Current: 1.2 Synchronize media equivalents with time-dependent presentations.
Previous: 1.2 Synchronize text equivalents with multimedia presentations. 1.3 Synchronize a description of the essential visual information in multimedia presentations.
WC GV said need to say "provide and synchronize"
JW Media equivalents are not defined. GV says "no where says" provide.
WC Defined, but not exactly. So then use his proposal?
JW Revise 1.1 to cover audio descriptions, or use GV, or a separate checkpoint.
GR 2nd sentence of definition is a problem.
WC: propose putting a note to reviewers so we can move forward with publishing the draft. Put this as an open issue.
MM Agree that it should be there. It does underscore 1.1. If just add one word, "provide" a lot more people will be able to understand that if they just look at it w/out looking at success criteria.
JM Agree. If it seems redundant, but reduces misinterpretation.
GR That means that audio description falls under 3.4.
JW no, 1.2
MM Provide synchronized ...
WC Still include note?
GR Think better to get feedback. Test to see if people understand.
Action WC: reword 1.2 "Provide synchronized..." and fix definition.
Future Issue: redundancy between 1.2 and 1.1
WC reads 2.1 and 2.7 in source of draft that has not been published yet.
GV In general, if we have notes, we should find another name for them. e.g. these are some of the strategies that are being looked at.
WC Issue is not if these should be checkpoint or not, but scope of them.
GV If there are problems with success criteria, then we should say "these are strategies being considered." Success criteria is a powerful term. We want it to mean a certain thing.
JW The situation is that we will review all of those, something that we'll move in to after this draft.
GV I don't think we can publish a draft with criteria.
Action WC: fix typo on 2.1
JW GV had raised issue with this in last call.
GV Feel we can move forward on it with this draft.
Resolved: ok to move foward with 4.1 as is.
WC Note in success criteria and moved previous to examples.
Resolved: ok to move forward with 3.4 as is.
GV delete the qualifer from the 2nd point so that it reads "the markup or data model representing the structure of the content, must be logically separated from the presentation, either in separate data structures or in a style sheet." Does this leave out any technology?
Action WC: delete the qualifier with 2nd success criteria on checkpoint 1.5
GR Perhaps a success criteria - ensure all semantics captured in markup in repurposeable form. will cover final form.
Action GR: develop success criteria for repurposeable content for checkpoint 1.5.
GV Success criteria does not agree with checkpoint. Part of site or whole site?
JW Says multiple in checkpoint. define site navigation mechanism such that links are not site navigation mechanism. PRovide something separate from content itself.
JM Needs a definition.
GV People will immediately take issue with fact that links on a page are a navigation mechanism. We are saying they are not enough.
GV propose: success criteria have not been defined for this site. suggestions are: ... list the current items.
JW Problem is with the checkpoint, scope of it.
Action WC: add note to checkpoint 2.1 that problem with scope as well as success criteria.
JM Checkpoint 3.3 Write as clearly and simply as is possible and appropriate for the site's content.
Action WC: change 3.3 to read: Write as clearly and simply as is possible and appropriate for the site's content.
GV Is says things on the site have to be the same. concern, if we have a physics site and a separate site for people with cognitive disabilties, then layout between the two should be different. "site sections or pages meant to be used together."
JW In conformance, deal with multiple versions of so guidelines might come under separate.
GV Suggestion under 2.2 - new criteria "if controls are purposefully made to behave in unexpected fashion..."
KHS Makes sense.
Action WC: Add GV's suggestion under 2.2 - new criteria "if controls are purposefully made to behave in unexpected fashion..."
GV Warn or give users that cause extereme changes OR Give users control or warn then in advance.
Action WC: Change 2.3 to read "Give users control... or warn them of pending change"
GV Give them as much time as possible in success criteria?
Action WC: Add "Give them as much time as possible" to success criteria
Action WC: delete "You will have successfully used device-independent event handlers if the user can interact with your application through the keyboard only or in conjunction with a mouse. " from success criteria of 2.5.
GV no success criteria. "If you do not include content that will flicker between 3 and 49 Hz."
JM says 4 and 59 in benefits.
GV europe is 50 Hz. there is a standard in the making. stay below 50 in deference to europe.
JW here is 50 or 60.
MM There is an issue in that TVs are keyed to speed of transmission lines, ...
GV That number does not have reality in context. by using the same numbers, developers within one company will not have to follow difference frequencies (one who develops for TV vs one for Web).
MM The issue is that when you deal with NTSC or PAL, you can't change the speed of transmission only the content. When dealing with monitors, can jump over that frequency. One issue is interaction with interlacing with strain.
WC Let's put these numbers in for now, we will ask specialists to review these in particular.
MM good.
Action WC: Add success criteria for 2.6. "... do not include content that will flicker between 3 and 49 Hz." and be sure to highlight this checkpoint with Dr. Harding and Robin Rowe, and any other experts on photoepilepsy we ask to review.
GV Need caveat for all except perhaps 3.2.
Did not resolve to include caveats for every checkpoint in guideline 3.
Action WC: delete link to CSS techs (not ready for TR)
$Date: 2001/08/10 00:35:35 $ Wendy Chisholm