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


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


Requirements documents for techniques [1] On the critical path to get WCAG 2.0 Recommendation (i.e., by Last Call), we need to have "complete" techniques documents for:

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.

Test Suite

Timeline is TBD. We would like to have done by last call.


Need people to apply 2.0 to their sites and need a good mixture of different types of applications, languages, and types of sites.

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.



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:

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:

Transition from 1.0 to 2.0

What documents do we want to provide?

Open issues:

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").

Conformance issues for content aggregators

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

Creating a harmonization target

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

Looking at policies and conformance from around the world.

U.S. and 508




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.

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)

Requirements for WCAG 2.0

Looked at conformance in UAAG


Defining the minimum level

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.










B1 - is for techniques requriements


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

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.


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




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