W3C Web Accessibility Initiative

Web Content Accessibility Guideines WG Meeting

October 21, 1999
4:00 - 5:00 PM EDT
Longfellow Bridge: (617-252-1038)


william loughborough, chuck letourneau, ian jacobs, wendy chisholm, charles mccathieneville, eric hansen, gregory rosmaita, frank torrey

regrets: jason white

Summary of action items and consensus


Work group planning.

Reports on action items from last meeting.

Haven't had a meeting. Will revisit next week.

New discussion

Future of GL working group

cl talking w/jb at end of cg call on tues. she had forgotten to send a note to IG re: increased participation. encourage participation in IG.

wc got that action item. waiting for today's discussion.

cl have lead on person. lots of programming background.

wc er? collect names and when recharter and new call for participation, send specifically to them.

things left undone:

cmn browser support only there b/c empty ua's.

ij went over with lake rocca from netscape. mostly for dependent UA. we need to note that. 13 total, only about 8 applied. don't think we can get rid of page, but can get rid of.

cmn the goal is to get rid of the ua support page. also, need actual examples of scripts. needs work.

wl alarmed at amount of inaccessible courseware. cmn lots of eo work and au.

gl browser sniffing. way it is utilized. in a way it is discriminating. may only stiff for mozilla. if use opera, they could access, but sniffing won't let you in.

cmn a checkpoint.

wc techniques under usable by all browsers.

gr @@ send something to the list re: browser sniffing.

wc wish: robot like in web characterization. how many of top 100 sites are accessible? how effective are the guidelines being?

cmn review group.

consensus: yes, ER activity in synch w/ characterization activity.

getting #'s is dependency.

cl what can we do before end of charter?

cmn how hard is techniques restructuring?

ij don't know.

/* group discusses */

  1. restructure techniques.
  2. add new techniques.
  3. clear out as many open issues as can.

eh issue that needs to be resolved: immproving the auditability of web content for web accessibility. through xml or improved lang support...

  1. problems, bobby has huge list of things to verify by human. good to reduce or shift as many of those to be auto-verifiable.
  2. what kind of accessibility queries that one would like web content to support. e.g. appropriate to ask a document show me the content for which there exists text equivalents. can't do that for all the pieces of primary content.

cmn tools needed to do that are in place: rdf parsers, pics, etc.

eh but we don't require use of those techniques?

cmn we have a checkpoint that says, " use metadata." it's probably poorly understood. we could go crazy in the techniques doc. some work in ER group are working on. (Dan Brickley and Brian in UK).

eh looked at previous URLs given in past seemed relevent but not all there. one query, "of the content in this site, what porportion is oriented towards a disability group and this output technology?"

cmn show me the stuff that works for people who are blind.

eh if access is a function of disability and i/o technologies and x other parameters, shouldn't there be some way of identifying or flagging content as being general to whole range or specialized to a special class.

cmn expres that in w3c jargon is "integrating work with semantic web." i.e. a web constructed of info determined by machines.

eh yes, has to be based on a schema that relates classes of disability to classes of technology. also, map bidirectionally different equivalents, one that can stand in for another. need to move from one to the other unambigously.

wl if that idea a gl thing?

cmn not just a gl thing. but needs to work on.

wc other ideas? next version?

cmn what it is we are going to do in very concrete terms. a couple more versions of the document.

wc how evolving?

cmn we pushed off to future version. we should be less hesitent to say, "these not addressed will be addresed as become more used."

wl scripting guidelines.

eh what's the issue w/scripting?

cmn what we said in wcag 1.0 is, "make sure don't have to rely on them." there was not a lot of guidance.

cl hit by that a few times in presentations. "how do i do it?"

cmn another goal: incorporating work from other groups. notes like accessible smil, svg, etc. incorporate that work. copy and paste. cheap way to improve.

/* group agrees */

ij one minor difference, those docs are based on w3c specs. don't have a scripting spec. the access notes are "how to in this language." if we don't take a specific language, then guideline-y.

cmn script more research to be done.

eh you mean javascript?

cmn javascript, dom, perl, etc.

fc also client-side, embedded objects - activex, flash, etc.

ij another point: we have guidelines for software and content but not formats. perhaps a meta set of guidelines for formats. navigation, orientation, etc. try to draw attention to them.

cmn pf has some public work directed at xml. how to write new format in xml that provides accessibility. that's really guidelines stuff.

wc pick up on and run with?

cmn yes.

wc ecmascript? a w3c activity? open format.

wc timeline?

eh need to be reworking the charter in the next month?

cmn staff contact deals with it.

/* wc finds out she is the staff contact. */

cmn have more time in the near future.

@@cmn work on techniques once it is re structured.

@@ij restructure techniques. but won't happen until UA goes to last call. either end of october, or mid-november.

@@ cl take Gl open issues to get people working on them.

gr list participants as active or not in er and pf to nudge conscience.

wl what about reupping?

wc part of rechartering.

cmn what one thing did not do was get rid of them. people would come back and say something really good.

@@WC send notes and drum up participation. what should i say?

wl ask them what should we be doing. give them this list.

?? appeal to varying levels of commitment.

cl but we just need warm bodies to discuss issues.

gr "speak now or forever hold your piece."

wc "help shape where we are going."

eh helpful if say what the deadlines are.

wl use end of charter as deadline.

wl perhaps chuck hitchcock would get into the cognitive end of things.

ij be good to get commitments from fresh people. get people on the call not just on the list. consistency and size are good things.

cmn i'm interested in getting people who are stuck in other time zones (australia and east asia) this is VERY early in the morning. looking for way to increase participation of people in those areas.

ij i chair global comm meeting every thursday. 58 people from around the world. concerns of the team. impossible to get participation b/c 5 a.m. in california, 10 in japan, etc. at one time, attempt to split into 2 mtgs. that failed, but may be nature of that meeting. for this meeting, might be good for one of 2 chairs to be there, or one of 2 editors. if entirely disjointed not so great.

gr a pain to coordinate and to keep track of individuals. then instead of 2 meetings, have participation.

wc tried that this summer. would like to try again.

wl way to prenotify before the call.

cmn more than that. it's hard to think at 4 a.m.

wl my problem is knowing there is a meeting.

ij announcements are sent out, i have a calendar that beeps, etc.

gr as simple as on agenda page, setting up a mechanism so that page has been updated. give indication of call. reminder.

ij automated reminder would send msg for update and would get updates for each change.

/* post mtg discussion:

face 2 face.

rotating mtgs: "locales"

wai-tide involvement.

rnib web access group.