WCAG WG action items

from 2 May 2002 telecon

• John Slatin took an action to write a sentence for the conformance paragraph that reflects the decision that minimum criteria are testable.
• WAC took an action to discuss with device independent folks next week at the WWW2002 conference and W3C AC meeting.

from 18 April 2002 telecon

• JS, LR, and GSW agreed to go through some test files and report conformance on them.

from 11 April 2002 telecon

• GV clean up proposed language about real-time media and send to the list as a proposal.

from 4 April 2002 telecon

• Action GV: propose wording for issue #41
• Action WAC: what is allowable for a W3C recommendation in terms of visual and audio presentations?

from 28 March 2002 telecon

• Action WAC and LGR discuss proposal for disclaimer for non-W3C techs. Also, process. Chase up Judy's idea about W3C member submission. Review section 8 of the Process document - Member Submission.

  Status: in progress. (11 April 2002)

• Action MM, CS, WAC apply the techniques dtd to Core techniques, CSS and server-side.
• Action WAC clean up issues list.

  Status: I took one pass, need to reformat. (11 April 2002)

• Action CS either find previously proposed checkpoint for switching between multiple renderings or propose one.
• Action ASW: map WCAG 2.0 against IBM guidelines.

  Status: in progress, close to publishing something. Also did WCAG 1.0 and 508. (11 April 2002)

• Resolved: we want to keep ourselves up to date with other guidelines, but not keep a mapping between WCAG and other guidelines up to date. We will keep mapping of WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 up to date Action WAC: find someone to help keep internal list of other guidelines so we can track other work in this area.

  Status: Eugenia might be interested. (11 April 2002)

• Action WAC: while cleaning up issues list, issue #58 needs some digging. Why did we get rid of this? Where did it go? Under navigation mechanisms?

from 24 March 2002 F2F

• group agrees to use new groupings but still need one for 5th group (cross-cutting issues) agreed to wait until we work on the checkpoints and then high level wording for guideline 5 will suggest itself.
• ACTION: Wendy to check W3C processes to ensure that we can include conformance requirements in "notes"

Completed action items

• Action LR: draft success criteria for contrast checkpoint. (15 April 2002)
• Action LR find out more about testing for flicker rate. (15 April 2002)
• WAC will send a list of test files and general instructions to the list to get people started. (19 April 2002)
• Action GV: does Chinese, signed languages, etc. have "words." If we use this language, does it imply that the only way to make it perceived in another modality would be to use words instead of notation, e.g. music and score. (WAC did some research - 30 April 2002)
• ACTION: Editors will draft the conformance scheme so that the working group can comment. (latest draft published 24 April 2002 contains conformance information)
• Action Editors: Propose wording for color contrast checkpoint (use existing 2.2 from WCAG 1.0) with some success criteria? (latest draft published 24 April 2002 contains color contrast checkpoint)

$Date: 2002/05/02 22:48:14 $ Wendy Chisholm