Meeting minutes

now available - http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/telecon-11aug99 and linked from the
home page, and included below in text format.

We are now hoping t odecide on 24 August (the meeting after next) to go to
last call. Other than that we made some wording and ordering changes to three
checkpoints and included the new SMILey sample implementation.

cheers

Charles


   [1]W3C [2]Web Accessibility Initiative 
   
   [3]WAI Authoring Tool Guidelines Working Group
   
                    WAI AU Teleconference - 11 August 1999
                                       
Details

   Chair: Jutta treviranus, <[4]jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
   
   Date: Wednesday 11 August 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-19990805.
   
   Note that in most cases there is a thread of discussion following the
   message which has been referred to here.
     * Checkpoint 2.1 wording:
       [6]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JulSep/0076.
       html
     * Introduction:
       [7]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JulSep/0075.
       html
     * Reordering of checkpoints by priority:
       [8]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JulSep/0074.
       html
     * Techniques review - sample implementations
     * Last Call / Face to Face Meeting -
       [9]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JulSep/0080.
       html and
       [10]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JulSep/0079
       .html
     _________________________________________________________________
   
Attendance

     * Charles McCathieNevile
     * Ian Jacobs
     * Jutta Treviranus
     * Dick Brown
     * Phill Jenkins
       
  Regrets:
  
     * Kynn Bartlett
     * Bruce Roberts
     * William Loughborough
     * Gregory Rosmaita
     * Jan Richards
     _________________________________________________________________
   
Action Items and Resolutions

     * Resolved: Proposal for explanatory note in 2.1 adopted
     * Resolved: JT to propose text, to be incorporated in place of
       detailed example. Add checking for accessibility to issues.
     * Resolved: Put definition of normative in glossary
     * Resolved: Put public request for further techniques into
       techniques introduction
     * Resolved: Add text to checkpoint intro, change note for 2.2 as
       discussed under [11]reordering checkpoints (below)
     * Resolved: Use "markup language" where that is what we mean. Define
       it as the encoding language.
     * Resolved: Move 4.4 and 6.1 as proposed
     * Resolved: Put the SMILey example it into document
     * Resolved: We hope to decide we will go to last call on 24th
     * Resolved: Ask the list if 7/8 October is alright for a face to
       face meeting (remind them of ATIA conflict).
     _________________________________________________________________
   
Minutes

Checkpoint 2.1

   CMN We should put the explanation about W3C specs into the checkpoint
   text as well as in the Techniques
   
   JT The grammar needs to be clarified carefully.
   
   IJ Yes
   
   PJ I would like the P1 first.
   
   JT It was felt as a leogical progression.
   
   Resolved: Proposal adopted
   
Introduction

   JT Text proposed by Ian, revised by charles, with comments by others.
   
   PJ Is the "editing tools" a list item?
   
   CMN Yes
   
   PJ OK. (It isn't clear from the plaintext formatting on the list)
   
   JT It is easy to miss the accessible software point. But that's OK
   
   PJ don't need word 'production' in second sentence of second
   paragraph.
   
   DB Looks OK to me
   
   IJ I am not so happy about the single issue example.
   
   CMN I am happy to leave it out...
   
   JT Part of the reason for this was becuase it came from the text that
   was introductory to specific guidelines
   
   PJ Can we be more general, rather than getting into one in detail?
   
   JT Or make it more general
   
   PJ I think we should give some actual examples of design issues.
   
   CMN How about if we drop the example itself?
   
   PJ I would like to delete the detail of the automation example, add
   "checking accessibility".
   
   JT I would agree with that, as long as we explain why it is important
   in an authoring tool. We need to make the point that the authoring
   tool is probably the most important place to have this occur
   
   Resolved: JT to propose text, to be incorporated in place of detailed
   example. Add checking for accessibility to issues.
   
   DB What does normative mean? Can you put in some explanatory text
   
   PJ Could we define it in glossary and link to it?
   
   Resolved: Put definition in glossary
   
   IJ What needs to be clear is that normative is related to conformance.
   So the techniques document does not impact conformance.
   
   JT We could just say "not a requirement for conformance" here.
   
   PJ Could we add in the introduction a request for techniques.
   
   CMN Certainly. It sounds like a good idea.
   
   Resolved: Put public request for further techniques into techniques
   introduction
   
Reordering Checkpoints

   CMN We had decided to keep 2.1 before others although we wanted
   generally to have priority order. If we treat relative priority as P1
   for purposes of ordering then we only have two changes apart from
   that.
   
   DB are we saying that W3C recommendations are not published standards?
   
   JT No. It is a reading order. We think that it is better where
   applicable to use a W3C recommendation
   
   PJ Can we put into the intro text of the guidelines to use W3C
   standards where applicable, and after that to use a published
   standard.
   
   JT In 2.2 should we use "produce"
   
   PJ "this is necessary for User agents to be ale to transform web
   content to a presentation appropriate to a particular user's needs.
   
   Resolved: Add text to checkpoint intro, change note for 2.2
   
   PJ Document language - should we say document markup language.
   
   Resolved: Use "markup language" where that is what we mean. Define it
   as the encoding language...
   
   JT What happens if there are P1 and relative pronouns
   
   CMN Suggest to leave them as they are ordered in that case.
   
   Resolved: Move 4.4 and 6.2 as proposed
   
Sample implementations

   Nobody has had time to review yet...
   
   Resolved: Put the SMILey example it into document
   
Last Call

   JT We are wanting to make a decision and put the document to last
   call. There haven't been any substantive changes, last call is a good
   opportunity to get outside review. Proposed to put it out for last
   call in about two weeks.
   
   CMN Last call draft is a working draft. Working group doesn't plan to
   make changes. We call on all teh W3C groups who have relationship ot
   this to sign it off or identify show stoppers, and we have to answer
   all issues reaised before we can ask for a Proposed Recommendation.
   List of groups we need to talk to in W3C is SVG (they require
   conforming generators to conform to these guidelines in their current
   working draft), SMIL, HTML, MathML, WCAG, WAI IG, WAI EO, User Agent
   Guidelines, WAI PF, Amaya.
   
   PJ I am concerned that a 5 week last call will just mean people take
   that time. Maybe we should shorten it to four weeks or so.
   
   CMN Agreed, but on the other hand the longer time allows developers to
   go away and think, ask questions, and get feedback and think again.
   There is not much value in finishing a long way before the meeting
   
   PJ We want a buffer of some time.
   
   CMN We curerntly would have about 5 days to organise issues for the
   meeting...
   
   PJ OK. Sounds good to me - that means we can shoot for the end of the
   year as a recommendation
   
   CMN Depends a bit on the schedule - earliest possible is about the
   start of December I think. But this is not a secret negotiation - you
   can go to your development teams and say we think there will be a last
   call review - allocate time in September for review...
   
   JT That means that the working group need to go over the document
   fairly carefully in the next couple of weeks and make sure it is OK.
   Phill you had identified guideline 1 as a concern.
   
   PJ Yes, I will have to look through that. I have read the august 5
   draft and seems ok so far.
   
   DB Sounds OK to me. I will be away next week, but will read the draft
   when I return - before the 24th.
   
   JT Charles if you could prompt Bruce to take another look
   
   Resolved: We hope to decide we will go to last call on 24th
   
Meeting, 7/8 October

   PJ That conflicts with ATIA conference, Orlando Florida. Can we have
   it the next week?
   
   CMN Conflicts with UAAG meeting Monday/Tuesday, and then with Closing
   the Gap.
   
   PJ I don't think I am likely to be at ATIA. What about earlier?
   
   JT That will start to cut into the Last call period (the
   Monday/Tuesday conflicts with W3C meetings)
   
   PJ That isn't such a problem.
   
   Resolved: Ask the list if 7/8 October is OK.
   
   .
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   [12]Copyright  ©  1999 [13]W3C ([14]MIT, [15]INRIA, [16]Keio ), All
   Rights Reserved. W3C [17]liability, [18]trademark, [19]document use
   and [20]software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this
   site are in accordance with our [21]public and [22]Member privacy
   statements.
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   Last Modified $Date: 1999/08/11 22:40:10 $ by [23]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-19990805
   6. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JulSep/0076.html
   7. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JulSep/0075.html
   8. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JulSep/0074.html
   9. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JulSep/0080.html
  10. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JulSep/0079.html
  11. http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/telecon-11aug99.html#Reordering
  12. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice.html#Copyright
  13. http://www.w3.org/
  14. http://www.lcs.mit.edu/
  15. http://www.inria.fr/
  16. http://www.keio.ac.jp/
  17. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice.html#Legal Disclaimer
  18. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice.html#W3C Trademarks
  19. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents.html
  20. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software.html
  21. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/privacy-statement.html#Public
  22. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/privacy-statement.html#Members
  23. mailto:charles@w3.org

Received on Wednesday, 11 August 1999 21:55:16 UTC