Wendy Chisholm, Roberto Scano, Bengt Farre, Ben Caldwell, Roberto Ellero, Yvette Hoitink, Michael Cooper, Jason White, Matt May, David MacDonald, Cynthia Shelly, John Slatin, Sailesh Panchang, Avi Arditti, Katie Haritos-Shea, Tom Croucher, Kerstin Goldsmith, Mike Barta
Roberto Castaldo, Gregg Vanderheiden, Andi Snow-Weaver, Loretta Guarino Reid, Lee Roberts, Doyle Burnett
Other specs have link to TOC (at the top of the doc) we should do it, too.
resolved: get rid of the [was *.*] in checkpoint text.
resolved: ok to mention WCAG 1.0 but don't need to understand WCAG 1.0 to understand WCAG 2.0.
John and Katie took action to rewrite abstract and conformance sections to remove dependence on WCAG 1.0.
Issue 362 (bugzilla), irc log (362)
Suggestion to change title of "Benefits" section to "Who is benefitted?""Who benefits?" was suggested because less passive. Most people did not care too much.
action: john will propose somthing in rewrite proposal.
Issue 378 (bugzilla),irc log (378)
Harvey thinks that "interface elements" (used in text of Guideline 2) might be interpreted as the tags used to create interface elements. Suggestions and comments from today's call:
action: john and katie, reword guideline 2 taking this discussion into account.
Issue 392 (bugzilla), irc log (392)
Kynn feels that the audience section should have more info about audience and how they will use the document. Current audience section (24 june 2003 draft). This related to use cases and and personas. This was the 2nd item on today's agenda. We did not get to it.
Resolved: carry this item forward and discuss in relation to use cases.
Issue 393 (bugzilla), irc log (393)
There are a variety of concerns about how to migrate from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0, particularly from people whose country's legislative body has adopted WCAG 1.0 in policy. They fought hard to get WCAG 1.0 adopted, will WCAG 2.0 undermine those efforts? Does conformance to WCAG 2.0 require a redesign of a WCAG 1.0 conforming site? Along with the checkpoint mapping from 2.0 to 1.0 checkpoints we should also provide a 1.0 to 2.0 checkpoint mapping and a "migration guide" that explains differences between 1.0 and 2.0 and what is needed to conform to 2.0 if you already conform to 1.0.
action: wendy draft something about migration from 1.0 to 2.0.
Issue 398 (bugzilla), irc log (398)
Kynn suggests that each guideline have an icon. There is not objection to creating icons if we can find a graphic artist to make them.
yvette modified william's tetrahedron of 4 principles. each side has design principle.
action: kerstin do research about iconic representaiton of the 4 design principles.
action: tom - if someone comes up with ideas for icons, conver to icons.
Issue 399 (bugzilla), irc log (399)
Kynn proposes that we replace absolute statement about disability such as "cannot see" with less absolute like "cannot see well"
action: John in rewrite replace "cannot see" with "cannot see well" (as an example)
Issue 388 (bugzilla), irc log (388)
Sailesh is concerned that there is a shift away from accessibility for PWD to universal access in WCAG 2.0. What's core in 2.0 should map to p1 in wcag 1.0
Part of the issue is that core and extended are not explained in wcag 2.0. In response to points about conformance scheme, gregg explained basis of core/extended. we should write that up and put into conformance section. As well as in the mapping/migration info. Once we have a clear explanation for the current distinction between core and extended we can discuss if that is the right basis or not.
Related emails on this topic:
Jason's summary:
Critique that said every success criteria could make critical difference between accessibility and not for some group so no longer any basiss for saying some checkpoints more important for accessibility than others, unless say some groups more important than others. Did not want to do. Thus, followed that we need different basis to categorize checkpoints and success criteria.Thus, reorganized based on if specific guidelines/checkpoints required modifications to default presentation or not.
action: david write proposal for core/extended paragraph for conformance section based on list of relevant emails and jason's summary from today
Is freedom of speech more important than the right to access information? was the freedom of expression issues discussed with a lawyer? because don't think freedom of expression (for architects) impacts ramps in buildings. in some cases, accessibility will trump freedom of expression issues.
action: john talk with lawyer about freedom of expression issues.
action: roberto scano talk with italian lawyer.
action: yvette talk with dutch lawyer.
action: ben ask gregg to clarify what has heard from laywers about freedom of expression issues and wcag.
in europe, this it is the other way around.
whether in every jurisdiction there is a freedom of expression law that trumps accessibility, if tell people "you can't write liks this" they will not follow our recommendations. we can't tell them how to communicate.
a definition of art is not testable. there are many things that are not art that can not be rewritten. e.g., IEEE spec or Shakespeare
Related email about European laws: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003JulSep/0521.html
Issue 400 (bugzilla), irc log (400)
what is meant by perceivable in guideline 1? related issue: do we want intro paragraphs to each guideline since there are similar questions on other guidelines? yes - seems a good idea.
action: ben write intros for each guideline
Issue 432 (bugzilla), irc log (432)
Christian is concerned that we are not adequately addressing the needs of older people and people who have difficulty understanding complex language.
we've been trying to address for at least 3 years. Continuation of discussion of write clearly checkpoint is most appropriate way to deal with this. It is also related to previous discussion ofcore/extended issue. perhaps if core/extended better explained, this issue might subside.
lack of experience is not a disability. in Holland, focus on removing barriers not on disability. However,this document and the W3C/WAI view of the world is focused on disability.
add older users to lists of people who benefit for each checkpoint?
action: john and katie include elderly in benefits sections
$Date: 2003/10/02 23:19:43 $ Wendy Chisholm