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:
- first proposal: success criteria could be met, additional notes were
just for noticing and not necessarily complying with (2 levels of sc and
- second proposal: attempt at making mandatory versus optional clear (one
level of sc in each checkpoint, and moved some sc to extended)
- 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:
- The latest Review draft of WCAG 2.0:http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/07/review_draft.html
- An initial reorganization proposal, prepared in response to
teleconference discussions: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003JulSep/0226.html
- A third proposal, due to the joint efforts of Wendy, Cynthia and
Kerstin: See the documents cited at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003JulSep/0500.html
and the explanations in that message.
Discussion of details of the drafts followed.
- how do people know how they can go further, past what is required, if
they cannot see the Best Practises?
- are all Best Practises really just techniques? Are not all sc
techniques? Are they HOW to, or WHAT to?
- Taking some best practices out to techniques perhaps takes certain
ideas off the table altogether.
- Checkpoint 1.3, required is color through markup, and best practise
of doing it through context is completely removed from the
- Checkpoint 1.2, adding the text transcript to required sc is
basically making the required harder – we were thinking that
if audio and captions are already required, then text transcript is
basically already done, therefore just add it to the required
set. If audio description goes away from required sc, then text
transcript will get moved along with it to another checkpoint that is
already extended, or will get moved to its own extended
- Checkpoint 1.5, best practise #2 is not redundant because it is
saying that the content itself must present ways for the user to
manipulate structure. So, how do we take it out without
completely taking the extended idea off the table?
- Checkpoint 1.6, best practise #2 – this is not required, but
it DOES simulate color-blind people, but not people who have color
deficiency. Gray scale is not the end of the line for color
deficiency, with different types falling on the way to gray
scale. Take “default” out of text, sc can either
have a mechanism OR do it by default (Cynthia) – Gregg, but
separating them takes away from “going
- (Kerstin) Is this really a matter of just presenting Best Practises
outside of the normative document without losing the fact that they
are extensions of the checkpoint that they sit under, but are not
required. Required, with links to “For those of you who
want to go further.” (John) Do we, ourselves, need
to separate content and structure and layout? The substantive
question is “what do the users HAVE to do, and what is
optional” – then we can work with documentation design
people to PRESENT it.” Presentation of all data should
be moved to a separate discussion – another discussion is how
many levels of requirement are there – people will want to see
ONLY required at some point in this game.
- Some best practices are actually techniques, and others are really
the second level of conformance, or “how to take it
further.” We need to figure out which are which, and
then sort them.
- We need better understandings of the different “gateway to
techniques” versus a “techniques document”
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:
- Minimum and BP are in same document, but BP are more clearly
- Required are in document, BP in second document.
- Required in document, and BP are in Gateway, where title changes to
“BP and Gateway to Techniques”
- #2, but compound document that is not the standard.
Last two options, and even in the first option, BP are
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
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
$Date: 2003/09/15 14:53:03 $ Kerstin Goldsmith