20 April 2000 WCAG WG telecon

Summary of action items




Clarification from last week

WC clarification from minutes from last week - done with guideline 14?

JW yes. open issue. sticking to

Next face2face

CS next face2face?

WC Perhaps in November, but

JW Blind Citizens Australia have made an informal to host the meeting.

Guideline 11

11.1 Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a task and use the latest versions when supported. [Priority 2]

CS what about ECMAScript?

JW main reason is that W3C recommendations undergo extensive accessibility review and therefore we wanted to push those.

CS what about accessibility review of ECMAScript standards? is it happening?

JW DOM is related and that is independent of the scripting language. Interesting question, "is one scripting language better (more accessible) than another, or is DOM enough?"

CS agree, DOM is the piece we need to be concerned about. That should be clear at the Techniques level. Because it infers that I should avoid scripting.

JW no W3C scripting language, thus doesn't apply.

JW A related issue, XHTML modules developed by user communities are not W3C technologies but basd on W3C technologies. By implication they would count.

GR The 4 checkpoints under G11 are general, but a new checkpoint might be needed. "when one is creating XHTML/XML applications one should use schemas"....meta-level requirement of what authors should use. in techniques would discuss RDF Schemas.

JW an interesting place to address these issues.

WC XML applications have not been reviewed, therefore don't agree with JW's implication. Believe that we need something general, "ensure that language you are using conforms to XML accessibility guidelines." In techniques, we would have those guidelines. The easy gimme is, "W3C languages." Beyond that you need to ensure that the language you are using will allow you to create accessible content.

Guideline 12

CS very HTML specific. 12.2 as well. push to techniques.same as 12.4?

JW last week, discussed this. table headers, form controls, titles all play the same role and should be brought together. these are all labels or titles of other content. 12.1 and 12.4

WC 12.2 is longdesc.

CS summaries, longdesc, alt-text often serve the same purpose - still descriptions.

WC there are differences.

CS they are all secondary versions of the same content.

JW prefer to draw a distinction between equivalents and descriptions, titles, and labels.

CS what about table summary?

JW in the category similar to label. it is not intended to replace the content but clarify it.

CS ok with that. similar but not identical.

WC a checkpoint from last week that 12.1 and 12.4 should fall under?

JW some agreement that labeling-type checkpoints should be brought together. did not discuss these specifically.

GR only 12.4 was specifically addressed.

WC 12.2 generalized to, "Describe the relationships between elements" include frames." primary use of RDF.

JW in SVG major accessibility feature. similar to table summaries and other summaries of content. all of those could be considered related. we can decide how to deal with them.

WC think 12.3 is very related to 12.2 because showing relationships and providing meta-information for elements.

GR structural issue.

JW seems more related to Guideline 3 it is requiring appropriate structure.

GR want to make sure that the linkage.

WC argue that it is similar to 12.2 because it is providing meta-information. MAP is one technique for doing this, just as RDF is. It goes beyond structure. Agree that 12.3 could be more general don't need to decide now where it goes.

GR similar to UA issue of what is human readable vs. machine-readable.

JW joint meeting with UA next week, bring up these issues then?

Guideline 13

13.1 Clearly identify the target of each link.

JW raised by CMN last week. server-side image map links can fall under this as a technique.

WC general enough but could apply to more cases than does now?

JW yes. but not sure if needs rewording to indicate that additional cases are subsumed in this checkpoint. not saying there was consensus.

WC how do people on this call feel about that?

CS makes sense.

DB crux of issue?

JW that server-side image maps would fall under this checkpoint. flag as interesting point to return to.

13.2 Provide metadata to add semantic information to pages and sites. [Priority 2]

JW WC proposed combining back in with 12.2 and 12.3.

WC yes.

JW in the next version we need to make the cross-references and dependencies between checkpoints clear.

GR AU attempted to address this.

13.3 Provide information about the general layout of a site (e.g., a site map or table of contents). [Priority 2]

CS another form of metadata?

JW in a sense, but it is written rather than in the markup. thinks it falls into the same category of table summaries but a larger entity which is being summarized. if had clearer guidance about summaries, when and how provided, we could try to bring it together. just a proposal.

CS could see it either standing on own or combined with summaries. another form of metadata but process is very different.

JW these concerns should be treated as interrelated. these are also important for cognitive and learning disabilities.

DB how would this apply to a portal site?

CS perhaps this requirements is only applicable to sites with many pages. for a site with 5 pages the navbar is the site map.

JW yes.

CS we don't say, "where appropriate."

WC should generalize "general layout" to read "provide info about the organization of the site" so that the site with 5 pages would have a navbar and that's all that is needed.

CS right. read it to mean "provide a site map."

JW yes. agree.

13.4 Use navigation mechanisms in a consistent manner. [Priority 2]

WC need to keep distinction between Provide mechanisms and use them consistently.

JW and GR agree.

/* no issues */

13.5 Provide navigation bars to highlight and give access to the navigation mechanism. [Priority 3]

JW should go under 13.3 as a special case.

CS agree.

WC yep.

13.6 Group related links, identify the group (for user agents), and, until user agents do so, provide a way to bypass the group. [Priority 3]

CS another metadata grouping thing.

JW and related to proper structure of the content. a block of links is a component of a document.

WC yep.

13.7 If search functions are provided, enable different types of searches for different skill levels and preferences. [Priority 3]

JW new requirement directed at cognitive and learning disabilities.

WC yep, general.

CS yep.

JW everyone agrees needs to exist in next version.

DB yep.

13.8 Place distinguishing information at the beginning of headings, paragraphs, lists, etc. [Priority 3]

JW aimed at cognitive issues and people accessing through speech.

WC keep for now.

GR yep. P3.

13.9 Provide information about document collections (i.e., documents comprising multiple pages.). [Priority 3]

CS another metadata.

JW and related to 13.3

WC yep.

13.10 Provide a means to skip over multi-line ASCII art. [Priority 3]

CS there is another one to skip over sections.

WC to skip over groups of links to get to content.

JW another interim until user agents can allow navigation of structure. author shouldn't have to do this if they use the correct structure. should go with the "skip over" requirements. it should have an until user agent requirement.

WC also applies to using markup correctly: use SVG to create the graphic, or provide image and alt-text.

JW connection also between using SVG and client-side image maps to provide semantics.

GR a good distinction to make.

Guideline 14

14.1 Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's content. [Priority 1]

14.2 Supplement text with graphic or auditory presentations where they will facilitate comprehension of the page. [Priority 3]

JW Related to cognitive disabilities. Should stand as they are.

CS, WC agree

DB not discussing priority today?

JW right.

14.3 Create a style of presentation that is consistent across pages. [Priority 3]

JW Very similar to using navigation mechanisms consistently (13.3)

WC so a generalized consistency statement?

DB, CS, GR, JW yes.

JW don't obliterate distinctions. combine into one checkpoint, make distinctions in techniques.

@@WC review minutes from today and last week and draft what a generalized version would look like.

/* time check */

JW no more issues? ready for next item on the agenda?

/* no comments */

Review of open action items

CS in the process of posting concerns about examples used in GL3 (and anywhere else that concern her) to list. Have had brief exchange with Frank re: dynamic content.

WC believe Marti and Tim are still working on PDF. I have not talked with Rob lately about Flash.

JW non-w3c technologies module exists and therefore consider this closed. People ought to review and comment.

Draft requirements document

CS much clearer

DB question about 5. we can list the needs of people or will the checkpoints reflect that need in what they require.

JW the latter.

DB did not get that. the revisiosn of the guidelines, the checkpoints, reflect the needs of people with the following disabilities.

JW, WC fine.

DB leaving ourselves room by saying, "as completely as possible."

JW requirements document can be modified throughout the process. should be a firm reluctance to change what is agreed upon, but there is no absoluate bar against doing so.

DB what is the, "the inability to interpret and/or formulate language symbols" illiteracy?

WC illiteracy and aphasia.

DB really?

WC that's what Jonathan and Anne are arguing for.

DB we want to be careful.

WC we need to address these issues, and will address as completely as possible. there may be limits to what we can require. I think using images as supplements to text can help. I don't think we can require that

JW we need to clearly identify the issues. we are working on a process to deal with this issue.

DB i worry about the time and energy required on this topic and worry we won't get to other issues because of it.

JW yes, the discussion needs to be channelled.

DB keep in mind the achievability of checkpoints. some things are out of the realm of possibilities, like "provide alternative graphics for text." that's not going to happen. i really want to address the needs of people with CD/LD but designers will not be able to do that for all much less a majority of their content. i mean, if so easy then why don't we communicate via images over e-mail?

JW we're trying to bring together relevant people, perhaps in a teleconference devoted to CD/LD.

GR to counter your arguments, DB, graphical chat clients are very popular. emoticons are used in e-mail. there are issues. a discussion would be good.

DB yes. further discussion would be good.

DB what about discussion from F2F about using a database?

WC after much discussion with Ian, we didn't want to set in stone the shape the deliverables would take. We highlighted that we would discuss with audience what their needs are then try to address them. do usability testing.

JW there was usability testing done on the last version, early on. we need to look at existing overviews and determine how they could be modified to address various audience needs. overall goal: precision and clarity. could be addressed that this is a precise technical specification and that we have to write it as clearly as we can.

DB 4 is very ambitious. be satisfied if we could meet the first 3 things.

CS important to keep them all in there.

DB agree, want to have a nice "spin" that we are not limiting to accessible. good to promote international and innovative. but happy more or less with way it is written.

JW we need to be careful of how we define relationships with other working groups. they are all depending on these guidelines in one way or another.

$Date: 2000/11/08 08:30:16 $ Wendy Chisholm