24 Apr 2003 - WCAG WG Teleconference Minutes


Doyle Burnett, Dave MacDonald, Michael Cooper, Jabari Simmons, Roberto Scano, Jason White, Gregg Vanderheiden, Ben Caldwell, Wendy Chisholm, Loretta Guarino Reid, Cynthia Shelly, Lee Roberts, Bengt Farre


John Slatin, Kerstin Goldsmith, Avi Arditti, Andi Snow-Weaver

comments on working draft

color contrast

michael followed up with chris (wrt to color contrast algorithm)

brightness and contrast are 2 algorithms.

Chris implemented in a-prompt

brightness contrast came from NTSC. but can't find again.

color contrast is straightforward that he implemented.

it is something that he developed for a-prompt. he did a color study. a summary of the study:

the algorithm has some preditive value but enough deviations from predictions that should include a disclaimer.

proposal: the algorithm belongs more at the technique level than in the guidelines.

propose: removing from guidelines doc and putting into core techniques

propose: the colors have been selected for good contrast. then have reviewer's note: we are exploring whether this defn can be tightened up.

would like to say what good contrast is, but we can't say right now.

reviewers for this checkpoint: lighthouse, IRLEN

for this next draft: remove algorithm. put in reviewer's note. solicit reviews from people working w/color contrast.

action gv: draft phrase and send to the list. ala "the WCAG WG continues to explore whether or not web tools should be part of the recommendation where the tool is based on research."

concerned that guidelines are keyed to a tool. they usually don't take new technologies into account.

there is an algorithm that we've explored have not yet determined if can include this in the guidelines or not.

outside the guidelines yet we refer to it.

guideline 5

we need to finish the walkthrough.

perhaps say: we were talking about taking most of 5 off if we move forward w/the new conformance scheme.

(in a reviewer's note)

already a note on 5.4?

propose general note between guideline 5 and checkpoint 5.1 that says "could disappear if go with new conformance scheme" and link to latest scheme.

counter: there are ongoing issues with how the checkpoints and guidelines under 5 would operate under a new conformance scheme.

not sure that they go away, but until we settle the new scheme, don't know.

No change as of now. It's not clear what will happen with them. Not certain that they will disappear.

using "levels"

concerned about naming them "levels" 1 is the best (in Canadian culture) not 3. e.g., in the olympics 1 is the gold 3 is bronze.

currently a note in conformance section that says, Do the different groupings represent a hierarchical relationship? If not, is "group" or "category" a more appropriate term than "level?>

to TR

document approved to publish to TR


charter approved to move through w3c process

Use of the term "level"

we've talked about "minimum" "type a" and "type b"

thus, not a hierarchy.

beyond minimum, what do we say? level 1 and level 2 is everything else?

we had wanted additional levels to give people something to strive for.

beyond minimum, what might it look like?

it seems there were different goals. it is helpful to the authors to understand that, rather than a big pile.

could have concept of minimum w/out using that word.

what about "entry level"? means minimum but perhaps kinder term?

basic, advanced, specialized

major issue - how to operate w/the non-minimum

group instead of type.

if do all of group A, then that's "core"

thus "WCAG Core" everything beyond use a "+"

+6 could be more accessible than +9

depending on which checkpoints they implement

but, keeps people implementing more

then WCAG Advanced is all of Group B

could also have WCAG Advanced +

talked about WCAG Specialized, but don't think you would ever get it. means that have to do all of Group C and not sure that is possible.

don't want a certification that could end up as WCAG Blind or something for a specific group

preference for core over basic or minimum

extended is more often used than "advanced" (in w3c jargon) but perhaps for our audience makes sense.

extended has interesting side effect in that if you extend, you extend its accessibility to a wider audience.

propose that we stop using the word "level" and use the word "group"

what was level 1, Level 2a and Level 2b in gv's last posting would become: Group A, Group B, Group C

action gv: redraft conformance proposal, substitute "group" for "level" and submit to the list.

some preference for "set" over "group"

interesting to send past people for review to discover what the preference is. e.g., ask EOWG.

The variety of dimensions or axes that we face

documenting the variety of dimensions that we have.

e.g., technology support, types of content, difficulty

if discuss, could help us think about how handled in the doc.

doesn't help define groups, but how handle in the framework of the document.

WAC attempted to outline some axes during earlier discussion of cognitive disabilties. some of these axes apply in general. others that should be included in the list are feasibility, type of content (although this could be covered in the "all or some" axis)

$Date: 2003/04/25 05:40:33 $ Wendy Chisholm