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

Meeting minutes / next meeting

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 18:58:28 -0400 (EDT)
To: WAI AU Guidelines <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9906021851360.2065-100000@tux.w3.org>
Meeting minutes are linked from the group page, at
htp://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/telecon-2jun99

Note that for the next meeting Jutta will be in Sweden, so I will be chairing
and Jim Allan will be taking minutes (thanks Jim).

Topiccs for next meeting are Bruce's proposal regarding the goals in teh
definitions of priority, and the definitions section.

There will be a new draft of the document in the morning. Please read the
Techniques document, which includes all the guidelines text and techniques -
it has a different status, abstract and introduction, and no conformance
section. Otherwise it has everything in the Guideines document itself.

Highlights from the meeting:
     * Resolved: 2.3 to be "Support accessible Authoring Practices".
       2.3.1 to be the present title of the Guideline.
     * Resolved: 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 to become 2.3.4 Preserve accessible
       content during conversions and transformations
     * Resolved: 2.1.1 Use all applicable operating system and
       accessibility standards and conventions.
     * Resolved: 2.4.1 moved to after current 2.4.3 and add "structural
       information" to wording of it.
     * Action Gregory: Propose definition of transformations.
     * Action GR: Propose new wording for 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.5

Complete minutes:

   [1]W3C [2]Web Accessibility Initiative 
   
   [3]WAI Authoring Tool Guidelines Working Group
   
                      WAI AU Teleconference - 2 June 1999
                                       
Details

   Chair: Jutta Treviranus, [4]jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca
   
   Date: Wednesday 2 June 1999
   
   Time: 3.30pm - 5:00pm Boston time (1930Z - 2100Z)
   
   Phone number: Tobin Bridge, +1 (617) 252 7000
     _________________________________________________________________
   
Agenda

  Review of Latest Draft
  
   The latest working group draft is
   [5]http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI-AUTOOLS-19990527.
     * Guideline 2.1
       Raised by Charles McCathieNevile:
       [6]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0272
       See also
       [7]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0298
     * Guideline 2.3 and checkpoint 2.3.1 names and restriction to W3C
       recommendations
       Raised by Charles McCathieNevile:
       [8]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0292
     * Merge checkpoints 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 and place in guideline 2.4
       Raised by Charles McCathieNevile:
       [9]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0291
     _________________________________________________________________
   
Attendance

     * Jan Richards
     * Jutta Treviranus
     * Charles McCathieNevile
     * Gregory Rosmaita
     * William Loughborough
     * Kynn Bartlett
     * Wendy Chisholm
     * Jim Allan
       
  Regrets
  
     * Ian Jacobs
     * Eric Hansen
     _________________________________________________________________
   
Action Items and Resolutions

     * Resolved: 2.3 to be "Support accessible Authoring Practices".
       2.3.1 to be the present title of the Guideline.
     * Resolved: 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 to become 2.3.4 Preserve accessible
       content during conversions and transformations
     * Resolved: 2.1.1 Use all applicable operating system and
       accessibility standards and conventions.
     * Resolved: 2.4.1 moved to after current 2.4.3 and add "structural
       information" to wording of it.
     * Action Gregory: Propose definition of transformations.
     * Action GR: Propose new wording for 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.5
     _________________________________________________________________
   
Minutes

  Guideline 2.3
  
   CMN We now have no checkpoint sayig support accessible authoring
   practices for non-W3C stuff
   
   GR Having a general statement as a guideline is good. I would vote
   against changing it.
   
   JT Proposal is to make Guideline "support all accessible authoring
   practices"
   
   GR: That's ok So 2.3.1 would say "support all accessible authoring
   practices in languages supported by the tool" That's fine by me
   
   JR I have a problem saying "all" in the guideline title
   
   CMN The guideline title isn't that critical - it is a general
   principle. The checkpoints are what has to be done.
   
   GR OK
   
   JT There won't be a checkpoint referring to W3C recs?
   
   CMN No. There will be references in teh techniques to specifc
   definitions..
   
   Resolved: 2.3 to be "Support accessible Authoring Practices". 2.3.1 to
   be the present title of the Guideline.
   
  Checkpoints 2.3.4, 2.3.5 merged and placed into 2.4
  
   GR I think that we are talking about two distinct but related things.
   We are saying the tool has to recognise the accessiblity markup for
   imported/converted languages, and that accessibility features need to
   be preserved. I like the separation.
   
   WL Why isn't that an import?
   
   JA If you open something in Frontpage it trashes your markup. That
   doesn't mean import to me.
   
   WL An import is opening a file.
   
   CMN I really like Wendy's proposal.
   
   WC Yes. I think that covers the problem Gregory and Jim are talking
   about.
   
   JR I think that is good, but I think it should stay in 2.3
   
   GR If anything was going into 2.4 I would move 2.3.5
   
   JR I think 2.4 is mainly about descriptive content
   
   JT And structural stuff
   
   WC I prefer it in 2.3
   
   JT Do we say content, or content and structure?
   
   CMN I proposed "preserve accessibility features of content during
   conversion and transformations" (in the broad sense of content)
   
   JA I think we should leave it as content and leave the issue of the
   meaning to later
   
   Resolved: 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 to become 2.3.4 Preserve accessible content
   during conversions and transformations
   
   GR I have a problem - we dont have a definition of transformation
   anywhere.
   
   JT Should we add a definition?
   
   CMN Yes, I think it is a good idea
   
   Action Gregory: Propose definition of transformations.
   
   CMN We should probably go through definitions section very carefully
   for next week.
   
   /*Process: JT Will be talking to the King of Sweden for next week's
   meeting. CMN to chair meeting. JA will take minutes
   
  Guideline 2.1
  
   WL We are facing the first example of a chance to do something about
   the accessibility of software. WAI has done nothing about software in
   general. Any chipping away at this should be resisted.
   
   CMN The techniques stuff there comes from my draft of a Note,
   following my action item to look at doing that with Ian. They are
   based on a large number of guidelines (references have been sent to
   email list)
   
   /* KB leaves temporarily
   
   CMN I would make a slight change to my proposal for 2.1.1 to include
   application guidelines.
   
   GR I can see that - 2.1.2 is a technique for 2.1.1 And User Agent
   Guidelines are GUI oriented.
   
   CMN And they are not a recommendation yet. Hopefully we will be there
   when they are.
   
   JT The rationale for this was that User Agent Guidelines would be a
   stablereference document.
   
   CMN It seems that this document is not stable, so we could refer to it
   in techniques.
   
   JR I think it shoud remain a checkpoint - it is the only W3C software
   guideline we have to look at. I also don't like the proposed 2.1.1...
   
   WL Does 2.1.1 get covered in the user agent guidelines?
   
   CMN The dependency is ill-defined. If we let go of them, we are freed
   from waiting for them
   
   JT We can trust in the W3C process to do ensure the document is OK
   
   JR You may have an authoring tool that has no browser functionality.
   
   JT 2.1.1 is not covered by 2.1.2. Is 2.1.2 covered by 2.1.1?
   
   CMN I think 2.1.1 can be covered by 2.1.1
   
   GR I lean to making 2.1.2 a technique for 2.1.1 My understanding is to
   go here from General to specific. We start with the General things,
   then address authoring tools. 2.1.2 says "if the tool has an extra
   functionality (as a user agent)" - that is less general than other
   authoring tool specific requirements we have. So moving it down the
   list will go towards solving the problem
   
   JR So what if we take 2.1.2 and move it further down the list. We
   could move the actual reference to the techniques.
   
   CMN If we remove the reference then the checkpoint disappears
   
   JT No, it is a functionality
   
   GR I agree - this is a key part of functionality.
   
   CMN OK, so move it down list of 2.1 and leave as is. So also drop
   proposed 2.1.1
   
   JT dropping that means there is no reference to accessibility
   standards, and no reference to platform the tool runs on.
   
   CMN I dropped "the platform the tool runs on" because it seemed so
   obvious, and had accessibility standards in proposed 2.1.1
   
   Proposal: Use operating system and accessibility standards and
   conventions
   
   GR should still have "all appropriate". I don't know that we should
   change it or we'll lose something
   
   WC In the case of Java does that break that?
   
   GR OK, so we should have Use all applicable operating system and
   accessibility standards and conventions
   
   JT Who defines applicable
   
   CMN Applicable means "those which can be applied".
   
   Resolved: 2.1.1 Use all applicable operating system and accessibility
   standards and conventions.
   
   CMN Proposal for moving 2.1.3 comes from talking to Phill. It is
   redundant with 2.1.5
   
   JT You could use a tool and get at the property of a particular
   element. What we are addressing here is to have a completely different
   view so I can see everything. That is convenient. That has to be
   separate from how it is published.
   
   JR This is important to keep.
   
   CMN I agree I think it is P2 or P3
   
   GR No
   
   JT This gets to the heart of the problem - it allows the author to
   create things
   
   CMN No. Being able to access the propoerties and edit them is
   necessary. Having a convenient view is important.
   
   GR If I ahve a contract to design a site and have to use a horrible
   background image and colour scheme, I should be able to change the
   rendering so I can see these things while I am editing them
   
   WL Hence 2.1.5
   
   GR No. 2.1.3 is rendering of the document being edited.
   
   CMN I can see this
   
   JR It is different from deciding the colour - it is being able to
   edit.
   
   JT It is being able to see the document, not just edit the document.
   
   JA I need 24 point on the screen. In current WYSIWYG editors if I put
   24 pt font, everything gets changed
   
   CMN Yes, I agree with that.
   
   CMN 2.1.4 seems a technique for 2.1.3
   
   JT, JA, WL agree
   
   GR I don't think we can lose it. We lose the bit about tags
   
   JR isn't that already in 2.1.3 - the alternate rendering can be
   textual
   
   JT You may want the image and the graphic
   
   JR The properties are available under 2.1.5. The rendering is covered
   2.1.3
   
   GR I don't think so. I think it is too broad. There is a discontinuity
   between that and 2.1.5. 2.1.4 should say ...
   
   CMN it needs to be clear that the rendering of the properties is
   accessible - is that what you are saying?
   
   GR Not quite.
   
   JT Are we counting a text equivalent as a property? There are
   instances where you want both
   
   CMN Yes. I agree with Jan - the rendered version is available from
   2.1.3, the text equivalent is there from 2.1.5.
   
   GR I think it needs to be there "allow the author to display a textual
   equivalent of each element while editing.
   
   JR A developer might wonder what 2.1.3 was there for
   
   WL There are a number of intertwined "definitions" here.
   
   JR If you pull text equivalence out and make it a checkpoint? It is a
   technique for 2.1.3
   
   Action GR: Propose new wording for 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.5
   
   CMN I assume that 2.1.5 means edit propoerties
   
   JT This is for pre-packaged alternative content. in terms of 2.1 it is
   about reading.
   
   JR I see CMN's point. We should be asking here for all properties
   
   JT In 2.1 we are looking at equivalent practise.
   
   JR Because we ask for access..
   
   CMN I think we should say accessible including editable in this
   section.
   
   JR I think we should say that pre-written alternative content should
   be editable in 2.4
   
   JT In 2.1 we are saying make sure that everybody has equivalent access
   to the authoring process. Outside that we are specifying the practices
   you should include
   
   WL This came up because there are tools that don't let you edit
   alternative content.
   
   GR I would say 2.4.1 is misplaced - it should be after 2.4.3 and
   should include "structural information".
   
   CMN I would buy that
   
   Resolved: 2.4.1 moved to after current 2.4.3 and add "structural
   information" to wording of it.
   
   Action everyone: Review Definitions, and techniques for next week.
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   [10]Copyright    1999 [11]W3C ([12]MIT, [13]INRIA, [14]Keio ), All
   Rights Reserved. W3C [15]liability, [16]trademark, [17]document use
   and [18]software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this
   site are in accordance with our [19]public and [20]Member privacy
   statements.
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   Last Modified $Date: 1999/06/02 21:03:43 $ by [21]Charles
   McCathieNevile

References

   1. http://www.w3.org/WAI/
   2. http://www.w3.org/WAI/
   3. http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU
   4. mailto:jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca
   5. http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI-AUTOOLS-19990527
   6. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0272.html
   7. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0298.html
   8. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0292.html
   9. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0291.html
  10. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice.html#Copyright
  11. http://www.w3.org/
  12. http://www.lcs.mit.edu/
  13. http://www.inria.fr/
  14. http://www.keio.ac.jp/
  15. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice.html#Legal Disclaimer
  16. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice.html#W3C Trademarks
  17. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents.html
  18. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software.html
  19. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/privacy-statement.html#Public
  20. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/privacy-statement.html#Members
  21. mailto:charles@w3.org
 

--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 Wednesday, 2 June 1999 18:58:31 UTC

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