W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2000

RE: Please review: proposed agenda for ER/AU f2f

From: Michael Cooper <mcooper@cast.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 17:50:28 -0400
To: "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Overall structure looks ok to me. I think though that it's a little light on
group planning time for the first day - just 1 hour. I'd like to see less
discussion of the ERT, and closer to half a day (or at least a few hours)
for planning/brainstorming. This is because I don't think the ERT work
stands to benefit as much from the face to face format as the planning part
would, and the parts of the face to face that would strengthen our work on
ERT happen on Friday anyway - demos, talking with AU people, etc. I don't
remember if the charter is expected to be complete by this time; if not, we
could use some of the planning time to make really sure we agree about
overall goals. If it is complete, we may only need 2 hours or so of planning
since we'll have a defined scope, but I'd say we do need that much in order
to raise issues, cogitate, and come to some degree of consensus.

Michael Cooper

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Wendy A Chisholm
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2000 11:23 AM
To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org; w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Subject: Please review: proposed agenda for ER/AU f2f


Based on last week's ER WG discussion the rough agenda is:
Thursday: work through open issues with ERT (brainstorm), set goals, create
Friday: joint meeting with AU WG. Strategize, demonstrate tools, plan.

I've tried to fill in more detail.  Please comment.

9-9:15 intro's

9:15-10:30 ERT
-Checkpoint 12.3 - Divide large blocks of information into more manageable
groups where natural and appropriate
-Checkpoint 13.3 - Provide information about the general layout of a site
-Checkpoint 13.4 - Use navigation mechanisms in a consistent manner

10:30-10:45 break

10:45-12:00 ERT
-Checkpoint 13.5 - Provide navigation bars to highlight and give access to
the navigation mechanism
-Checkpoint 13.8 - Place distinguishing information at the beginning of
headings, paragraphs, lists, etc
-Checkpoint 14.1 - Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a
site's content

12:00-1:00 lunch

1:00-2:30 ERT
-Checkpoint 14.2 - Supplement text with graphic or auditory presentations
where they will facilitate comprehension of the page
-General scripting discussion: when is it used? when can you replace
scripts with  HTML on the page itself?  when is it possible to push the
functionality it to the server?
-Technique 1.1.11 [priority 1] Check A elements for valid text content
@@handled by technique 13.1.1 - verify that targets are clearly identified?
What else do we need to check for?
-Technique 2.2.1 [priority 3] Test the color attributes of the following
elements for visibility. ... Requirement: Determine color
visibility.@@needs work?

2:30-2:45 break

2:45-3:45 ERT
-Technique 3.7.1 [priority 2] Verify instances where quote markup should be
used. ... Lots of emphasized text (greater than x words??@@)
-Technique 5.5.2 [priority 2] Check TABLE elements for valid CAPTION
element. ... Requirement: @@
-Technique 6.2.1 [priority 1] Check the source of FRAME and IFRAME elements
for valid markup files. ... @Adjust Javascript to point inside the wrapper?
-Technique 6.2.2 [priority 1] Verify that equivalents of dynamic content
are updated and available as often as the dynamic content. ...
Requirements: any actions that change the display must change the
equivalent @@Is this computable in a practical time (cf. NP complete) .
Computer science help needed here. Of course, as in other parts of
document, the fact that the equivalent changes is no guarantee that
equivalent is correct than it is guaranteed that "alt" text for an image is

3:45 -4:00 break

4:00-5:00 planning
What needs to be done?  Who is going to do it?  Assign action items.

Friday (with AU)
9-9:30 intros, overview of yesterday, getting people on the same page.

Techniques discussion.
Reviewing commonalities between AU Techniques and ERT Techniques.  Sharing
information about open issues and common problems.  How should these two
documents relate to each other?
Refer to the ATAG1.0 Techniques:  http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WD-ATAG10-TECHS
and the ERT Techniques:  http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/

10:30-10:45 break

Tool discussion.
Review commonalities between AU and ERT tools.  Share information about
implementations, implementors, needs.  Has AU identified techniques that ER
has found implmentations of?  Who works with the implementor to see that
techniques are included?

12:00-1:00 lunch

1:00-2:30 Demos and discussion
Allaire HomeSite
W3C HTML Validator

2:30-2:45 break

2:45-3:45 Strategizing
What is the most efficient way for out two groups to work together?
We've both been realizing overlap in goals and resources. How should we
handle this?

(proposed draft) ER WG
The mission of the Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ER WG) is:
to document techniques for creating Evaluation and Repair Tools;
to find tools that implement the techniques and where there are none,
prototype or participate in the development of an implementation;
to assess the implementation of these techniques in evaluation and repair
to provide a discussion forum to review and collaborate on tool development.

To complete the development of accessibility guidelines for authoring
tools, and to perform initial assessment of implementation of these
guidelines by authoring tool manufacturers. These guidelines should address
how authoring tools can:
provide author support for creating accessible Web documents;
ensure an accessible user interface for authors with disabilities.
Assessment of implementation is expected to allow improvement to the
supporting documents produced by the group, and if necessary to begin
revision of the guidelines themselves.

3:45 -4:00 break

4:00-5:00 Planning
What needs to be done? Assign action items.  Resolve outstanding
coordination issues.

---Other open issues that could be discussed on Thursday

- Technique 6.4.1 [priority 2] Check for device independent event handlers.
... Requirements: Objects must not contain device dependent event handlers.
@@Does this mean checking Java, Flash, etc? Can we only do this for
scripting? Or prompt the author to check?
- Technique 6.5.2 [priority 2] @@Need something for scripts and
programmatic objects?
@@ is this covered by 6.3.1 (Verify that the page is usable when
programmatic objects are disabled)?
- Technique 7.3.2 [priority 1] Verify that programmatic objects do not
create moving content. ... @@ what about OBJECT, EMBED, and APPLET?
- Technique 9.3.1 [priority 2] Check scripts for logical event handlers ...
"onMouseMove" remove or replace with ??@@
- Technique 10.3.1 [priority 3] Verify that a linearized version of tables
used for layout is provided. ... Suggested repair:
If it has been determined that the table is used for layout (see Technique
5.1.1) then create a linear version of the table by: [@@insert heuristics
from table linearizer - basically replace TABLE markup with text structural
markup]. The author will then need to check that it is readable.
If it has been determined that the table is used for data (see Technique
5.1.1) then create a linear version of the table by: [@@table linearizer
heuristics? basically, for each cell repeat the column and row headers
associated with it]. The author will then need to check that it is readable.
- Technique 11.1.1 [priority 2] Verify that W3C technologies are used,
where possible and appropriate. ... Element: ?@@
Check for uses of non-W3C technologies such as: PDF, Flash, GIF images, JPG
images, proprietary HTML elements (@@other major ones??).
@@link See 1.1.1 for images used for mathematical equations.
Note. I left out JavaScript because there is not a W3C equivalent
technology yet.
- Technique 11.3.1 [priority 3] Check that documents are served per user
preferences. ... Element: ?@@
Requirement: ?@@
- Checkpoint 12.2 - Describe the purpose of frames and how frames relate to
each other if it is not obvious by frame titles alone
@@ covered by 1.1.8?
@@Suggest that if the FRAME "title" does not describe the frame that a
"longdesc" is needed?
- Technique 13.9.1 [priority 3] Verify that information about document
collections is provided. ... Elements: @@? LINK, A
- Technique 14.3.1 [priority 3] Verify that a consistent style of
presentation is used across pages. ... @@This requires looking at pages
throughout the site. Need two levels of checking: page vs site?
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
Received on Friday, 21 April 2000 17:54:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:44 UTC