24 February WCAG telecon
Summary of action items and resolutions
- Resolved: It is ok to include text of an audio file on the same page,
depending on the content. We ought to promote the use of OBJECT with the
text equivalent as content.
- Apparent Consensus: Minimum is to link from main techniques document to
the smil access note.
Participants
- William
- Jason
- Marti
- Dick
- Gregory
- Ian
- Dave
- Tim
- Wendy
JW text equivalents for audio still open. for HTML techniques. if referred
to by a link then one can place a 2nd link next to it. transcript at other end
of link. also OBJECT element. include text in content. question of judgement.
Issue: Should the techs document define further whether, in the case of a
long complex sound, one should provide a link within the OBJECT to a
description OR include a number of paragraphs of description in the OBJECT
element.
WC: The main issue from ER: If text is included on the same page, (e.g,. a
paragraph) and there's audio to supplement it, then there doesn't seem to be
the need to include a description of the audio in a separate file. Does a
transcript on the same page suffice?
(Yes)
WC: In the techs document, we already say to use OBJECT.
JW: Should you use a link or include inline?
IJ: That seems to be an authoring issue.
WC: Yes, who are they authoring for? ...what's the audio being used for? What
is the authoring style?
DC: How is this discussion different from long descriptions?
JW: Given that structural navigation is not widely implemented by UAs, it
might be harder to skip lots of block-level content.
IJ: That falls into a more general topic of navigation of blocks of content
(applied to the audio case). That belongs elsewhere in the techs doc.
JW: Add a note to checkpoint 1.1 technique about length of contents.
DC: Like moving from alt value to a longdesc.
(the art of deciding how long is too long)
Resolved: It is ok to include text of an audio file on the same page,
depending on the content. We ought to promote the use of OBJECT with the text
equivalent as content.
Review of action items.
* WC go through SMIL note to see what we want to incorporate into the
techniques document.
WC: Upon reading it, I liked it!...I decided to look at the SMIL 1.0 spec to
see what it had to say about accessibility. ...so what do we need to do? ...I
reviewed the SMIL WG's documentation for authors (some tutorials). These don't
refer to accessibility or even theattributes for accessibility.
...fear of separating ourselves into our own space. Maybe we should be more
integrated. ....maybe we need to work more closely with document authors to
improve this. ...Note that the EO charter says:
* Ian notes that the site is down, can't get charter.
GR: I think this is more under the purview of the EO WG.
GR: If W3C has made an internal commitment to validity and accessibility of
tech documents, shouldn't it set a standard for tutorials to which it
points?
GR, JW, WL: Referenced materials should be accessible.
(should show accessible examples, etc.)
JW: Should access notes remain separate or be part of techniques document
(refer to discussion from Ian).
DC: We're a victim of our own success. We've gotten accessibility in
specifications. Our next goal should be to get accessibility into
documentation.
IJ: this is a requirement of both ATAG 1.0 and UAAG 1.0.
GR: The documentation in question is rather on-line tutorials.
IJ: Are you saying (GR) that every link on the W3C site should point to
accessible material?
GR: Not every link, but links to materials related to accessibility.
JW: I'm wondering how participants of this WG received the suggestion that it
would/wouldn't be appropriate to incorporate the SMIL Access note into the
techniques document.
(Jason exits)
WL: I propose no conformance/no link.
DC: I'd like to make two distinctions:
1) The content must address accessibility issues.
2) The content need not be accessible.
WC: I agree. ...more than anything, it's the content we should worry
about.
GR: I'd try the middle ground: the examples must be valid, they must include
access features that are built in.
WC: One issue that's a problem: the content's not there.
DC: I want to be pragmatic.
Marti: Put a warning on links to resources that aren't accessible.
WC: I don't think this is a good solution. I think we need to work with the
tutorial author to improve the tutorial. I don't think a simple disclaimer
will help.we have limited resources, and I think we'd have more impact working
with existing tutorials, not creating new ones.
GR: EO needs to coordinate documentation and tutorial review groups.
WC: Maybe we should be doing this since it's more technical.
IJ: We have limited resources. How do you educate? With documents...?
WC: I want to scale: I want to have the most effect possible. People have been
writing documents on accessibility since 1994. Part of the success today is
due to WCAG, but before many of those tools, there were many tutorials. If
those tutorials had accessibility built-in, the Web would be more accessible
today..we need to get our ideas out of our own space into the mainstream
media.
(WL: Pointer to Jakob Nielsen's book on usability, which includes
accessibility)
IJ: So hit HTML For Dummies.
GR: Or books that are used in college classes, etc.
DC: How his this different from Authoring Tools?
WC: What I need to keep me motivated - that the documents are being used. we
may need a slight change in orientation to audience. this document seemed to
me to be for those who could use HTML and authoring tool developers. I think
it also needs to be for people who write tutorials. need to involve people who
write tutorials.
WL: I don't think that people will do SMIL work without a tool.
(Wendy talks about history of accessibility.)
WC: A lot have been done to improve accessibility, but it seems that little is
accessible.
WC: I don't think that we're reaching enough people.
WL: It took many years between when women started pressing for the vote and
when they got the vote.
* Ian quips that suffrage is out of scope...
WC: Bigger question for me: what do we incorporate into the techniques
document? smil access note and accessibility already built-in.
Tim: I think WC's point is important: why not just link to the access
resources that exist?
Apparent Consensus: Minimum is to link from main techniques document to the
smil access note.
IJ: Update the SMIL Access Note if need be (with Al stuff and with additional
links).
$Date: 2000/11/08 08:30:14 $ Wendy Chisholm