September 16, 1999
4:00 - 5:00 PM EDT
Longfellow Bridge: (617-252-1038)
we agree that we need to have a face 2 face meeting. We aren't sure when, although it seems we might be able to piggyback off of the PF meeting in December in Asia.
@@WC will discuss with Judy and the chairs.
The primary discussion should be about "what is next for the group?" we had some initial discussion today:
WC it's been a while...ready for another version?
IJ not long enough. just keep errata up to date. new version is not urgent.
GV a new version wouldn't be done for bug fixes, but major advance.
IJ take exmplae of HTML 4.01: it is to correct mistakes. it is more than minor clarifications. we could put another one out and call it WCAG 1.0. but must be limited to small clarificaitons and typos. if we're making more substantial changes, need to do WCAG 1.1. Either way most likely need review by AC.
JW as develop new XML technologies, would be useful to examine additional issues in regards to the guidelines. PF published draft XML access guidelines. we ought to incorporate into WCAG. After we gain implementation experience, we can adopt new knowledge per that experience. We need firm goals and justifications. establish priorities along with next version.
GV releasing another 1.0 is an interesting idea. I like JW's comment re: new technologies.
JW yes, but we have to wait until they become recommendations.
GV are there big problems people want to address?
IJ the non-reader issue. can a document be all text and conform?
CMN no, it won't.
GV won't change the document yet because we don't have consensus.
CMN need to see this issue addressed in an upgrade version of WCAG.
GV it won't conform at all?
CMN it won't conform to AA
GV i don't agree. we have strong split in the group.
IJ we need to come to meeting with a list of perceived problems. are they typos, errata, whatever? get consensus. the issues list is one place to gather this information from, the errata is another.
GV we should be careful to not come to consensus in meeting teleconferences. should be over list.
IJ someone should send to the list a proposed categorization, and start discussion.
@@WC will create a list of perceived problems and propose categories for the type of problems (typos, errata, etc.) and send it to the list.
GV to have another version would be detrimental unless really good reason.
/* discussion about timeline for current deliverables. browser support needs to be done asap, techniques will follow. want to be done by november - before the current charter expires. */
/* idea for techniques:
add links to SVG, SMIL, other notes that will be released soon. */
@@WC get other folks involved - developers primarily.
IJ perhaps Jeffrey McCaffrey (sent ian an e-mail).
JW in relation to finding people - ask Judy whether appropriate to send invite to IG.
WC frustrated that feedback we get is that it is not usable.
/* discussion of checkpoint map - how to make more usable */
IJ perhaps add brief statement of technique examples in context to guidelines doc? hate to make longer, but...
JW keep it out of guidelines, only in techniques because of the ongoing nature of the techniques document. w/checkpoint map add lists of relevant techniques under each checkpoint.
IJ short techniques and expansion elsewhere can be prioritized in the list. would be updated each time change the techniques doc.
JW can we generate the list automatically? i remember previous discussions of using databases. let's raise it again.
IJ yes, one of first reactions to wendy's proposed change was that it would have to have some level of automatic generation to avoid burdening the editors.
Copyright © 1999 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply.