Review of comments on the public draft produced few proposed changes.
CS: "Bias towards testability" - I thought we agreed this was ok
JW: We are clearly distinguishing between what is testable and what is not testable.
CS: And success criteria must be testable.
JW: There seems general agreement about the need for testability. ATAG had to do a lot of extra work to deal with lack of testability in WCAG1.
JS: As long as we keep the less testable things in the document as advice, etc. The document offers an approach to accessibility that is important.
JW: The review requirements, at level 2, at appropriate places, make explicit reference to the non-testable requirements.
JW: Suggestion that structure should be reduced. Any support for this?
CS: I don't think this is a good idea. I like our simple checkpoints.
JW: I guess it is a function of what people find easier to work with.
CS: It will depend on your learning style.
JW: Suggestion to avoid levels in success criteria?
JS, CS: think we should leave it as it is. Assigning levels to checkpoints themselves introduces other problems.
KP: My current organization is only held accountable for level A items.
CS: There are also AA items in WCAG1 that are difficult to do for many sites. And some that are easy.
JW: This is why we introduced conformance claims for some but not all of levels above level 1. Ian had objections to this change.
BC: There wasn't much explanation in Ian's comments for why he objected to this.
CS: No matter what level you are going for, if you comply to 13 checkpoints instead of 12, that is good
BF: If you don't specify which checkpoints, but only somewhere between 1 and 2, that is a problem
JS: If that is the issue, that is a concern
BC: So a 1+ logo will have to be accompanied by a detailed conformance claim. If you have no way to search for it, it isn't helpful
JW: But it is helpful. It is more helpful if you can search for it, but an accurate conformance claim needs to include the list of checkpoints claimed at each level. Our conformance section may not be explicit about this.
CS: It isn't in there now.
JW: This is an omission. Action item for editors when drafting conformance section. We'll have a resonably complex conformance scheme, but that is the price of flexibility.
How can we be sure we are covering all the comments that have come in?
BC: Wendy and I are still working on issue tracking.
JW: In the final stages, we will have to make explicit responses to commenters addressing all their comments.
BC: Bob Regan comments say it will be much harder to reach minimal conformance that for WCAG1. How does everyone feel about that comment?
JS: I think it will be harder. Is it possible?
CS: For particular technologies, some of the checkpoints won't be applicable.
JW: It is a subjective judgement
BC: Bob listed particular checkpoints that will be difficult for novices: 1.2, 1.3, 2.1 and 4.3
??: Most are in WCAG 1, though
JW: at level A
BC: They are all places where the author needs to interact with the code directly, since authoring tools don't provide support
CS: Not necessarily true. Abbreviations could be done as in print, in parenthesis.
BC: 1.2 is what is in WCAG1 and Section 508
JW: It's priority 1 everywhere
CS: In WCAG1 you couldn't use scripts at all
JW: Many of the minimal requirements are quite minimal
CS: It is going to be important to have the document explaining how to bring a WCAG1 compliant site to WCAG2 compliance
JW: Charles McCathie-Neville had a list of authoring tools and techniques for satisfying checkpoints using those authoring tools
BC: Paul at WebAIM has been accumulating similar information
JS: There is an education and training problem that the tools are only as good as the people who use them. The tools will improve, but they'll be most useful to people who know most about accessibility. Word processors did not make people better writers, just more prolific.
??: The technology of authoring tools is changing so quickly
JW: As Lisa points out, the task of fixing inaccessible content is harder than creating accessible content in the first place
$Date: 2002/10/17 21:35:38 $ Loretta Guarino Reid