Christian, et al comments at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2004May/0003.html
CB WCAG 1.0 adopted as standard in Germany.
people argued that document from 1999 is too old for a document to be adopted in 2002. Now, 2004, similar argument.
In 1.0, there are some time-dependent issues (e.g., "until user agents.")
everyone waiting for 2.0, however don't know when available. thus we went for 1.0.
how quickly will 2.0 be published? possible to publish 1.0 errata before 2.0 becomes recommendation?
gv we have looked at issue with taking a 1.1 through recommendation process.
worried that it will set 2.0 back further (if we focus on 1.1)
also, want to avoid confusion between 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0. enough confusion around 1.0 and 2.0.
desirable to adopt wcag w/out specifying a version number?
so that adopt whatever is current at the given time.
or create a mechanism to migrate to 2.0 once it is available.
difficult b/c it is not published by ISO or CEN.
have a clause that says will revisit technical standards over time or if sig. chnges occur in environment.
however, that does not mean it is adopted automatically.
we could go through all of these discussions again.
worry about ability to convince government a second time.
W3C Recommendations are "real" standards, e.g., HTML, XML.
However, there has been some discussion about taking WCAG 2.0 through ISO process.
Some WCAG 1.0 checkpoints had to be reworded into legislative language.
e.g., "until user agents"
Similar to 508 issue.
We are trying to write in such a way that can be adopted in policy and to avoid every country rewording to meet their needs.
Related to the "official translation" issue.
Know that is being discussed.
Understand don't want to publish 1.1, but useful to have clarifications, e.g., about until user agent checkpoints.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/Resources/WAI-UA-Support
wac we have 3 options (not mutually exclusive):
1. update user agent accessibility page (http://www.w3.org/WAI/Resources/WAI-UA-Support)
2. update errata page (with informative errata) http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WAI-WEBCONTENT-ERRATA
3. publish revised edition of WCAG 1.0 that deprecates *some* of the until user agent checkpoints (don't think we can do all) - only do if don't have to go through entire Rec process)
produced a matching document between 1.0 and 2.0. expected close match between p1 in 1.0 and level 1 in 2.0.
needed to make migration easy
our mapping is more detailed than your mapping
need a document that says "migrate from 1.0 to 2.0... here's what you do"
stronger requirements, weaker, deprecated
we intend to provide that information - not only for people to use, but to ensure we've done our job well.
felt that some criteria are refering to UAAG, because UAAG not adopted in legislation.
enforcement only on WCAG not UAAG
if transfer responsiblities to UAAG, it goes into a "grey zone"
2.2 level 2 (stop or pause content)
problem is not referencing other guidelines, but making assumptions about user agent
if we don't make any assumptions about what the user's tools can do, then author has a lot more work to do. how do you propose we address that?
ok to make assumptions about what they currently do, not what they *might* do
there will always be a browser that is broken. does that mean that we must always plan for the worst case?
in germany, made a timeline that said "everything older than 3 years, need not be taken care of"
what about other technologies, not just html? what about upcoming technologies and that wcag 2.0 will be around for ~5 years? what about pushing user agents and asst techs to do what they are supposed to do?
we want to remove the barriers as much as possible. if i assume something that may not happen, then there is no guarantee.
difference between techniques and guidelines.
<Zakim> wendy, you wanted to ask, "support for standards."
adoption by government creates need for people to follow.
if people feel it is too heavy, business can create pressure to ease the burden.
however, atag and uaag not likely to be adopted by governments...although 508 does include software accessibility guidelines that are related/directly map to aspects of atag and uaag.
what does it mean, "techniques are informative"
gv explains guidelines, techniques, and checklists
issues related to making checklists normative
related to atag/uaag in law, people are validating more b/c of internal policies. perhaps by default, browsers will support standards.
wrt tables, they are not technology-dependent. they are a feature of presenting information.
thus, they should be part of the guidelines.
the place where tables is covered, they are covered abstractly - using structural elements.
because it was a big point in 1.0 and basically vanished in 2.0
<scribe> new proposal:
1. collapses information from criteria into defn of equivalent
2. removed "exception" (sensory experience) by incorporating into success criteria
3. instead of "a text equiv" to "equiv alternative" which collapses 1.2 into 1.1
this syncs w/guideline 1 in 1.0
in 1.0, multimedia subset of guideline 1.1.
1.2 seems much broader and concern about comibning w/1.1
instead of dividing line being multimedia, if there is time-based material then synch audio description under 1.2 and keep separate
level 3 under 1.1 (text doc that includes descriptions) - is providing a text equiv for the equivalents in 1.2
radio show is time-dependent, but no need to sync equivalents
breaking proposal into 3 parts:
1. consensus: remove the phrase, "serve the same purpose or convey the same information"
2. consensus: remove the phrase, "except when the sole purpose...is to create a sensory experience..."
3. use "non-text equivalents" instead of "equivalent alternatives" which moves audio description into 1.1??
discussion:
then, do all images have to be described w/an audio file?
doesn't say, "provide equivalent alternatives for visual content"
success criteria would discuss types of content
e.g., SC 1, level 1 talks about text alternatives, there are 3 things under that that are more specific.
<Zakim> wendy, you wanted to ask "why only move audio description and not also captions?"
1.1 uses "text equivalents" and 1.2 is about multimedia/interactive
alternative vs equivalent - people's feelings?
<bengt> Mime multipart actually defines it as alternative
"text alternative" is more appropriate, since not actually writing an "equivalent" for a painting
consensus: use "text alternative" instead of "text equivalent"
define "explicitly associated?" remove "programatically"?
txt alt are explicitly associated (link) w/non-text content and 1 of the following is true...
non-text content that does not provide info or functionality can be ignored by asst. tech
"is marked in a fashion...to be ignored?"
this is d, "non-text content that does not provide function or information is marked such that it can be ignored..."
scribe: =
functionality or information...by asst technologies
adopted other proposed wording
thanks john and mike!