/*WC arrived late and then realized that minutes were not being taken. if you have notes from the first 30 minutes of the call, please send to wendy@w3.org */
/* notes from Dick Brown about Gregg's proposed division into 4 categories */
JW /* summary */ after we discussed Gregg's division of the subject into 4 areas which was broadly consistent with direction the group was heading. */
@@GV flesh out thoughts and send to list
WC is this heading towards 1.1 or 2.0
JW 2.0 - as soon as possible. address issues included in requirements document.
DB what are the limits of the applicability of the WCAG?? where is the difference between interface and content?
CS should be clear delineation between responsibilities between UA and WCAG.
GR operating system vs. user agent. where OS should follow OS standards.
JW boundaries not easy to draw.
DB trying to understand issues to generalize is to definition of content.
GV talk about content as to include UA have to coordinate with UA. don't know if it will be in this version or next version. w/in 3 years you will not be able to tell where UA ends and content begins.
JW common set of technologies that characterize the web and it is changing. that gives rise to difficulties and to some degree allows delineation to take place. what predictions can we make?
ASW what about priorities? will we prioritize guidelines or technology specific checkpoints.
GV good question. in my 4 points...it may collapse once i flesh it out...the first 2 were priority 1, the other 2 were 2 or 3 in our current scheme. today, prioritize checkpoints. on any goal, have things that have to be done versus those that make them easier. don't know if we can prioritize on such a high level. people want to know "have to's" and "shoulds" and want "have to's" to be clearly defined. General objective (strategy) then the checkpoints (technology-specific).
ASW in the current exercise a P1 may have been generalized under a P2.
WC we were looking at generalizations rather than priorities.
JW deliberately set aside priority questions because not relevant until set aside the requirements.
GR proposed process: define abstract guidelines, then before write technology-specific techniques have checkpoints for that markup language, and those would have priorities, then move into techniques for how to satisfy.
JW think there is a level between general principles and technology-specific. CMN and I have had that in mind for a while.
GR possible on theoretical level, however worried about one extreme to the other. my experience, the middle step (checkpoints that apply to specific technologies) would make it more useful.
JW CMN made the point that technique module would be an application of the checkpoint to a specific technology. therefore most people interact with lowest level.
WC GR said he was defining a process, but it was a set of layers and we really do need a process. we have at least 3 drafts on the table and need to take them soon to users to see what they find useful.
JW Define who using and how.
WC basically saying a task analysis - the first step in design.
GR want to add to the list people who are coming to the page
WC yes, task analysis. not sure if this be bottom up design - start with technology-specifics and generalize principles or start with principles and work down.
JW I think there is quite a lot that is not technology-specific.
GR not opposed to that at all. we need to have intermediate level that is being overlooked.
CS what do you see in it. WC's draft seems to be at that level, GV seems to be at the higher level?
GR WC's is the high level, not the highest possible.
WC want to see an implementation plan. let's stop talking about it and do it!
DT there needs to be a general level that helps define where you put things, even the specifics. In these areas these are the things we are concerned about. Then you can say, "this is what we are dealing with" how do you do them with the tools we are looking at.
JW GV's divisions under which you would provide more info.
WC IJ and I discussed this week, and IJ came up with 8 divisions.
@@WC check with IJ to get permission to publish his categories to the group.
GG we have been teaching these to people who are naive to accessibility issues. we provide them with general principles, then get into more detail.
JW so we can take the drafts and see how can fill them in.
WC can not create the middle layer until we have the technology specifics.
JW we have SMIL, SVG, CSS, HTML, XML. what else do we need?
WC middle layer should be culled from these.
JW what priority should we be working on: 1. technique specific modules 2. defining checkpoints under the guidelines 3. abstract out the general principles from specifics. what needs to be done in each of them and what needs to be done and how to work through them.
DT so, we need to look at the technologies and go from specific to general? or go from both ends?
JW the group is fairly familiar with the technology modules that we have. which technology specific areas to we need to work on. user interfaces? forms? multimedia?
GV we have checkpoints above technology-specific level. we construct the checkpoints to be general but we don't always have examples except beyond the one they stem from. therefore, technology-specific checkpoints.
WC isn't that what we talked about at the face-to-face?
GR that's what i mentioned earlier.
CS add to that, cases where you are using DOM/scripting those checkpoints might override HTML checkpoints.
GR right, if generated by database could get the ones that you need.
WC sounding like an evaluation and repair tool.
CS but could be a filter to go through the guidelines.
WC yes, you can define the algorithm that says if you use X and Y don't worry about Z, but creating a tool that implements that algorithm to tell you not to worry about Z is an ER thing.
JW let's start discussing merits of various approaches. through that process perhaps we can work out some of the issues. i put forward a few checkpoints as some suggestions. let's start discussing detailed requirements using that as a guide. let's learn from the process and work as the basis for a draft.
/* time check 3 minutes */
JW not enough time to discuss cognitive disabilities. although, we should see how new drafts address.
WC people should look at Greg Gay's document that has begun to look at how to move forward with WCAG 1.0 with cognitive issues.
JW next week: joint meeting with UA.
/* GV and DB give regrets for next week since will be at the WAI Steering Committee Meeting in Boston */
WC have people signed off on the Requirements document? it needs to be published as a public working draft.
JW send a note to the list to be sure.
@@JW send a note to the list asking if the Requirements document is o.k. to go as a note. give people one week to review.
$Date: 2000/11/08 08:30:15 $ Wendy Chisholm