Summary of 24 March 2003 WCAG WG F2F Meeting
We broke into subgroups to work on the following work items
For "User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0,"
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-UAAG10-20021217, authors should choose a
technology for which there is at least one UA which satisfies the following
conformance profile template:
- Conformance level: A
- Supported conformance profile labels must include all content type
labels for content types that you are using. Options include:
- Speech [Issue: do we want to require this label?]
- If technology supports events, then you must include the Event
- [Issue: Selection label. Not sure how to handle/refer to.]
- [Issue: do we need to specify that Input modality labels are not
required or leave it implicit?]
- Applicability: [Issue: checkpoint applicability. UAAG checkpoints have
requirements that the UA can't satisfy because of the content
(particularly, #4, e.g., scripts). Should we put requirements on the
content that alleviate these issues for the UA? @@ask Ian and Matt.]
User agent baseline issues
- How many different user agents must claim conformance? Just one? Just
two? Must they be independently implemented?
- Do they need to be for different platform? What counts as a platform?
Language (if content is French, then need French technology)?
- How long should that conformant UA have been available to users?
- What if only one UA conforms to UAAG? Are we tying accessibility to
that one UA? Does that force users to use only that UA?
- We assume that conformance claims exist for UAs for authors to sort
through and refer to AND that for some technology, there are some UAs
that exist that conform. If our assumptions are incorrect, then that
means that no one can satisfy WCAG.
Issues with 5.3/5.4
- Should these be combined to refer to UAAG profiles? for example, if you
choose quicktime is there a plug-in that conforms to UAAG?
- scripting stuff (i.e., "custom user interfaces" covered by 5.1)
- Issue: in the UAAG conformance section, at one point it says "This
document does not require content focus and user interface focus"
while someplace else it says "does."
- How does this fit in? It addresses checkpoint 5.2, that says that
technologies must be available in at least two independently-developed
implementations. This defines what it means to be implemented, that is, a
UAAG-compliant user agent is available.
- Do the new levels make that unnecessary? It is claimed that in the new
proposal, guideline 5 goes away.
- Redefined them, then went through checkpoints and success criteria
(through 4.2) to classify them in terms of the 3 categories and where
necessary splitting success criteria across levels.
- This means that some checkpoints don't have minimum levels.
- The only part of 5 that would still be needed is 5.1
- Issue: is it ok for some checkpoints not to have anything at level
- Issue: we could attach levels to checkpoints rather than success
- GV's reorg had levels within checkpoints (as exists now?)
- It felt much easier to categorize with this approach.
- Action: ASW to write up notes and send to list.
- Action: CS and MU to write proposals for checkpoints
- Upshot: we can do this without requiring a transforming server
- Issue: we probably need a conformance profile mechanism.
- Action: @@ proposal for conformance profile mechanism.
There was a request for elaboration on how to provide for accessiblity at
level 1 for people who don't use assistive technology.
- Proposed way to handle - set up a conformance profile that would
require reasonable levels of accessibility based on current
- It is not clear what people think when they see "1, 2, 3" vs "A, AA,
AAA". It is valuable to think of Level A, B, C - you might have to
do some of each . People think 1,2, 3 is linear, but we've redesigned it
as nonlinear. A good argument is that sometimes you need to do some
of 2 and all of 1. (is this a conformance profile?) if so, then we
need to use better terminology.
- It would be a good idea to get rid of the word "level"; it implies
hierarchy. Things are currently lseparated into categories but they don't
have a hierarchy.
- However, the original intent was that they were hierarchical. Should we
call them "type" instead of level? might fall into 2.
- We found this morning that we needed 3 groups since there might be some
that are mutually exclusive. There are some things that only fit into
group 3 because an optimization for one group might be a
"de-optimization" for another. Then these are not hierarchical. Someone
could do a site that satisfies groups 1 and 3. Is everything in group 1
in the minimum? The use of A, AA, AAA hasn't been discussed.
- AT compatibility would be based on today's comformance profile. In the
future, that would change as ATs change. Conformance profiles are
separate, normative documents, based on UAAG conformance profiles.
- An idea: conformance profiles live outside standard, but the standard
is constrained by them. Conformance profiles could change over time.
- Is the conformance profile something the author does for their site? is
it now a spec? The author makes a conformance claim. A conformance
profile is the requirements for a claim.
- If every country in the world created a different profile, they would
be subsets, but what is the impact? there should be constraints on how to
- We mapped techniques to 2.0 checkpoints.
- We found several techniques that could easily map to existing
- We found some important techniques for which it was clear there was no
- Some techniques are not likely to move forward to future versions,
- We logged several issues, such as:
- some techniques were more clearly UAAG techniques
- some were usability issues rather than accessibility
- customization and personalization is important and not
well-represented in current draft (of checkpoints/guidelines)
- We need a way to describe how to use built-in accessibility hooks
(e.g., labels for form controls)
- We have dealt w/special case issues (e.g., multimedia) but never said
"all content needs to be exposed." e.g., many of the frames techniques do
not clearly map back to checkpoints. content in this case = titles, table
headers, etc. "hidden" content that needs to be exposed. Use those
elements so that the UA can expose them.
- Action: MC and BC summarize notes and send to list.
- Action: MC/WAC put this on the agenda for Wednesday techniques
- defn of content: @@notes from Katie. "anything that is rendered by a
UA. examples are..." followed by the UAAG defn.
- defn of user agent: @@
- documents/web services/web apps, etc. propose calling these things "web
- defn of web resources: @@ points to UAAG defn.
- defn of web site: @@
- action: KHS to summarize proposal and send to the list.
Issues to discuss:
- hear more about browser conformance.
Next Face to Face
Dates to avoid:
- end of June (Cynthia, Andi, Marc, Michael
- early July (Cynthia, Andi, Ben, Marc, Michael, Katie
- Alex - later in July the better
- Jason not available in middle of July
- look for events to piggyback off of.
- agenda: techniques?
- HCI conference 23-27 (Crete),
- resna: 19-23 of June (Atlanta),
- v2: 17/18 June
- week of June 9 is out for Gregg
- WAI steering F2F? beginning of June or July?