[@@w3c/wai/wcag identifying info]
WCAG 2.0 punch list
[@@disclaimer about what this is and how it is to be used]
Refer to minutes from
13 June 2005 face-to-face ("Day 1").
Guideline 1.1
- L1SC1 - defn of non-text content does it include applets and widgets?
are applets too html-specific? where do you draw the line between which
functional content is included in Guideline 1.1? do we need to draw a
line? Does it depend on the baseline? It may not depend on the baseline
(it may still need to be renderable as text).
- L1SC2 - is a transcript required for all prerecorded multimedia at
level 1? what do we mean by transcript? does it mean full script - both
captions and AD?
Guideline 1.2
- L1 SC2 Question whether we want to require audio descriptions at level
1.
Ednote addresses 1151 when audio descriptions and
captions are provided. Do we want to document the exceptions?
- L2 SC1 Move to level 3? Might need a way to write exceptions for it.
Underlying issue is the size of the audience and budget of the
organization for providing real-time captions.
Guideline 1.3
- Guideline text - Alternative proposal " Ensure that the perception of
structure and function of the web content do not depend on the
presentation"
Rebuttal: "programmatically determine the semantics of the structure"
How is "information" captured by this proposal?
Discuss the "where permitted by technology..." clause in original
proposal
- L1 SC2 - Proposed wording is: Markup or coding is used to encode
document semantics
Question whether we to remove this SC (is emphasis covered by structure?)
Are there other things that are semantics that aren't structure? Should
it be at level 1? Is it covered by SC1?
- L1 SC3- Identify the accessibility issue. "Programatically determined"
or "markup"? Is this too restrictive at level 1? Is it enough to be
programatically determined?
- L1 SC4 - Issues covered in survey. Is it redundant because following
WCAG is enough?
- Discuss open issues after discussing the new text
Guideline 1.4
Guideline 2.1
not handled
Not resolved L1 SC 1: All functionality of the content can be operated
through a keyboard interface except whenA. input is analogue in nature, or B.
the input proces inherently depends on visual feedback [group liked the
construction with a list of exceptions but did not agree on a list of
exceptions. Sent back to group]
handled?
- L1 SC1: current proposal removes "described in a sentence" - do we want
to limit SC1 to only refer to simple funtionality (will need to describe)
or is is req. for all content? Has to do with time based movement that
adds functionality ( isn't that gestures?) Can we look at Wendy's
1.1 idea of number of actions or type of functionality?Is
this related to 4.2 proposal?
Do we need to mention not requiring visual feedback in order to operate
(like keyboard movement of mouse)? Can we use 508 text? Do we
want to allow Level 1 conformance if all parts of content are not
keyboard operable?
- Proposed wording for a L1 criterion for guideline 2.1: The states and
values of contents that can be changed via the user interface can
also be changed programmatically. (coming from the guideline 4.2
work). How does this proposal relate to a keyboard interface?
Doesn't - would require changing the 2.1 GL description to go
beyond keyboard interface. Wasn't this proposed when we thought 4.2 was
going away? Might make sense to leave in 4.2 if we are keeping
it. Propose letting Roberto and Yvette continue to work on this GL
based on the feedback in the survey.
- L3 SC1: needs to be deferred to small group for further
discussion because of relation to L1 SC1.
Guideline 2.2
Guideline 2.3
Guideline 2.4
not handled
- No resolution to remove or change wording for: L2 SC1 More than one way
is available to locate content within a set of delivery units. [V]
(proposal was to delete, that wasn't accepted. need to reword or agree to
keep current wording for this round)
handled?
- L1 SC1: What is a "navigational feature"?
- L1 SC1: Do navigational features need to be "programmatically
determined"?
- L1 SC1: What would be sufficient techniques in various favourite
technologies?
- L1 SC1: What happened to orientation? Might be dealt with in discussion
of L2 proposals.
- "Delivery unit" vs. "perceivable unit" discussion--we don't want
confusions from delivery unit but perceivable unit is outside author's
control. And, we're not even sure we all have the same understanding of
what these are on any given day.
- L2 SC1: Do we understand the accessibility issue solved by requiring
more than one way to get to stuff? Is it a L2 issue?
- L2 SC1: Multiple means doesn't necessarily mean multiple useful
means...
- L2 SC1: Is multiple means of navigation needed on all sets of delivery
units? Or are there some for which it is not needed?
- L3 SC2: no resolution whether to move this to L2, pending discussion of
"delivery units"
- Proposed L2 SC4: we like some of this but the wording needs work; also
unclear if this is already covered by 3.2 (which perhaps we can delete if
we adopt this)
Guideline 2.5
Guideline 3.1
[Not for F2F work groups]
- L2 SC1: resolved: accept new wording and move SC "A mechanism is
available for finding definitions for all words in text content." to L3
with comment that techniques are needed. Additional work needed:
- reminder to include in guidedoc that there is some flexibility for
word variations created in a systematic way.
- need some tech. specific examples in order to better understand
- Action item to research a language-specific extention possibility to
address pronunciation issues (we did not accept proposed wording "A
mechanism is available for finding the correct pronunciation of any word
whose pronunciation cannot be determined from context." based on the
assumption that we will create a testable criterion to address language
specific issues.
Guideline 3.2
- Re-write definition of "extreme change of context". Must be careful not
to define "extreme change of context" as unexpected.
- Remove change of speaker from benefit and from definition.
- Concern about "sequence" - would this disallow sub-menu items from
being added to a nav bar? No, because the repeated items are still in the
same sequence. Address in examples.
- Define "context" as in "extreme change of context" and to consider as
an alternative to "set of delivery units".
- Revisit "Explicit notice is given in advance of any extreme change of
context." with definition of "extreme change of context" work item.
Concern that this requires UI. Can it just be labeled? Concern that this
requires notification whenever you link to a new page.
- Re-write this proposal to be consistent with other proposals about
repeated components in this guideline: Text alternatives for non-text
content that appears on multiple delivery units are consistent. Consider
"Non-text components that have the same function and appearance within a
set of delivery units have the same text alternatives. Address Yvette's
concern that this is not simply non-text components but should apply to
all labels, not just non-text components.
- Revisit "There are no extreme changes of context." with definition of
"extreme change of context" work item.
Guideline 4.1
action to propose a Level 1 criterion to address well-formedness.
Guideline 4.2
action to update proposals for guideline 4.2