14 June WCAG F2F, Brussels

Summary of Proposed Resolutions

These resolutions to be confirmed with the rest of the WCAG WG on the 23 June 2005 telecon. All resolutions were unanimous.

Proposed Resolutions Related to Guideline 3.1

• resolution: change text for GL 3.2 to "Make the placement and behavior of content predictable"
• resolution: move SC about acronyms and abbreviations to L3
• resolution: adopt the proposed text, "A mechanism for finding the expanded form of acronyms and abbreviations is available." for this L3 SC
• resolution: resolution: 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
• resolution: accept for L2 SC2: The natural language of each foreign passage or phrase in the content can be programmatically determined. Foreign passages or phrases are passages or phrases in a language that is different from the language of the surrounding text. Note: This requirement does not apply to individual words or to phrases that have become part of the primary language of the content.
• resolution: move the following proposed SC to Level 3 and not accepting the proposed L3 SC 5-8: "One or more of the following supplements is available when text requires reading ability at the upper secondary level:
  1. a text summary that can be read by adults who have completed primary education.
  2. Graphical illustrations of concepts or processes that must be understood in order to use the content.
  3. A spoken version of the text content."
• resolution: do not accept proposed L3 SC 5 - For delivery units at the first or second level in a set of delivery units, text content can be read by adults with the reading ability expected for native speakers who have completed fewer than seven years of school. Include information in guidedoc as advisory.
• resolution: do not accept proposed L3 SC6: For delivery units below the second level in a set of delivery units, text content can be read by adults with the reading ability expected for native speakers who have completed fewer than nine years of school. Include information in guidedoc as advisory.
• resolution: do not accept proposal L3 SC7: current proposed SC7: Simplified graphical illustrations are available when text presents ideas or describes processes that users must understand in order to use the content.
• resolution: do not accept proposed L3 SC8: A spoken version of text content is available.
• resolution: Adopt the text of the L3 SCx to: "When text requires reading ability at or above the upper secondary education level, one or more of the following supplements is available
  1. a text summary that requires reading ability no higher than primary education level.
  2. Graphical illustrations of concepts or processes that must be understood in order to use the content.
  3. A spoken version of the text content."

  with note that correct definitions of primary and secondary education level will be provided.

• resolution: not accept proposed L3SC2 "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.
• resolution: accept proposed L3 SC 3 as, "Section titles are descriptive." note: this resolution replaces the old L3 SC2 text, "Section headings and link text are understandable when read by themselves or as a group (for example, in a screen reader's list of links or a table of contents). [V]" with the text "Section titles are descriptive."
• resolution: not accept proposed L3 SC4: A mechanism is available to identify text that states important ideas or provides important information.
• resolution: do not accept proposed Level 3 SC9: "Signed video is available for key pages or sections of pages."
• resolution: delete current L3 SC3, "There is a statement associated with the content asserting that the Strategies for Reducing the Complexity of Content (the following list) were considered. [V]" (note entire list not repeated here).

Proposed Resolutions for Guideline 4.1

• resolution: do not remove Guideline 4.1
• resolution: accept following wording proposed for L1 SC1, but at Level 2: "Except where the author has documented that a specification was violated for user agent compatibility (including compatibility with assistive technology), the content has: [I]
  1. passed validity tests for the version of the technology in use (whether it be conforming to a schema, Document Type Definition (DTD), or other tests described in the specification), and
  2. used technology features as defined in the specification."

  Rationale for moving to Level 2:

  • That well formedness and validity can benefit accessibility. However, forcing strict adherence to the specification can sometimes inhibit accessibility. (Also, validity of any declared specification in and of itself doesn’t guarantee accessibility because you could create your own specification and be valid to it.)
  • If forced to strictly use specifications you might be restricted from doing things you want to do that would not be harmful to accessibility.
  • Current WYSIWYG and CMS tools do not necessarily generate valid code, making it difficult or impossible for many authors to meet this SC. (We cannot force authors to do manual coding to conform to WCAG.)
  • There are very strong commercial pressures for tools to include features that are not strictly part of public specifications.
  • We differentiate between well formedness and validity. Well formedness can benefit accessibility. Validity can benefit accessibility though there may be issues. Therefore, for now we have moved validity to level 2. We will also investigate well formedness and expand it at level 1.
• resolution: create a Task Group to explore creating a L1 SC under Guideline 4.1 regarding well-formed content (knowing that "well-formed" needs to be broadened a bit to accommodate non-XML technologies) and submit as proposal to group
• resolution: remove 4.1 L3 SC1

Guideline 3.1

resolution: change text for GL 3.2 to "Make the placement and behavior of content predictable"

<wendy> results from 3.1 latest survey - http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/meaning0508/results

<wendy> minutes from 2 june 2005 telecon - http://www.w3.org/2005/06/02-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item05

<wendy> results from even more latest 3.1 survey - http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/meaning0516/results

resolution: move SC about acronyms and abbreviations to L3

resolution: adopt the proposed text, "A mechanism for finding the expanded form of acronyms and abbreviations is available." for this L3 SC

<Christophe> 'We have no clear definition of "word", even for a single language let alone for all languages' (http://www.compapp.dcu.ie/~alex/CA163/ch2.html)

resolution: resolution: 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

resolution: accept for L2 SC2: The natural language of each foreign passage or phrase in the content can be programmatically determined. Foreign passages or phrases are passages or phrases in a language that is different from the language of the surrounding text. Note: This requirement does not apply to individual words or to phrases that have become part of the primary language of the content.
... move the following proposed SC to Level 3 and not accepting the proposed L3 SC 5-8: "One or more of the following supplements is available when text requires reading ability at the upper secondary level:

1. a text summary that can be read by adults who have completed primary education.

2. Graphical illustrations of concepts or processes that must be understood in order to use the content.

3. A spoken version of the text content."

resolution: do not accept proposed L3 SC 5 - For delivery units at the first or second level in a set of delivery units, text content can be read by adults with the reading ability expected for native speakers who have completed fewer than seven years of school. Include information in guidedoc as advisory.
... do not accept proposed L3 SC6: For delivery units below the second level in a set of delivery units, text content can be read by adults with the reading ability expected for native speakers who have completed fewer than nine years of school. Include information in guidedoc as advisory.
... do not accept proposal L3 SC7: current proposed SC7: Simplified graphical illustrations are available when text presents ideas or describes processes that users must understand in order to use the content.

do not accept proposed L3 SC8: A spoken version of text content is available.

resolution: Update the text of the L3 SC to: "When text requires reading ability at or above the upper secondary education level, one or more of the following supplements is available

1. a text summary that requires reading ability no higher than primary education level.

2. Graphical illustrations of concepts or processes that must be understood in order to use the content.

3. A spoken version of the text content."

with note that correct definitions of primary and secondary education level will be provided.

<wendy> (discussing pronunciation) JIS 5.9.d) Extensible use of words that may be difficult for the intended user to read (such as proper nouns) should be avoided. When such words are used, the pronunciation must be specified at the first appearance of the word.

<wendy> proposed XHTML technique: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1159

<wendy> resolution: not accept proposed L3SC2 "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.

resolution: accept proposed L3 SC 3 as, "Section titles are descriptive."

<Michael> would like to explore if these belongs in 2.4

note: previous resolution replaces the old L3 SC2 text, "Section headings and link text are understandable when read by themselves or as a group (for example, in a screen reader's list of links or a table of contents). [V]" with the text "Section titles are descriptive."

resolution: not accept proposed L3 SC4: A mechanism is available to identify text that states important ideas or provides important information.
... do not accept proposed Level 3 SC9: "Signed video is available for key pages or sections of pages."
... delete current L3 SC3, "There is a statement associated with the content asserting that the Strategies for Reducing the Complexity of Content (the following list) were considered. [V]" (note entire list not repeated here).

Guideline 4.1

<wendy> results of 4.1 survey - http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/use-spec20050610/results

resolution: do not remove Guideline 4.1

resolution: accept following wording proposed for L1 SC1, but at Level 2: "Except where the author has documented that a specification was violated for user agent compatibility (including compatibility with assistive technology), the content has: [I]

a. passed validity tests for the version of the technology in use (whether it be conforming to a schema, Document Type Definition (DTD), or other tests described in the specification), and

b. used technology features as defined in the specification."

Rationale for moving to Level 2:

• That well formedness and validity can benefit accessibility. However, forcing strict adherence to the specification can sometimes inhibit accessibility. (Also, validity of any declared specification in and of itself doesn’t guarantee accessibility because you could create your own specification and be valid to it.)
• If forced to strictly use specifications you might be restricted from doing things you want to do that would not be harmful to accessibility.
• Current WYSIWYG and CMS tools do not necessarily generate valid code, making it difficult or impossible for many authors to meet this SC. (We cannot force authors to do manual coding to conform to WCAG.)
• There are very strong commercial pressures for tools to include features that are not strictly part of public specifications.
• We differentiate between well formedness and validity. Well formedness can benefit accessibility. Validity can benefit accessibility though there may be issues. Therefore, for now we have moved validity to level 2. We will also investigate well formedness and expand it at level 1.

<scribe> ACTION: create a Task Group to explore creating a L1 SC under Guideline 4.1 regarding well-formed content (knowing that "well-formed" needs to be broadened a bit to accommodate non-XML technologies) and submit as proposal to group [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/14-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]

resolution: create a Task Group to explore creating a L1 SC under Guideline 4.1 regarding well-formed content (knowing that "well-formed" needs to be broadened a bit to accommodate non-XML technologies) and submit as proposal to group

resolution: remove 4.1 L3 SC1

Guideline 4.2

Raised a number of questions with Guideline 4.2 that led to discussion of baseline. No resolutions. Will continue discussion tomorrow.