19 Jun 2003 - WCAG WG Teleconference Minutes

• Previous meeting minutes

Present

Ben Caldwell, Anglica (for Fransesco), Dave MacDonald, Andi Snow-Weaver, Chris Brainerd, Wendy Chisholm, Jason White, Jibari Simmons, Matt May, Bengt Farre, Doyle Burnett, Kerstin Goldsmith, Cynthia Shelly, Loretta Guarino Reid, John Slatin

Regrets

Gregg Vanderheiden, Michael Cooper, Roberto Scano, Roberto Ellero, Francesco Fedele, Gian Sampson Wild, Lee Roberts, Avi Arditti

Summary of action items and resolutions

• Resolved: Current draft good to go to TR with these edits:
  • add an editorial note to 4.2 about testability and subjectivity of the current wording.
  • use the proposal (for 4.2) sent by john but change "some" to "one or more"
  • fix typo
• resolved: close issue 179
• resolved: close issue 184
• action: WAC write editorial note in html techs that says "mathml will move to mathml techniques once that document exists"
• action wac: (issue 188) research what exactly we want to delete related to object and iframe. not sure which example refering to.
• resolved: close issue 256
• resolved: new issue in wcag 1.0 errata for michael's proposed errata re: empty form controls, close issue 259
• resolved: agreement to rename "core techniques", question about title. current candidates: general and cross-technology. please review proposal on the list and respond in email.

Current draft - can we bless it for TR?

Except for checkpoint 4.2, it's good to go.

checkpoint 4.2

Issues:

• proposed rewording by John and Cynthia
• delete it all together?
• core or extended?

any objections to substituting the new wording and leave w/editorial note?

• good to put in new wording, since clearer, then we can argue about it better.
• put in editorial note more about why we might remove it.

discussion of issues

• primary reason to delete is that it is difficult to test and implement. what if one of the techs is html?
• "technologies the user has to have" - html is something the user has. they must have a browser that supports html. or a network card.
• "some" technologies or "one or more?" it is not "one or more" its that certain combinations will work or not
• "turning off intended" seems weird.
• example of what an author could say, "to access my site: required ability to parse html. recommended: javascript, css" if had these two categories, author would choose which technologies fit in which category.
• change the requirement that required elements have to be widely available? too subjective.
• trying to generalize, "use w3c technologies" could be fully accessible proprietary technology

Resolved changes to make to get this draft to TR

• add an editorial note to 4.2 about testability and subjectivity of the current wording.
• use the proposal (for 4.2) sent by john but change "some" to "one or more"
• fix typo

pending issues

pending issues

all sent to mailing list, no discussion, so hopefully not controversial

179. location attribute on meta element

issue #179 location attribute on meta element

michael found that it works in certain situations, but don't recommend making this change.

resolved: close issue 179

184. MathML in HTML techs?

proposal: remove mathml, editorial note: we'll link to it.

counter: move it only after we have someplace to move it to

resolved: close issue 184

action: WAC write editorial note in html techs that says "mathml will move to mathml techniques once that document exists"

188. Delete section on using object instead of iframe?

main goal of iframe is that content comes from diff uri

concerned about removing if not widely supported. if in specs, but not supported, then note that not supported.

iframe isn't inaccessible

action wac: (issue 188) research what exactly we want to delete related to object and iframe. not sure which example refering to.

256. CSS to hide Client Side Image Maps

depends on which version

not a reliable technique

resolved: close issue 256

259. Empty form controls still a problem?

micahel's errata - agreed not a problem. not agreed on errata.

resolved: new issue in wcag 1.0 errata for michael's proposed errata re: empty form controls, close issue 259

285. Core Checkpoints and Core Techniques

General techniques?

as well as technology-specific techniques

if all are technology focused, x-technology points out more clearly that it spans the other tech documents

"core" conveys something about things being "bedrock" that "general" and "x-tech" don't capture.

some of tech-specific would be core under that defn

resolved: agreement to rename "core techniques", question about title. current candidates: general and cross-technology. please review proposal on the list and respond in email.

$Date: 2003/06/25 21:55:04 $ Wendy Chisholm