Web Content Accessibility Guideines WG Meeting

September 16, 1999
4:00 - 5:00 PM EDT
Longfellow Bridge: (617-252-1038)

Attendees

Gregg Vanderheiden
Jason White
Ian Jacobs
Charles McCathieNevile
Wendy Chisholm

Summary of action items and consensus

IJ will call Steven Pemberton and sort out how to proceed with MAP element in HTML 4.01.
WC and JW need to finish work on checkpoint 3.3 and 11.1 clarifications. - in process.
WC needs to follow-up on lead with Netscape re: browser support page. - still need to do.
CL to ask EO to highlight the errata and Techniques documents when discussing WCAG. - believe this is finished (WC confirming with CL).
GR and JW agreed to help populate the browser support document with info re: lynx and emacsspeak/w3 (respectively). Editors need to work with them to get this
WC will discuss a face to face mtg with Judy and the chairs.
WC will create a list of perceived problems and propose categories for the type of problems (typos, errata, etc.) and send it to the list.
WC will try to get other folks involved in the group - developers primarily
WC will check with Judy to find out if it is appropriate to send a note to IG to get people involved in GL.

Agenda

Reports on action items from 09 September meeting.
Discuss proposal for errata for guideline 1 rationale
Discuss proposal for marking up groups of links
The group needs to review the proposal for the example of the techniques for grouping and bypassing links. - proposal sent today. group will discuss on list over the next week.

Reports on action items from 09 September meeting.

IJ will work with the HTML WG to clarify the use of MAP for block level content (i.e. to be used to group links) - in process.
WC and JW need to finish work on checkpoint 3.3 and 11.1 clarifications. - in process.
WC needs to follow-up on lead with Netscape re: browser support page. - still need to do.
CL to ask EO to highlight the errata and Techniques documents when discussing WCAG. - believe this is finished (WC confirming with CL).
GR and JW agreed to help populate the browser support document with info re: lynx and emacsspeak/w3 (respectively). Editors need to work with them to get this info into the document. - in process. JW is looking at UA guidelines and the browser support page. WC asked GR to do the same for Lynx.
CMN needs to complete action item from 8 July to create mock-ups of pages that have been designed for non-readers. - This item has been postponed until browser support, and impact matrix have been completed.
There is a list of questions from the July 8 call that we need to answer. - also postponed.
PF and GL need to discuss uses of metadata. Gl needs to have ongoing discussion on list since is open. PF is not open to all. - ongoing.
WC will reword based on discussion of current proposal. done. accepted. added to errata.
The group needs to review the proposal for the example of the techniques for grouping and bypassing links. - proposal sent today. group will discuss on list over the next week.
WC needs to finish reworking the Navigation and Validation sections of the Techniques document per AG's comments on 28 August . in process. also, postponed due to other priority deliverables.
Group needs to finish discussing the longdesc issue on the list as well as those who are in PF need to discuss with that group. - we still need to work on how to present this in the techniques document (postponed).

Future directions

we agree that we need to have a face 2 face meeting. We aren't sure when, although it seems we might be able to piggyback off of the PF meeting in December in Asia.

@@WC will discuss with Judy and the chairs.

The primary discussion should be about "what is next for the group?" we had some initial discussion today:

WC it's been a while...ready for another version?

IJ not long enough. just keep errata up to date. new version is not urgent.

GV a new version wouldn't be done for bug fixes, but major advance.

IJ take exmplae of HTML 4.01: it is to correct mistakes. it is more than minor clarifications. we could put another one out and call it WCAG 1.0. but must be limited to small clarificaitons and typos. if we're making more substantial changes, need to do WCAG 1.1. Either way most likely need review by AC.

JW as develop new XML technologies, would be useful to examine additional issues in regards to the guidelines. PF published draft XML access guidelines. we ought to incorporate into WCAG. After we gain implementation experience, we can adopt new knowledge per that experience. We need firm goals and justifications. establish priorities along with next version.

GV releasing another 1.0 is an interesting idea. I like JW's comment re: new technologies.

JW yes, but we have to wait until they become recommendations.

GV are there big problems people want to address?

IJ the non-reader issue. can a document be all text and conform?

CMN no, it won't.

GV won't change the document yet because we don't have consensus.

CMN need to see this issue addressed in an upgrade version of WCAG.

GV it won't conform at all?

CMN it won't conform to AA

GV i don't agree. we have strong split in the group.

IJ we need to come to meeting with a list of perceived problems. are they typos, errata, whatever? get consensus. the issues list is one place to gather this information from, the errata is another.

GV we should be careful to not come to consensus in meeting teleconferences. should be over list.

IJ someone should send to the list a proposed categorization, and start discussion.

@@WC will create a list of perceived problems and propose categories for the type of problems (typos, errata, etc.) and send it to the list.

GV to have another version would be detrimental unless really good reason.

/* discussion about timeline for current deliverables. browser support needs to be done asap, techniques will follow. want to be done by november - before the current charter expires. */

/* idea for techniques:
add links to SVG, SMIL, other notes that will be released soon. */

@@WC get other folks involved - developers primarily.

IJ perhaps Jeffrey McCaffrey (sent ian an e-mail).

JW in relation to finding people - ask Judy whether appropriate to send invite to IG.

WC frustrated that feedback we get is that it is not usable.

/* discussion of checkpoint map - how to make more usable */

IJ perhaps add brief statement of technique examples in context to guidelines doc? hate to make longer, but...

JW keep it out of guidelines, only in techniques because of the ongoing nature of the techniques document. w/checkpoint map add lists of relevant techniques under each checkpoint.

IJ short techniques and expansion elsewhere can be prioritized in the list. would be updated each time change the techniques doc.

JW can we generate the list automatically? i remember previous discussions of using databases. let's raise it again.

IJ yes, one of first reactions to wendy's proposed change was that it would have to have some level of automatic generation to avoid burdening the editors.