Summary of 20 and 21 March 2004 WCAG WG face-to-face meetings

1. Present
2. Timeline and Planning
3. Conformance
4. Transition
5. Dependencies
6. IG Meeting
7. Conformance, continued on Sunday
8. JIS Presentation
9. End to End Process and Issues
10. Plan and Timeline, continued on Sunday

Present

John Slatin, Tuomo Riihomaki, Andy Judson, Doyle Burnett, Ben Caldwell, Michael Cooper (Saturday only), Jenae Andershonis, Paul Bohman, Katie Haritos-Shea, Wendy Chisholm, Don Evans, Kerstin Goldsmith, Loretta Guarino Reid, Marc Walraven, David MacDonald, Charmane K. Corcoran, Shadi Abou-Zahra, Matt May (Saturday only), Andi Snow-Weaver, Takayuki Watanabe

Timeline and Planning

Techniques

• HTML
• CSS
• Script/Web Applications

To transition to Last Call, we should have proof-of-concept drafts of the following technologies. The more complete a draft the better, but "complete" drafts of the following technologies do not seem as critical to transition to Last Call. At a minimum, we need to show that WCAG 2.0 can generally be applied to these technologies. A clearer requirement and exit criteria will have to be determined and documented.

• RDF/semantic web
• server-side
• VoiceXML
• SMIL
• SVG

Test Suite

Usability

Question: What are the requirements for call for implementation participants?

Question: Do they have to conform?

Answer: They should conform to the “minimum”, one site does not have to meet all. But we do need examples of conformity from each of the sites. Basically the sum of the implementation must show at least two implementations of each success criterion.

Question: How do we take a snapshot of the conformance example? We may not be able to link to sites that conform, because the conformance could theoretically change.

Answer: don't know. Open issue.

Possible Action Items:

1. Testing all of the techniques
2. Redesign Working Group homepage
3. Need to have 2.0 link to the techniques
4. March 26 -- Need to publish working draft of the Gateway
5. Techniques submission form. This allows anyone to submit techniques, submissions must be vetted by WG before incorporated into a techniques document.

Question: Have the test cases/suites been started?

Answer: Yes, we have several sources to pull from. Including Chris Ridpath’s work, and other W3C working groups, to name a couple. We are coordinating with the UAAG, ATAG, and QA Working Groups.

Question: Do we need a Test Case submission form?

Question: How do we get others, for example developers, from outside of the working group involved?

Action Item: Find developers to work on developing 2.0 conformant sites.

Action Item: Send a "request for submissions" or "request for techniques"

Action Item: Find more people to review and comment on drafts and submitted techniques.

Question: What is the difference between implementation testing versus test cases/suites – are they different?

Answer: “Implementation testing generally refers to the process of testing implementations of technology specifications. This process serves the dual purpose of verifying that the specification is implementable in practice, and that implementations conform to the specification. This process helps to improve the quality and interoperability of implementations.” (taken from [2].)

Request: Could we provide the group with an example of implementation testing versus test cases?

Question: Are we separating HTML from CSS?

Answer: This is an open issue

Question: Will the checklist be normative or not?

Answer: We need to discuss this more with Gregg present. Maybe tech checklist should be normative because they are necessary to understand the guidelines? There are several issues with making technology-specific information normative.

Question: How similar are HTML Techniques for WCAG 1.0 and HTML Techniques for WCAG 2.0?

Answser: very similar, yet there are differences. Refer to David's comparison. @@link

Question: If checklists are normative, what are implications for technologies, such as PDF and Flash, that don't have normative checklists?

Answer: good question. open issue.

Question: if the techs are normative do they need to go through the entire recommendation process? [last call to candidate rec to proposed rec to rec].

Answer: you may revise a recommendation in place as long as you do not add anything new. Modifications to techniques will likely add new "features" (techniques) and in that case they will need to go through the whole W3C Rec process to be updated.

Question: If checklists are normative, then new techniques documents would effect conformance. What would be required in a conformance claim - wcag version, level, technology, techniques/checklist version? How would you compare conformance claims?

Answer: open issue.

Conformance

History

In April 2002 the requirements document for 2.0 was published. [3] Last year at CSUN, Gregg presented a new conformance structure, which is basically what is in the 11 March 2004 Working Draft.

The June 2003 draft grouped checkpoints into two groups: Core and Extended. In the feedback we received, some preferred, and some said it was too different.

In the 11 March 2004 draft we have 14 guidelines and 72 success criteria which is interesting to compare to the 14 guidelines and 65 checkpoints in WCAG 2.0.

Current open issues related to conformance center around:

• Scope and making claiming conformane claims
• Migration from 1.0 to 2.0
• How to make conformance claim
• Terminology
• How many levels/groups/categories of criteria
• How the levels are defined

Goal of the discussion was to try to determine which parts of conformance we were near closing and of the aspects that were still contentious, harvesting the concerns of the people in the room. Here are some of the questions and issues we gathered:

• If my site has 1 million pages and many of those change 6 times per hour, do I have to update my conformance claims every hour? Can I randomly sample a portion of those pages every so often? If so, how many pages and how often?
• It is important to several people that we define the different levels very clearly. The current definition of Level 1 in the 11 March 2004 draft can be explained to developers, but is often difficult to explain the concept of "default presentaiton" to people who are not developers.
• In WCAG 1.0 we have two concepts: priorities and conformance levels. Is it possible, no matter what terminology we use, to have just one name? For example, with WCAG 1.0 could you have had priority 1 checkpoints that you have to meet in order to claim priority 1 conformance?
• We want to work with people from around the world to harmonize on wcag 2.0. There is concern that the more conformance levels we define, the more unlikely 2.0 will be widely adopted. The more ways we give people to permutate, the more likely they will.
• If we allow + levels of conformance (intermediate conformance, granular claims) will anyone other than "accessibiliy geeks" use them? Is it useful to do? Will it create more confusion than a useful mechanism?
• Will the minimum level ensure that the most basic accessibility barriers are addressed?

Transition from 1.0 to 2.0

What documents do we want to provide?

• Mapping 1.0 to 2.0 and 2.0 to 1.0
• FAQ
  • If I meet WCAG 1.0 A, how do I meet WCAG 2.0 A
  • WCAG is not just for HTML only – anymore
  • "who should use" - reaching more technologies
  • clarify relationship to proprietary technologies
  • How do adopt 2.0 as a policy

Open issues:

• people aware of 1.0 are using html. what about people who are not using html. they are a whole new audience. a transition task. hand to EOWG?
• when run conferences or workshops, it is clear "who should attend." similarly we have "who benefits" but we should also have "who should follow."
• how translatable is 2.0 to other languages? Action Item: Send request for review of 11 March 2004 draft to offices and ask about translatability.
• opinions about legal uptake of 2.0. diffs in laws. handle in "benefits of standards harmonization?"
• policy makers are in audience - so have something for them. but what? who will write it?
• articulate benefit of shifting from 1.0 to 2.0. if you have set a standard, here are the benefits of shifting to 2 and why. one reason (among others): testability.
• translation - more translatable expands the audience.
• don't need to sell it - most people aware of and waiting for.
• any time start "making case" send to eowg.
• a guide for policy makers (ala discussion at venice mtg).

IG Meeting

@@add link to IG Notes

Conformance-related Straw Poll Questions

20 people total. Not everyone voted and some people raised their hand for one of the options, but then also said, "don't care" (thus the "~2").

• 3 levels or 2? no discussion about how the levels are defined or if using two levels meant that some that are currently level 3 might end up in level 2 or be deleted. It was just a "what is your general feeling about how many levels we should aim for"
  • 3 levels - 6
  • 2 levels - 11
  • ~2 people don't really care
• should we create a flexible claim?
  • make it clear, simple. define x levels (2 or 3) - 15
  • however, seemed to be consensus that while we only want to define X number of conformance levels (2 or 3) we don't want prevent anyone from detailing which criteria they do and do not meet.
• Some people have said that reusing A/AA/AAA is confusing because it is the same terminology as WCAG 1.0 but it means something different. should we use the same labeling scheme as WCAG 1.0 (A/AA/AAA)?
  • yes - 12
  • no - (use different terminoloogy) - 3
  • don't care - ~2

Conformance issues for content aggregators

We spent quite a while discussing conformance testing on very large sites and sites that aggregate content.

• Content aggregators are likely to have policies/standards that content must meet before it is used on the site. For example, they may reject content that cannot be downloaded in 10 seconds.
• Do i have to test 100% of my pages? Do I have to test every 10 minutes?
• What about the idea of "conformance profiles" that had discussed before? One set of requirements for documents compared to a different set for applications? One set for aggregators and another for people who create all of their own content? Requirements for templates?
• We should bring to the table people who are creating syndicated content: advertising agencies (ogilvy), syndicators (cnn, washington post, reuters, weather feeds, stock tickers).
• Should we address RSS feeds?
• Aggregator terminology: "well" - a well of content is where one syndicator's content appears on the page. "portal" and "portlet" - a large portal might contain a portlet within it. for example, the aol portal may contain a cnn portlet.
• What if syndicators sent metadata with the content? Could an aggregator aggregate the conformance information of all of the wells and create an aggregated conformance claim to wcag?
• Are aggregators only responsible for the content they create? In many cases, this would only be the framework. However, "it's the network that carries janet that gets sued, not janet." (refering to the recent Super Bowl half-time show where Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction caused CBS and MTV to be sued for indecency)
• Could aggregators say, "we only purchase accessible content" - similar to 508?
• Similar issue for educational software that claims they are 508 compliant but the courses created with it are not 508 compliant because the teachers are creating content and not aware of 508 provisions. Therefore, the software is often hit with claims that they are not in compliance, but it is because of how the teachers are using.

Creating a harmonization target

What is needed for WCAG 2.0 to become a convergence target? For WCAG 2.0 to harmonize existing policies?

• Business case for ATAG.
• Ideal if testing for conformance was automatable. At minimum, everything must be testable.
• Add something in conformance scheme about level of confidence or how much tested or what kind of testing done?
• Is the definition of conformance in WCAG 1.0 adopted? Yes, where WCAG 1.0 has been adopted the policies say "level {A|AA|AAA} conformance" and rely on the WCAG 1.0 definition.
• Could someone say "we're 20% conformant to WCAG 2.0"? Is it possible to have an "A-" level? Here are the guidelines that we don't meet? Look at UAAG?
• How achievable is the minimum level of conformance?
• Is the problem with evaluation and development tools? If they had better support would it be less of an issue?
• What are the differences between policy vs conformance claim? State exceptions in the policy not in our guidelines and definition of conformance? For example, real-time captioning for EU meetings would be in 20 languges at a time. expensive.

Looking at policies and conformance from around the world.

U.S. and 508

• VPAT is how claim conformance to the law.
• Purchasers decide which product "best meets the standard" with respect to 508. Developers have the option of saying "these are the things that don't meet 508"
• if it's a contract to build a web site the contractor usually says, "the site will" not that "the web site does" because the site doesn't exist yet.
• vpat in scope of work of the product. for service - part of contract.
• does claiming conformance mean filling out a checklist? for 508, yes.
• vpat applies to product or service
• 508 doesn't say anything about scope. how to make a conformance claim? purchase point is a point in time - that's when evlauation occurs

Japan

• conformance is not so well-defined

Europe

• European Commission internal policy: wcag 1.0 level A or AA. EC copied checklist into communication. policy page states exceptions and explanation. Pages that fully conform display a logo, for details there is a checklist attached to "the communication." "In principle, pages are compliant but not a guarantee" - logo usually only appears on home page.
• EC cover web applications? not sure.

Canada

• policy is WCAG 1.0 AA. plug into common l&f (covers more than accessibility). lots of templates and CMS to reach CLF. province of Ontario: ADA-like, but no teeth.

Test suites, Implementation testing, Candidate Recommendation

Will implementation testers have use of evaluation tools that are knowledgeable about WCAG 2.0? Currently, we know that Chris Ridpath's OAC should be inline with 2.0. We could (or help tool makers take) existing xml output from tools and convert to a WCAG 2.0 report via xslt. Paul Bohman, Andy Judson, and Michael Cooper are interested in working on this.

Will we test the implementation tests to see if following WCAG 2.0 results in content that is accessible? John Slatin is interested in this question and possibly able to do some testing. WWAAC is a potential candidate to test for intellectual disabilities.

Presentation on differences and similarities between WCAG 2.0 11 March 2004 WD and JIS Guidelines

Prof. Takayuki Watanabe presented a comparison.

• All WCAG 2.0 guidelines covered in JIS.
• One JIS guideline not covered in WCAG 2.0 guidelines.
• Six JIS guidelinse have weak correspondance to WCAG 2.0 guidelines.

Determined it would be helpful to compare JIS guidelines to WCAG 2.0 success criteria.

Summary of Japanese-specific issues (many of us saw these at the November face-to-face, but many have not)

• Unicode ambiguities
  • if type "hoshi" in a Japanese word processor, get a number of characters to choose from. The character is pronounced differently between screen readers. unicode is ambiguous and complicated. similar-looking but diff characters are included in unicode. Isn't this a similar issue to bullets used in creating lists in Word? Isn't this an issue of marking up lists properly or are the characters used for more than list bullets? They may also be used for layout information.
  • unicode 2460 is "circled digit one." 2460 is not always displayed in the same way. sometimes it is 1 in a circle, sometimes not.
  • Is unicode ambiguous about what character should be displayed?
  • Different applications have different "correspondance tables"
• Font of Kanji characters
  • kanji characters that consist of many strokes, need to be large font to read. might not be a problem if font compensates. issues w/how font designed as well as used.
  • why 5.6.a corresponds to 4.1 - user agent allow to increase font size. using "em" - don't fix the font size. font is deprecated in html 4.01. *** an issue to come back to. make sure we're in synch on this.
• whitespace or linebreak in middle of word
  • e.g., t<br/>a<br/>
  • no way for screen reader to get meaning
• Characters that look similar with different pronunciations
  • diff in zenkaku characters. two characters that look like a dash, only diff is weight/width. one word means "lead" other means nothing. or Zenkaku Z and Hankaku Z
  • proper nouns written in Kanji sometimes have various pronunciations.
  • similar to what an abbreivation means. how author state intense.
• ISO Guide 71
  • JIS is developed under ISO Guide 71 thus section 6 of JIS Part 3: general requirements for assurance and improvement of information accessibility.
  • this section: require changes in content or process? way to help people if all else fails (email and phone)?
  • Look at Guide 71. Can WCAG 2.0 be written in accorance with it? If so, more likely to be adopted by JIS?

Requirements for WCAG 2.0

• should wcag 2.0 be written in accordance with ISO 71?
• do we need to define accessibility? we're saying "do these things" not "reach these people"
• straw poll: Do prefer the wcag 1.0 definition of level A or the 2.0 draft definition of level A?
  • 17 like the 11 March 2004 WD definition of Level 1/A
  • 5 prefer the WCAG 1.0 (1999) definition of priority 1/Level A
  • Those who do not wish to use the 11 March 2004 definition of Level 1/A said:
    • Are we meeting the target audience? Are we facilitating adoption? The definition is confusing. It will take a lot of educating to use the definition.
    • I'm too new to have an educated opinion. However, as it is, I can't sell it to my organization. It is too hard for anyone to adopt. Part of selling it is automating the testing.
    • I am conflicted. I agree that we need to figure something out and meet our schedule. I agree that all checkpoints are important. 508 doesn't create a minimum. You declare what you achieve and people compare what you have done against your competitors. The minimum is the whole set, but you can make claim that is less than minimum. My concern with saying that there is not minimum is that there are relationships between requirements. You can't create a VPAT for every page (too difficult, too much work). Thus, in 508, no minimum.
    • I don't understand "not effecting the default presentation." The definition is difficult to understand.
    • I like the old approach, p1 is a ramp (there aren't stairs, so with the help of one person I can get into the building. I don't need two body-buiders to lift me up a set of stairs), p2 is a usable ramp (i can roll myself up), p3 no elevation (no need for ramp).
• issue with tying conformance to testability: it is evolving and will continue to do so. what is not testable today might be testable tomorrow.

Looked at conformance in UAAG

• uaag talks about applicability vs haven't done.
• document vs application
• aggregator vs content creator
• types of technologies: voice or not
• base issue: what are the minimum requirements and that they almost all require human intervention.
• reason to do something like uaag: use diff minimum for diff groups. person claim conformance for cms system but not content created with it?

Definitions

• accessible: which groups do we mean? if we don't follow the principles, many people not use. (in intro purpose) we say what happens when the prinicples are ignored but not what happens if follow.
• web content: uri? what about web applications?

Defining the minimum level

• EOWG argued for 3 levels instead of 2. the simpler we can make it for end-users, the easier.
• Is our minimum level a ramp? It's not clear. @@map wcag 1.0 checkpoints to 2.0 success criteria: gottfried already has start on (from 14 february draft). ben will complete and andi offered to help.
• when we look at success criteria, we ask, "should this be in minimum" without looking at the criteria. so, still influence of 1.0 idea of "important"
• not all guidelines have to do with presentation.
• Should there be a difference betwen how we define minimum level and how we determine what goes into level 1?
• interpretation of the 3 priority levels in wcag 1.0 - 1: ramp (they are not steps, but someone, if needed, could get pushed up it rather than carried up steps), 2: usable ramp (can use myself), 3: no grade
• ideally: p1 are those things that are widely applicable across types of content and audiences (higher levels are more specializes and less widely applicable). for ourselves, help decide where put things by how effect presentation. can we be open and recognize that we are not able to meet the needs of everyone, particularly intellectual disabilities? Note that many of the things we do address issues for people with intellectual disabilities.
• guide 71: cog (intellect, memory)
• wwaac - alt representation, summary of home page (in meta).
• can't write court brief in lesser style, can't make "reader's digest version." do need to state that we've addressed, but are not in a position to tell authors.
• guidelines are looking at the things that create barriers. principles: don't create this kind of barrier. guidelines: how can you avoid this kind of barrier. priorities - techniques in avoiding these kinds of barriers, what are teh exceptions we allow. priorities associated with greatest barriers?
• how diff from must should may? it's the same...level 1 that crfeate most barreirs.
• include specify cognitive? don't, sake of durability of document. technologies will develop.
• important to discuss limitations of the document?

Updating Requirements for WCAG 2.0

We went through all of the stateemnts in "Requirements for WCAG 2.0" to determine where we needed to update, clarify, or change statements. In some cases, we no longer have consensus on consensus statements, but others are still solid. Wendy will work with Gregg to update and publish a revised draft to the group.

#2

• dynamic content - what mean? do we do? mean - user profile? application function is to look up things in database...
• relationship user agent support - clarify. keyboard requirement.
• mention QA in beginnin gparagraph? @@
• @@?? minimum level address largest barriers to accessibility
• testability??

#3

• easy to use - by whom?

#5

• speech? needed for voice input apps
• other? is it reallyl everything?
• language symbols - people using symbolic language - are we addressing? success criteria that support concept codes? think we've got it covered.

#6

• providing transition materials
• if we can map
• doesn't say that if a site conforms to 1.0 it can conform to 2.0. "not completey" is subjecctive
• did we define "accessible content?"
• @@explanation that can be added based on wac's presentations

R

• put part of in audience?
• liink to benefits of standards harmonization?
• link to other requirements document - where?
• put in something about it becoming a convergence target? our desire for doing so?

N

• normative and not automatic testing...don would object.
• ease of testing? it must be practical to test it.
• n9 delete

C

• C1 means "betwen levels" - not sure? probably not. no consensus.
• C2 - opened that up and this meeting.
• C3 s/accessiblilty/conformance, s/checkpoints/success criteria. "here is complete set, which have you done?"
• C5 - redundant w/benefits requirement.
• C8 - conflict with C1?

M

• M2 - sure but we should not require
• M4 - however, we put exceptions in checkpoints. either conflicts with "no conformance claim" if don't meet minimum, or interesting sidenote for metadata. don't have consensus. in checklists, have ideas of "notes" - "I implemented this technique that is not in the checklist...via someones authority b/c...." there are things have changed in the world but 1.0 hasn't changed. e.g. space in form fields. we assert conformance, but don't need to meet that. as author, i have a legit argument.
• use cases for metadata: 1. negotiation between client and web page 2. legal issues - i've conformed but i've interpreted the guidelines in this way. is it metadata or site internal doc or policy page? don't put legal in metadata (in elements).

S

• S1 - more of a success criteria or techniques? is this an equivalent facilitation clause? includes transformations and web services. mostly - server-side techniques. at guidelines say "or provide equiv alternative."

B1 - is for techniques requriements

G

• G1 - let's meet our own guidelines
• G2 - we're not categorizing as "accessiblity" and "uisability." we're not trying to make a distinction. leave it. give to john slatin.
• G3 - we're doing for X is it harmful for Y. this is relevant to success criteria.

A1 - good for introduction.

these need to move up to requirements. link to technqieus requirements.

mention other technologies - like to see a statement, "these intended for all technologies on the web, even though we only create techniques for w3c techs"

project plan

• what is at risk - how things are dependent on each other
• mock-up of how to connect 1.1 all the way through to html techniques, then techs and test cases woudl be done. to complete this, team people from the techniques task force with people from larger group.
• action items: each take a success criteria (or group) and find web sites that conform and not. connect to techniques and test cases.
• issues with publicly stating sites that do not. what doing with them?
• way-back machine? implementation reports: snippets of code?
• conformance evaluations....only those sites that really conform...talk with developers.
• do we need checklists or evaluation forms?
• each person takes x success criteria, here are the existing techniques that seem to map to it and fulfill it (or i have technique w/out success criteira, or SC w/out techniques), that helps us find techniques to do.
  • vetting techniques real-live examples
• upcoming plan:
  • next month (whiloe people review 11 march draft), try to tie techniques with success cfriteria and find real-world examples
  • get through in next month, then begin processing review comments.
• anonymize the sites that we find
• create mock-ups later

action item: take one criterion, map to techniques, think about other technologies. look at html techniques to see if it is in there. look for real world sites that do and don't meet. test cases that used to determine.

june f2f?

AOL/Amsterdam or Paris, IBM/Paris??

RESNA 18-22 orlando

v2 plenary 14-18 nist, d.c.

UPA??

2nd week of june??

Group photo at the end of Sunday - front row left to right: Kerstin, Jenae, Katie, Shadi, and Charmane. Back row left to right: Don, Doyle, XX, Takayuki, David, Andi, Andy, Marc, Loretta, Paul, Ben, Wendy

[2]http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/implementation-testing/Overview.html

[3]http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-req/

$Date: 2004/04/01 01:39:33 $ Jenae Andershonis, Wendy Chisholm