W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: WAI AU Meeting minutes 5/16/99

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 14:26:51 -0400 (EDT)
To: pjenkins@us.ibm.com
cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org, chisholm@trace.wisc.edu
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9906011426270.2065-100000@tux.w3.org>
The minutes have been updated with these changes

charles

On Wed, 19 May 1999 pjenkins@us.ibm.com wrote:

  
  
  Also, the minutes [http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/f2f-may99] need to change regarding
  three items:
  
  1. What was:
  Action PJ, BR: Look through IBM guidelines, compare with TRACE tool, note
  differences to group
  
  should change "with TRACE tool" to with "TRACE updated guidelines" so it reads:
  Action PJ, BR: Look through IBM guidelines, compare with TRACE updated
  guidelines, note differences to group
  
  2. What was:
  Scribe's note: I thought I recalled an action item being assigned to Wendy
  Chisholm and I to look through TRACE guidelines as well, but find no record.
  
  change to:
  Wendy Chisholm did take a work item to "update" - or at least review the TRACE
  software guidelines and send the "latest" to Bruce and I so we could compare
  with the IBM software guidelines and note differences [submit a proposal] to the
  working group.
  
  3. What was:
  PJ Imagine Phill says we must address accessibility of the tool. e.g....
  
  should change to [from my meeting notes]:
  PJ Pretend for a moment I agree that we should cover the accessibility of the
  authoring tool:
  The current document leaves out many important software accessibility
  guidelines, even though it points to "platform guidelines" and "User Agent
  guidelines".  The important guidelines that it leaves out are applicable to
  creating/editing content that is accessible per the WCAG.  Five examples:
  1.   Sound only may be used [inaccessibly] to warn the author that they forgot
  to do 2.3.2 Prompt the author for all missing structural information.
  2.   Color only may be used [inaccessibly] to warn the author that they are NOT
  using 2.1.1 "W3C tags".
  3.   Documentation may be missing or documentation that is provided may be
  inaccessible even if it covers the accessibility features, for example: How the
  authoring tool 2.3.1 prompts the author to provide alternative content.
  4.   The authoring tool needs to document accessibility features that it
  provides, for example what are the keyboard shortcuts
  5.   Testing with assistive technology vendors, users with disabilities, and or
  assistive technology testing tool.
  So why do we have some of the software guidelines in here and not others. If
  some of these are repeated, we might as well repeat all of them. I would prefer
  to not repeat any of them and *not* cover the software accessibility of the tool
  in these authoring tool guidelines.
  
  
  Regards,
  Phill Jenkins
  
  

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 1999 14:26:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:42 UTC