06 July 2000 WCAG WG Telecon

Summary of action items and resolutions




  1. The revised text of the Techniques document: preparation for release as a public working draft.
  2. Progress in connection with the three-layered structure proposed for the guidelines.
  3. Any other issues raised by working group members.


JW Hoping to publish soon as public working draft.

CMN Need to public something publicly so people see where we are.

JW Techniques can definitely be published relatively shortly as a public working draft, the drafts of new work will take some time.

ASW Not had a chance to look at.

GR Been off-line, no chance to look at.

JW Need to give people some time to look at it.

KHS I have looked at it, but don't feel ready to make any statements about it. Reluctant to speak because lack of historical content. It makes sense but it could look better.

GR Several of us are deeply immersed and need a fresh perspective.

KHS The usability and organization of the W3C site in general is very difficult. I know this is not meant for the general public, but I have found it confusing.

WC Suggestions for this document?

KHS All of this info has to be here, a site map of each area. An explanation that is more elementary of what each document is.

JW The way in is through the WAI home page that tries to explain each document that the WAI publishes. Have you found that to be any better? The working group home page is different than the WAI home page. Did you find that to be a problem or is it mostly the working group page or all of them?

KHS All of them. It's the general look. If you were on the WAI home page, the resources make sense. More of an explanation of what it is doing here and what is the difference between techniques and guidelines. Maybe use of acronyms is overused.

GR Are you looking for a "how to use this document" appendix?

KHS Yes. A bit prettier.

GR I have heard similar things. People have said it is like running into the "grey wall of information."

JW We have to distinguish between the site as a whole and what this group has control over. It's interesting because splitting the techniques into modules was to make it possible for people with interest in a particular technology to find info related specifically to that topic. Do you find this structure helpful?

KHS The Table of Contents is good. It's really an overall site issue rather than this particular page.

Action WC and KHS work on overview/site map of Techniques document.

KHS I'm a 508 coordinator for a government agency in the U.S. I will be giving them these documents. Sometimes you want to have something more user friendly.

WC Aware of quicktips?

KHS yes.

JW Checklist? these are associated with the guidelines. Most of our work from here on out is generalizing the principles, and developing the specifics further as well as a lot of information management.

JW reasonable timeline for those who have not reviewed.

CS Not a lot of time to review. It is much easier to read and find info and how it is related. Would like to spend more time could send more info by tomorrow.

JW Sometime next week.

WC Only released yesterday, we need to give people at least a week to review. Concerned about use of screen shots and link to live images.

Action WC: With CSS example include more information in the descriptions of the screen shots.

WC Other concerns: link to a test file. People think keep the CSS and HTML modules separate.

CS What about using CSS and XML?

CMN Point out in a markup language where the appropriate technique is a style language then point to the style language techniques. Be clear that CSS is as applicable to XML as HTML.

JW Include some HTML examples. Use XSL as well in the examples.

CS One might be combining CSS and XSL. Never use CSS by itself, therefore linking to it from a variety of places. Resize image to screen size that you want. Fewer bytes.

Action WC: retake screen shots to resize to make clearer picture.

GR Jim Allan and I did a test page for pseudo elements. IJ has a copy. We were doing this theoretically since no implementations at the time. Doing for UA.

Action WC: Check with IJ re: pseudo element test page that GR and Jim Allan created for UA group.

JW Unless any other issues we should move to take it to public working draft next week. WC release another version next week that includes these actions.

CMN minimum one week review by IG. Should give them 2. Let us take into consideration any comments they may have, then go public.

JW After they have been published as public working draft, then publish them as a Note. Any one want to suggest a timeline for when to take it to a Note?

CMN AU Group updated our Techniques doc which is also a Note. We initially planned on putting it out as a working draft. W3C process is to replace old Note with new Note. You can produce an updated version easily. A Note is "an interesting bit of info" if you have a more interesting bit of info you can replace it.

Resolved: If no major issues raised over the next week, we will take into account the minor comments, publish another working draft next week, and send that to IG for a 2 week review. If they do not have any major issues, we will incorporate any further minor comments and publish it as a Note.

New guideline structure

JW When the draft comes out we can use it as starting point for further proposals. It will be on the agenda for the next meeting. Further comments?

/* none */

JW Use it as the starting point for open issues for the next draft.

$Date: 2000/11/08 08:30:15 $ Wendy Chisholm