item on 4.1, Avi will look at putting things into active voice.
Avi - I'm recharged by getting a copy of 50 rules for language used by aerospace industry
Gregg - Is there a way we can include this in our guidelines or post it someplace publicly?
Action item: Avi to investigate status of guidelines

Gregg - Status section info about relationship between WCAG 2 and WCAG 1; editors could insert [A paragraph to describe the relationship between 1 and 2 to be inserted here]
Ben - Ian suggests we move the sentence from conformance up to status
Gregg: Should we move it now?
Jason : There are W3C rules about what can be said in status section of draft
Action item: Wendy to find out W3C policy on status and what is appropriate to include about relationship between WCAG 1 and 2

Gregg - Use of adjectives in titles? e.g. perceivable, operable, robust, etc. How about perceivability instead of perceivable? Operability? Comprehensibility? Robustness?
Jason - This is the list we discussed last time, as I recall
Andi - Have we received this kind of comment from anyone else?
Gregg - Someone commented that it should be Perception, which doesn't make any sense
Andi - Before we change it, we should find out from Ian what the issue really is
Jason - I'm concerned that an adjective standing alone may cause translation problems
Avi - Perceivability isn't in the Merriam Webster collegiate dictionary
Andi - I could check with one of our editors (action item)

$Date: 2002/10/14 14:21:04 $ Loretta Guarino Reid