- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 15:23:39 -0500 (EST)
- To: WAI AU Guidelines <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Are available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/telecon-24feb99#minutes (linked
from the home page as well), and are here:
Attendance
* Jutta Treviranus - Chair
* Charles McCathieNevile - Scribe
* Ian Jacobs
* Jim Allen
* Kynn Bartlett
* Jan Richards
* Will Loughborough
* Wendy Chisholm
Regrets:
* Daniel Dardailler -
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JanMar/0125
Absent
* Sylvain Galineau
* Charles Oppermann
___________________________________________________________________
Action Items and Resolutions
* Resolved: Grammar changes from Agenda
* Resolved: Adopt priorities/checkpoints/guidliens from UA document
* Resolved: add these three new checkpoints to Guideline 2.1
* Resolved: Discussion on 2.5.1, relationship between 2.2 and 2.3
goes to the list
* Resolved: Decision on including DTD delayed, pending review by Web
Content
* Resolved: Checkpoint 2.6.1 says" Include Alternative Content which
complies with Web Content Guidelines for All multimedia files packaged
with the authoring
tool"
* Action WAC: Send intro material to list. DONE
* Resolved: Draft paragraphs will be brought to discussion Monday.
_____________________________________________________________________
Minutes
Instant Consensus
* Adopt priorities/checkpoints/guidliens from UA document
* Grammar changes from Agenda
Validate Markup
JR: Tool must generate standard markup already.
WL: Proposing a 2.1.2? Is it different?
JT: Make authoring tool validate content
JR: 2.1.1 says write valid mark-up. I'm not sure that a validation is
necessary.
CMN: This is to ensure that imported markup can be validated.
JT: We're not asking them to require validation of stuff which has been
generated. We should be explicit about it applying that to imported
markup.
WL: Seems to be pretty much included already
JT: We want checkpoints to be very specific
WL: Imported is still generated
JA: 2.5 talks about importing
CMN: this differs from 2.5 because it refers to standards, not
accessbility.
JT: 2.1.2 encourages validation, specifically for imported documents
CMN: This doesn't say whether it goes outside the tool or not, just
that it must be validated
WL: What does inter-operability mean?
JR: We should be explaining why we need standard markup in the
introduction to the guideline.
WL: That makes sense
JR: The role of this guideline plays in the document
JT: Standards promote accessibility.
CMN: Without a standard, there is no way to build accessibility on top
of it.
WL: Necessary but not sufficient
IJ: Also, W3C Standards include accessibility support.
JR: This guideline says "Whatever you do, it has to be valid. Then the
next guideline says that you have to support accessibility features."
KB: Is the tool responsible for checking and or correcting that markup
is standard
CMN: No, under 2.5, it is only required to ensure accessibility of the
markup.
KB: 2.1 could use a checkpoint that says 'ensure that imported content
or content created by another source is in accordance with W3C
specification. See
checkpoints in 2.5 about alerting/correcting
JA?: Modify 2.3
WL: We could add parenthesis to 2.1.1
JR, KB: Would prefer second checkpoint
WL: Second checkpoint should require standardisation of imported
content
KB: Should allow for correction as well
JT: explicit correction?
KB Not sure yet.
CMN: The rest of my proposal is to seperate the requirement for W3C
standards via two more checkpoints, from adherence to specifications.
WC: Use of Javascript/ECMAscript is classic example here.
JT: We have 4 checkpoints under this proposal
KB: Should we mention DTD here?
JR: Checkpoint 3 is pretty open-ended.
CMN: Yep. It says don't extend in such a way as to exclude
IJ: Can we special-case HTML, and say don't extend it?
CMN: Proposed checkpoint 4 covers HTML and SMIL, MathML
JT: Can they go to the list
CMN: Propose to put them into document, and argue about them at the
meeting
JT Any objections to the 4 checkpoints being in the public Working
Draft?
IJ: Still thinking about number 4.
CMN: Number 4 is restrictive not permissive
Resolved: add these three new checkpoints to working draft
2.5.1 and 2.2.1
JT Are these redundant? Where does it belong?
WL: Belongs in 2.2
JT: Agree
Resolveed: remove 2.5.1. Maybe use langauge in 2.2.1
KB: Or in 2.3.1
IJ: 2.2 and 2.3 are very close
JT: One addresses the practices, the other addresses the insertion of
markup
KB: 2.5.1 sounds like one of the things that won't be conscious in the
user's mind
JT it applies to both.
CMN: I'd be happy to move 2.5.1 to 2.3.1, keep 2.2.1
WAC: How much do you want to highlight the structure stuff? Leave it
there, or assume that it will be inferred from 2.2 and 2.3
JT: We're talking about removing stuff. We have already talked about
what is accessible.
WL: What does 2.2 intro mean?
JR: Means 'make sure you can hadnle the accessibility features of a
language'.
IJ: Authoring tool as User Agent?
JR: No. The tool understands how to use the feature.
KB: So you can insert a longdesc, for example. (in HTML 4)
IJ: I would argue that part of ensurign markup is accessible is making
sure the features are there.
CMN: 2.2 expresses the dependence. 2.3 says what to do about it.
IJ I still think 2.2 goes into 2.3
JT: We're talking about auto-generated markup in 2.3.
CMN: I buy Ian's argument
IJ: If it is authoring tools support, then it definitely belongs in
2.3.
JR: 2.2 builds a logical argument.
WL: Why don't we say that.
IJ: I would think differently if it were broken into parsing, user
agent support, etc.
JT: Jan - write some more checkpoints.
Resolved: Discussion on 2.5.1, relationship between 2.2 and 2.3 goes to
the list
JT: Including 2.2 in 2.3 would mean a major change to 2.3 which is not
general enough.
DTD's
CMN: This is important as we start to mix document types. I suggest we
do it without requiring it as an
JT: This is XML-specific - do we need more intro text?
JR: This sounds like a page author guideline
CMN: Yes, but it's not there.
IJ: It would be an interesting discussion to hear what the implications
are.
JT: This brings up a good point. If specific guidelines are not in teh
Web Content Guidelines do we address them, or send them back
IJ: At least tell Web Content Guidelines
CMN: Do both
JT Then we are diverging from Web Content
CMN: I think the danger would be if we put in something that belonged
in Web Content, and didn't send it back to Web Content.
IJ: We should send this to chair of GL group, copied to lists.
Resolved: Decision delayed pending review by Web Content
IJ I don't know that we should limit this to DTD's - we should consder
schemas as well
Including Professional Descriptions - checkpoint or technique
JT: Responses were on both sides - any takers
CMN: Checkpoint
JT Anyone for a technique
WAC Seems like a technique. Maybe it shouldn't say 'professionally'
WL If related to stuff that came with the tool then it is a checkpoint
JA: Include Alternative Content for All multimedia files packaged with
the authoring tool
JR: Do we want to say human authored?
IJ leaves
JT: Do we need to specify that the alternative content is
human-authored? Rationale is to have good quality alternative content.
JA: Could just say 'appropriate'
JR: Could have technique say 'professionally written, good quality,
etc'
WAC: Use professionally written, link to WGBH or somewhere
JT: Don't want to imply that it needs to be done out of house.
WAC Professional just means you paid for it
WL: Ensure that text accompnaying content conforms with recommendations
JT: We wnat to say Include it.
WL: Yes, and that it qualifies as good
JT: How can we do the second piece
WAC: It is defined as well as possible in Web Content guidelines
JA: Reference Web Content Guidelines in checkpoint
JT: Make sure it's there, and make sure it's good.
JA: Add, "which complies with Web Content Guidelines"
Resolved: Checkpoint 2.6.1 says" Include Alternative Content which
complies with Web Content Guidelines for All multimedia files packaged
with the authoring
tool"
Intros to section 2 and 4 - summarise principles
JT: Where other guidelines covered this, we would not replicate them.
CMN proposed we should cover the principles, as introductory text. (reads
proposed text)
It is possible to do all that and still have an inaccessible tool. If
we do this, then we need to refer to the guidelines. There were issues of
using standard
APIs, etc.
CMN: These are an introduction, not a substitute.
JT: These are very specific in some areas and may imply incorrectly
that the summary is complete.
CMN: The specific points are examples, and could be lost
WAC: I think it would be helpful to have some sort of summary - it
gives good context and motivation to read the real documents
CMN: I'm sorry Ian left - he had said 'it is exactly what is needed'.
But he's not here
WL: I liked this. Is it helpful to the audience?
WAC: Having an introduction to the other guidelines is really helpful.
You could lift the new intor to the Web Content Guidelines
JT: I'd be comfortable with lifting that.
Resolved to Have some introductory text?
WL Not sure. Are we reaching the audience we need?
CMN: I suggest we throw it in, and ask for comment. Several developers
have agreed to comment despite not being in the group.
JT: I dont think we are comfortable to put this in the draft as is.
CMN: I would prefer to throw something in, and get comment. I would be
happy to take the Web Content Material unseen.
Action WAC: Send intro material from WC Guidelines to list.
Resolved: Draft paragraphs will be brought to discussion Monday.
General discussion (2 minutes)
This time suits people present.
Meeting Closed 5:30 pm US EST (2230Z)
--Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992 http://purl.oclc.org/net/charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS - 545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139, USA
Received on Thursday, 25 February 1999 15:23:41 UTC