Thursday, 11 February 1999 4:00 - 5:30 PM EST
Discussion of the use of TEX in alt-text.
Jason believe it ought to be highlighted in the Guidelines document but covered in more details in Techniques.
Chuck and Wendy felt that no special mention ought to be made in the Guidelines and that the entire discussion ought to pushed to the Techniques document.
Wendy proposed a note that would modify the list of images that require specific handling of alt-text (in A.1.1 - image maps, spacers, bullets, etc.).
@@Wendy will send proposed wording to the list for discussion.
All of these were accepted.
There is still some disagreement about what priority B.3.1 ought to be assigned, but those who are leaning towards P2 rather than P1 seemed to feel that if the appropriate caveats were attached, P1 would be acceptable. One proposal that was supported was, "Use language that is as simple as possible and appropriate for the content of your site." However, there is still concern about how people would determine if they have satisfied this guideline. Therefore, we want to continue the discussion of this topic on the list.
JB: Do we need a conformance statement? Yes.
JB: Ok then what? I think it can be very minimal.
IJ: This doesn't mention the checkpoints. Need to say something about them.
IJ: Also need to define "priority level". Does "priority 3" mean 1 + 2 + 3? Or just 3?
GV: Conformance would be: "They must state Priority 1 OR Priority 1 and 2 OR Priority 1 and 2 and 3". In other words, you always have to do the Priority 1 checkpoints.
JW: Instead of trying to specify a priority level as conformance. People who claim to be in conformance should state what level they're in conformance with.
JB: If there can be agreement on the framework, then the WG can fill in the details. The WG should dictate prescriptively how other groups will use this. Just want to avoid groups misquoting or being ambiguous about their references.
IJ: Should people be allowed to say "Priority 1 conformant except for these checkpoints ..."
JB: Try to prevent those situations from arising.
CMN: Nothing prevents people from saying "We comply with 90% of the guidelines." But don't help them do it.
JW: Some checkpoints may refer to content types that don't apply to a site. Must define conformance in a way that lets them be conformant when some checkpoints don't apply.
GV: Thus, for video: "ALl video must have captions". If you don't have video, no problem.
JB: Try to prevent people from scrambling priority levels or otherwise misusing the document while claiming to conform to it
JW: "The conformance claim must be one of the following three phrases..."
Any document or process claiming conformance with this document must reference it as follows: "W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines"; must cite the document version identifier "WD-WAI-PAGEAUTH-19990115" and document URI "..." on W3C's Web site; and must indicate the checkpoint priority levels to which it claims conformance using one of the following three phrases:
- all priority one checkpoints, or
- all priority one and two checkpoints, or
- all priority one, two, and three checkpoints.
A conformance statement must take the following form: "This [document or process name] conforms to all priority level ['one'; or 'one and two'; or 'one, two and three'] checkpoints of the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines" with document version identifier "WD-WAI-PAGEAUTH-19990210" located at "http://www.w3.org/WAI/gl/WD-WAI-PAGEAUTH-19990210."