Lee, Gregg, Ben, Avi, Andi, Eugenia, Jason, Lisa, Wendy
Matt, Gian
GV Focus only on language or other things? Don't think we want to collapse all of 4 into 4.1, but it could go that way. We don't need to do this before it went to TR, but it's something to think about.
LS Using simple words is one aspect, which is what you said. Making the content clear and simplified is more extensible.
GV If it is everything you do to make clear and simple, then everything collapses into 4.1.
AA Plain language and audience.
JW Bringing back previous discussions, there was a concern that people would assume their audience does not include people with cognitive disabilities. Would like to distinguish between next version and what doing long-term.
Resolved: no major changes to guideline 4 before TR.
GV We plan to pull this paragraph since that's not currently the case. Does anyone have a problem with that?
No one had a problem.
Resolved: will remove the paragraph about normative technology-specifics since this is not currently the case.
GV Technique listed under 4.1, level 3, pull it out and put into list at the bottom so that no specific techniques under any of the checkpoints. e.g. move
summaries and/or simpler forms are provided for key pages or sections of the site.
to the list of " following are additional ideas..."
LS Better to say "we haven't found success criteria" rather than have success criteria that don't do the job.
GV After moving that one item down, there are two other general statements in levels 1 and 2 that were similar to statements elsewhere in the guidelines. Since controversy pull it off all 3 levels and replace with a statement, "still being worked on.
LS My thought is: when it goes to technical review, it would be useful if people could comment on those suggestions as potential success criteria. Otherwise, worry they will just gloss over them. I thought we resolved to include a complete list of all suggestions for this checkpoint (for making language clearer). I haven't seen a draft of that yet, but I know someone took an action. What's happening with that?
BC GV and I had an action on that, it is nearly complete.
GV We were not trying to get it done before publishing a draft on TR. It should be available soon, at least by the face to face.
LS If it won't be ready by time it goes to TR, then I'll drop the point of the wording. We don't have the whole list anyway.
BC It's not that different from the list that Lisa posted. It's about 50 items long.
GV Didn't expect to put in the doc...that's really long.
JW This is ongoing work. Sufficient to make it clear that success criteria are still being worked on. Don't know how much attention 4.1 will attract. Last time we didn't get much public comment. This time we will encourage more people to comment.
Action GV will edit the intro to the success criteria for 4.1 to make it clear still working on.
WAC explains problem.
JW Is that an isolated instance or is it part of a more general problem? Exercise that WAC and JW went through last week - device dependencies of existing checkpoints from last November.
WAC will dig this up for next week's discussion. Notes that 1.3 and 3.1 both deal with structure, and 2.1 will be interesting to think about for voice applications.
$Date: 2002/07/11 20:56:55 $ Wendy Chisholm