WAI GL Conference Call

Thursday, 25 February 1999
4:00 - 5:00 EST

Table of contents

  1. Participants
  2. Action Item Summary
  3. Meeting notes
    1. Moving A.11 into A.9
    2. Indicate what type of resource you are linking to...
    3. Navigation checkpoints
    4. LANG
    5. Unveiling of the new version of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines


CL: Chuck Letourneau
WC: Wendy Chisholm
GV: Gregg Vanderheiden
JB: Judy Brewer
DD: Daniel Dardailler
IJ: Ian Jacobs
JW: Jason White
PM: Peter Munro
CMN: Charles McCathie-Nevile (late arrival)

Action Item Summary

CL: to ask the WG to schedule a conference call for Monday March 22 or Tuesday March 23 (just following CSUN) to effect closure on the Last Call period. This will give us just enough time to announce proposed recommendation at WWW8.

Meeting notes

WC: lets review open issues

Moving A.11 into A.9

DD: suggested moving A.11 into A.9
JW: thinks that the issues are separate enough
GV: one has to do with can I use the page if Java doesn't work or isn't supported, and the other is, is the Java applet accessible directly so I can use it if Java does work.
DD: for most people, the issues is about how you handle new technology. Thinks that some of the checkpoints in 9 differ as much as the 11 checkpoint seems to.
GV: not sure that if we have a guideline that is covered by one guideline that is great, The number of checkpoints per guideline is irrelevant. There are as many as needed for a particular concept. Thinks A9 and A11 are different enough to retain.
DD: concedes the point, Chuck agrees to retain.

Indicate what type of resource you are linking to , especially when linking to resources that are not W3C technologies, …

Discussion: no change. Leave as P3

Navigation checkpoints

4. Offer a site map. [Priority 3]
6. Offer different types of searches for different skill levels and preferences. [Priority 3]

DD: I got feedback from people that these two should be P2.
DD: talks about comments he received from people who indicate that site maps make otherwise inaccessible front-end sites accessible - I.e letting users get to the actual documents.
JW: not sure if site maps are really that useful and would hate to think we were telling people that they could do a site map or search engine if they cant make the front pages accessible.
CL: really likes the concept of site maps for the reasons Daniel specifies. But still not sure if it should be P2.
DD: maybe calling it a table of contents or index would be better.
GV: how many P2's are there now. Concerned about making too many things P2.
IJ: 21 P1's and 32 P2's and 18 P3's.
Some discussion: let's leave it at P3.
JW: can we modify the text of the checkpoint to make it clear that site maps are very useful for persons with disabilities.
PM: site maps don't have to be complicated.
CL: Agreed
Consensus: leave as P# and pump up the wording to include toc, index, appropriateness, etc.


WC: question of clearly identifying the language of text of a document.
JW: thought that Charles McCathie-Nevile and Daniel felt it was important.
DD: thought it should be P1 but the consensus was that it should remain P2.
GV: doesn't think it is as much an accessibility issue
JW: it is an issue in Europe
PM: and in Canada
PM: it is difficult for persons with disabilities to manually override, and since the addition of LANG tags is easy it should be a higher priority.
GV: but that doesn't satisfy the definition of the priority rankings.
JB: similar in moving between different scripts (I.e. cyrillic, arabic, etc.)
GV: two issues: marking language transitions within a document, and two that every document be marked as what the base language it is. P2 to mark the document. Marking text within the body of the document should be P1.
CL: lets make two checkpoints. DD agrees.
GV: concerned about the vast number of documents that are otherwise accessible that would fall out of conformance because they might contain multiple languages.
Consensus: P1 for in body language changes, P3 for global

Unveiling of the new version of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines

[ http://www.w3.org/wai/gl/WD-WAI-pageauth-19990225/ ]

JB: was concerned about the organization of the front-matter
IJ: thinks that all the things that proceed the table of contents are metadata and don't have to be in the contents.
JB: the conformance issues is the type of information similar to the Status.
JW: thinks that conformance is too important to be left out of the Table of Contents.
IJ: one reason for the order is that you have to know what checkpoints are before you can explain conformance.
JB: why can't the table of contents go earlier to include more of the metadata in the ToC.

5:03 PM: Notetaker Chuck had to leave the meeting. The notetaking was continued by:GV

GV Can abstract and status be added to Table of Contents

IJ Yes will do

GV can we get compliance and subparts of intro added to Table of contents

IJ No problem=can do.

WC Note that items 2 and 4 have been combined

WC Alternative text has not been used consistently. May want to change Alternative text to "equivalent text" but ok to keep alternative content in other places.

WC any other questions?

JB Another comment re Conformance. This has gone through a lot of morphing. The conformance section is missing one critical part. Needs to also say USING THIS URI and saying which level of priorities it conforms with

IJ the URI is the critical identifier

JB Every claim of conformance to this document must a) identify it using this URI: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WD-WAI-PAGEAUTH-19990225 ,

Big Discussion and lots of options discussed

Final consensus:

Starts like it is now Items numbered P1, P12, P123

Every claim of conformance to this document must identify it using this URI: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WD-WAI-PAGEAUTH-19990225 , and document name and the level of compliance chosen from the list above (a b or c). [ian has actual wording down]

PM liked having a label for conformance that can be cited on web pages. Like A AA and AAA or something they could list on site.

WC need to be careful about advocacy efforts

DD should we mention Bobby in testing

MULTIPLE there should be mention in Techniques but not guidelines.

WC What about absolute positioning. How do we handle that.

JW need to say that they shouldn't use absolutes positioning

CM that is part of transforming gracefully

WC so 5.6 is fine?

GV like to change P2 definintion - last sentence to read "remove significant barriers to accessing web documents"

WC so are we ready to go?

JB need to get them out by tomorrow to make the time lines all set up. Also need to run past GL one more time

GV how about we send out tonight and have tonight and tomorrow to review and send comments.

DD everyone has been told of the teleconference times and numbers yes ?

CM yes - so everyone has been able to follow. A final pass on the list should allow those who missed it

WC I will get the changes all posted to the list tonight -

GV I will get a note out right now so people can be watching for it later.


WC All set