WCAG Face to Face Day 1 -- 01 Oct 2008

LGR Exit Critieria

Candidates AAA - Feingold, Vision Australia and DO IT (targeted - has issues)

Vision Australia more importnat if DO it does not improve

AA: Web Accessibility
... Potential: AT Tutor
... A Tutor

AAA: Feingold YES today

A: Mitsui (one site as two) today - table markup question

A: Standrad Web today

A: Pretty Simple TODAY

AOL cannot change: Landing Page - close

AOL Web Mail:

Is the test of our guidelines - practicality or absolute ?

Good Example: Christophe's - Chinese issue

Pulling in the United Nations source

Demonstarting SC - two of each

have holes

need examples of those in the wild

specifically the places where we are week

<scribe> ACTION: Item to Katie and Sophia - editorial review of techniques [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/01-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]

Andi will review 3

<scribe> ACTION: Item to Andi will review 3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/01-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20080926f2fprep/

CR Exit Scorecard

Problem updating changed/improved implementations

Need to discuss Audio Description later today

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20080926f2fprep/

Items At Risk

Criteria at Risk for Change

If feedback will revert - no feedback as of yet

SC 1.2.1 - Audio-only and Video-only (Prerecorded)

SC 1.2.8 - Full Text Alternative

SC 1.2.1 and 1.2.8 - Not going to revert

SC 1.4.3 - Contrast (Minimum)

RESOLUTION: SC 1.2.1 and 1.2.8 - Not going to revert

Back to SC 1.4.3 - Contrast

SC 1.4.3 - Contrast - still on

Brewer Pallette was used

Pallete for choosing map colors

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2008OctDec/att-0001/Contrast_Comparisons.html

RESOLUTION: SC 1.4.3 - Contrast (Minimum) - Revised Contrast to 4.5 - PENDING conformation and ACTION ITEM: Gregg to re-do numbers - justification on calulations and make suggestd editorial revisions
... SC 2.2.2 - Pause, Stop, Hide - CHANGE. Delete "lasts more than five seconds" clause in Auto-updating.
... SC 2.2.2 - Pause, Stop, Hide - Retaining the current language as revised.
... ON CALL - Will review all the resolutions.

Criteria at Risk for Change or Becoming Advisory

RESOLUTION: 1.4.8 - Visual Presentation - (Level AAA) - Be Retained (Keep it in). No longer at Risk.

<scribe> ACTION: ITEM to David - Break 1.4.8 up into 5 seperate SC. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/01-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action03]

Judy Brewer: CR Overview

jb: Thanks everyone for getting this far

lots of people working very hard

Candidate Recommendation status:

WCAG different from other specs in that we pre-negotiated exit criteria with Tim Berners-Lee and Steve Bratt

because WCAG is different from other specs, in being guidelines

didn't want surprises of interpretation at exit interview

Loretta has been managing the process of getting us to the exit criteria

As expected, there have been some things to gather and re-gather

<scribe> in progress on communicating issues back to implementers

looking after "blackbox", "greybox", "whitebox"

communication with implementers "lightens" the box, we've tried to keep some sites in blackbox category

CR database good for providing data to back up our CR exit readiness claim

Tim & Steve not necessarily involved in CR exit reviews currently but will be in ours for continuity with the pre-negotiation we had with them

If we pass the CR exit review, we will steer towards Proposed Recommendation, but won't know an exact date until that actually happens

Shooting for week of October 27 for CR exit review

Need to take a look at the At Risk items and see where we're at on those

Also need to review any items that we might need to change that weren't in At Risk category, as that's a lot trickier

The Proposed Recommendation is different from all previous document stages in that the review is not by the public, but it is an internal review by W3C Member organizations

Not all Member organizations may comment, but it's helpful if a lot do

We ask that WG members ensure their own Member org comments

comments will be along the lines of "fine as is," "ok but please consider...," "ok only with this change," or "shouldn't go to Rec."

these come through the formal Advisory Committee representative

if a Member org that has participated in WCAG WG and approved this to go to PR were to say "ok only with this change," that is considered pretty odd; it's important to get your ducks in a row.

so important to coordinate within your organization to reduce risk of this happening

The review period for PR is usually 30 days, can be longer

As document advances towards Recommendation, W3C Communications Team gets involved

There will definitely be a press release

and a testimonials page

W3C Member organizations invited to submit testimonials

we'll also solicit testimonials from disability community, governments that have been using WCAG, etc.

Invited Experts in WCAG WG can also submit

We expect significant media interest when WCAG 2.0 comes out

Will ensure there is rapid contact with top-tier media outlets

WCAG chairs will be invited to participate in this

Also helpful to know of other WG members who might be interested in being contacted on certain topics

e.g., industry perspective, disability community perspective, etc.

We do not pre-announce the date of publication

Keep in mind W3C process can cause unexpected changes to date

if we're targeting a December publication, and date gets too late in month, we'd move to January because there isn't media pickup around the holidays

We had a recent media article say "WCAG 2.0 set for publication in mid December", but it implied a firm date that we don't have

We needed to get a correction issued

Post Recommendation...

After 8.5 years, temptation may be to stop all work

But WCAG WG collectively has a lot of knowledge that is crucial to making sure WCAG is used well, and to setting the course for how it is followed up

e.g., there are a bunch of techniques remaining to document

advisory techniques, some more technologies, etc.

so there may be a considerable amount of work to do in that area to make sure people can sit down and implement WCAG

Also there's a fair amount of work to do on testing

test samples, etc.

Education & Outreach WG will need to do stuff as well, will need to coordinate with them

There will probably be errata to issue

Also, it's a good time to look at things that were put on the wishlist for future versions of WCAG

awk: is there a plan for WCAG 3

jb: I understand there's a list of issues that have been deferred for future consideration

We're looking at an integrated "WAI 3.0" guidelines that roll together content, authoring, browsing

so a unified specification

though modularized for particular tasks

we'd welcome structured reflection from WCAG WG on that

gv: One question that came up today was sites that implemented a SC pretty well, but had a problem here and there

due to overhead, can't just "tweak" things easily when site published

can we treat those as "bugs" rather than implementation failures for CR exit purposes?

jb: Have been taking questions like this to Steve and Tim

one pattern in their response is that we should try to be scientific and see if we see patterns in these problems

e.g., if sites often miss a few things that cause them not to meet a conformance level, what might we want to say in the conformance section to address?

such as "certain things really require use of evaluation tools to verify that you have in fact met all the instances"

regarding impact on CR exit, keep in mind that the CR implementations become part of a public report

sites that didn't quite make it might lead to a tricky issue

gv: consider a typo, which means word isn't english, which means it needs language markup, which means it fails

what do we do about point instances?

jb: WG is holding these implementations up as fully conforming

W3C and the public would be looking at them

hard to give yes / no on these examples

gv: we could fix what we can, indicate that some sites are committed to fixing bugs, as well as note ones that won't be able to fix on a particular timeline

we should try not to use ones in that last category unless we absolutely have to

dmd: one of those sites was to be a partial conformance implementation; we could find others

jb: I understood Partial Conformance was a major foundational framework

Also W3C wanted a diversity of examples

a major commercial implementation is of extreme interest

so in such a case, going in with a 99% implementation, accompanied by a pristine one, might convince for CR exit

lgr: How long do implementations need to remain after Implementation Experience report?

jb: There was an agreement with implementers, no?

lgr: Until end of CR was agreement

jb: We might need to grab snapshots of some implementations

can work out details offline

jb: Accessibility Supported Technologies...

gv: Covering tomorrow

Uses of technology is what needs to be supported

That could be a path to the non-W3C technologies issue

if developers can demonstrate accessibility support for those technologies

jb: W3C Management does feel that if accessibility support is critical, W3C should host

they need requirements

Technical, staffing

gv: will work that out tomorrow

jb: Non-W3C technologies, my understanding is there exists a proposal that is still under discussion

I need to see more about how the Accessibility Support issue might intersect with the non-W3C technologies issue

We need to get to a place where the techniques for non-W3C technologies shows up in quickref alongside the current technologies

but still concerned about the vetting process

seems different from accessibility support

These are issues that you can't leave CR without figuring out

gv: Whole day tomorrow is focused on that

Techniques, which are uses of a technology, is an aspect of this

If accessibility support information shows that using a technology in a certain way satisfies SC, then we have "techniques" for that technology

dmd: We've spent a lot of time on techniques

bc: Only worked on them the past few years

awk: Much of the techniques work was on General

<general acclaim> so we should be able to do more techniques easily enough (comparatively)

<scribe> scribe: Katie

Discussion of SC 1.2.7 - Audio Description (Extended)

is provided when the sense of the video would be lost without the additional audio description

RESOLUTION: SC 1.2.7 - Audio Description (Extended)- Retain. Change to....Where pauses in foreground audio are insufficient to allow audio descriptions to convey the sense of the video,</add> extended audio description is provided for prerecorded video content in synchronized media.

Discussion of SC 1.2.6 - Sign Language

RESOLUTION: SC 1.2.6 - Sign Language. Retain as is.

Discussion of SC 1.2.8 - Full Text Alternatives

RESOLUTION: SC 1.2.8 - Full Text Alternatives - Retain. Change definition of "full text alternative for synchronized media including any interaction" to "document including sequenced text descriptions of visual and auditory information of the synchronized media combined with a means of achieving any interactive functions of the synchronized media"

Discussion of SC 1.2.9 - Live Audio-only

RESOLUTION: SC SC 1.2.9 - Live Audio-only - Retain.

WCAG Face to Face Day 1

01 Oct 2008

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output