Minutes 04 January 2001 WCAG WG telecon

Summary of action items and resolutions



Publishing 2.0

WC At F2F in October, we resolved to publish our first public working draft mid-November. We're obviously past that. Part of the reason was to work out messaging issues. Judy and Janet (head of communications at W3C) talked about public messaging and press releases for WCAG 2.0. Press opportunities for W3C documents are usually at the first public working draft and when the doc goes to Recommendation. Judy and Janet propose that we not make a public ruckus with our first public working draft since so much publicity about 1.0 and the U.S. 508 stuff right now. There is already press and we might confuse people. They suggest our first press release coincide with going to CR and then Recommendation. They suggested adding some more info to the introduction to help clarify the temporary absence of priorities and to emphasize that this is a working draft. In his regrets for this call, CMN said don't put off publication

WL Proposes crash work on new version and try to get it out in 2 weeks.

KHS Agree.

LS To understand the principles is easier, but to understand practical need to read techniques.

WC It was a structure that I published yesterday. Examples to be filled in.

Resolved: move forward with new structure, try to publish something on TR in 2 weeks. However, need to give people time to respond to the proposal (particularly Jason).

LK Proposed a guideline about testability.

KHS Isn't it what we have to go through before something can be released.

WL Think its a checkpoint under Guideline 3 in new structure.

Resolved: LK's recent proposals be included in open issue list, and draft should refer to the open issues. Open issues list will be updated before this is published.

GV Add a paragraph about what we would like people to look at as they review. Is this maximally usable? What would make it more usable? Is the organization easier to understand the rationales? We may be breaking it up into ways that make it easier to deal with but not easier to understand. One comment in the 508 regs feedback was that people only wanted to look in one place.

WC Yes, absolutely. Other questions?

GV Readability/understandability, usability, and links to 508/WCAG 1.0. People will want to know how they relate to previous work.

WL And the ADA and telecom.

GV They don't have regulations. "How do these relate to 508."

WC That seems more like reference material not something we would ask for feedback about.

GV Provide mapping to other work, esp 508.

WC Provide mapping between all our work to other works?

GV we should be doing a mapping to ensure that everything they say is covered. if not, why we don't have it in there.

WL Perhaps the 508 lady could do that.

KHS Makes sense.

Resolved: mappings between WCAG 2.0 other guidelines will be added to issues list.

KHS All the info should be on the page - a printable version.

WL One of the most frustrating thing is that there are footnotes which link to a full document.

KHS Don't want the whole document, but some people will want it.

WL But the print folks don't do that. You have to go to the stack and find the stuff.

Resolved: add issue to list about printable versions, and flexibility of using XSL.


Agenda, invitations to other groups, what groups we want to observe

WC Who should we invite? Everyone on the list that Sean published this week.

Action WC/JW/GV send invitations to groups on Sean's list.

WC Propose: breaking into technique groups again and discussing comments on draft.

LS When break into technique groups, that's when we invite people.

ASW w-f

KHS m-f

MM w-f

LGS w-f

DH w-f

LS m-f (try)

WC unified glossary group mtg on tuesday, who is interested? KHS, LS (if there)

LS F2F you can't do this. Glossary defn could be done by e-mail. Perhaps should be a cross-list between groups.

WL What about IRC for that meeting as well as for Thursday and Friday? What about streaming for Wednesday?

Action WC: find out about IRC for Tuesday/Thursday/Friday and streaming for Wednesday.


WC Any thoughts on the techniques discussions on this week?

WL Can you set up a page for each of the things on this list?

WC Working on XSLT, XHTML conventions.

WL Have a web site for XML techniques thing, it can have a template that will enable insertion of technique material for each checkpoint. When checkpoints changed, it will reflect immediately.

WC yes. major piece.

LS If we'll be writing techniques, could there be a template for what a technique should have so that they all seem to come from the same source.

WC I think that's a good idea.

LS Aim, what technologies, description of code, code, baseline capabilities.

Action LS: Propose template for techniques: Aim, what technologies, description of code, code, baseline capabilities.

GV Have we thought about a mechanism that would allow a search, or "askjeeves" that would drop people in? e.g., "what do I do about X" It could list places in techniques that could help with.

LS Do you remember F1 help? Have a table of contents, index, search capabilities. That structure could be interesting. Find someone who knows the art of making an index.

KHS We could have a "WAI office assistant."

Resolved: add to open issue about views, a "help" feature.

WC Also talked about database of techniques and some would get incorporated into our docs.

LS Need incentive for proposals. Make sure that they get acknowledged.

WL We do that, but you would want people to be notified that their work is included.

LK Acknowledgement so that people know who wrote the technique?

LS Yes.

WC So many have come from various places already. Just be WCAG WG.

WL That's fine.

LS Perhaps an advantage in that people will write to someone about a specific question.

LK People could opt out of if they like.

MM Just knowing who said what is good for future possible clarifications.

Resolved: editors of techniques docs should document where they get examples from, whether a site or specific person.


MM Now that HTML is tied with XHTML and we have 3 or 4 potential techniques documents. Divided? one group all together? Overlap?

WC What are the other 2?

MM Legacy, CSS for HTML

WC Currently, HTML and CSS separate. Inclined to keep XHTML and HTML together.

MM Yes CSS and HTML separate. XHTML/HTML 4.01 together. Legacy HTML in a separate doc.

WC What if go with Lisa's proposal where we say which technologies a particular technique it supported in.

MM 3.2 and older, how to retrofit. If you have things that are not great techniques, but hacks. they will go away. we can say, here is how to do things properly in HTML. Have a cleaner document that doesn't have all of the "this doesn't work in that."

WC A general progression from XHTML/HTML4.01 to legacy?

MM These are the things for today (HTML4.01/XHTML) we can say this is how to do from now on. But we have legacy content.

KHS Some legacy content will not be redone.

WL Dave Raggett at face to face? Theoretical limitations of Tidy could address this.

MM Could reduce the legacy bit to say, "use tidy."

WC Another part of your question, is one group? yes.

LS Because someone is an editor doesn't mean that they have to come up with all of the techniques. We should all contribute. The editor is just that.

MM Absolutely. But, need more voices to cross-pollinate.

WC What do you need to move forward?

MM Like to see the standard format. Make it easier to start pouring stuff into the document.

WL Wait for LS's comment, but you'll just be using text.

LK Link on home page to templates, general invitation.

Action WC: publish template for techniques proposals. people send to list. eventually set up database for people to submit. up to editors of techniques documents to sort through.

$Date: 2001/01/06 19:46:51 $ Wendy Chisholm