September 11, 2003 - WCAG WG Teleconference Minutes


Ben Caldwell, Andi Snow-Weaver, Gregg Vanderheiden, Doyle Burnett, Bengt Farre, Roberto Ellero, Cynthia Shelly, Kerstin Goldsmith, John Slatin, Michael Cooper, Jason White, Roberto Castaldo, Roberto Scano, Avi Arditti


Lisa Seeman, Wendy Chisholm, Yvette Hoitink, Loretta Guarino Reid, Gian Sampson-Wild, Maurizio Vittoria, Tom Croucher, Lee Roberts,

Three proposals on the table - comments?

No major issues going through WCK proposal, because most issues were taken care of through editorial notes.  Otherwise, no other comments

Three models on the table:

  1. first proposal: success criteria could be met, additional notes were just for noticing and not necessarily complying with (2 levels of sc and notes)
  2. second proposal: attempt at making mandatory versus optional clear (one level of sc in each checkpoint, and moved some sc to extended)
  3. third draft takes all Best Practices out, leaving benefits and notes – but otherwise just has the checkpoints and success criteria (only one level of success criteria, all second level [or Best Practice] sc were moved to gateway techniques

Which do we want?

Drafts can be found:

  1. The latest Review draft of WCAG 2.0:
  2. An initial reorganization proposal, prepared in response to teleconference discussions:
  3. A third proposal, due to the joint efforts of Wendy, Cynthia and Kerstin: See the documents cited at and the explanations in that message.

Discussion of details of the drafts followed.


Gregg: It's not possible to collapse the best practise up or out.  Still a concern about keeping a continuous list for authors, so that issues don’t get lost, but that are very clearly separated required versus optional (or further). Additonal concern is of length (though removing BPs only account for a small portion, removing Notes has more impact).  Four options to go forward:

  1. Minimum and BP are in same document, but BP are more clearly separated.
  2. Required are in document, BP in second document.
  3. Required in document, and BP are in Gateway, where title changes to “BP and Gateway to Techniques”
  4. #2, but compound document that is not the standard.

Last two options, and even in the first option, BP are non-normative. 

Andi: like the approach CWK, can we explore the specific issues and not just drop it?  Gregg: we are agreeing that there are two levels of conformance.

Gregg: we still have areas of detail to explore where we might just punch holes into our current model of understanding as we have done with other discussions.

$Date: 2003/09/15 14:53:03 $ Kerstin Goldsmith