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

Minutes from 6 June AU WG/ER WG meeting

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 16:13:08 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org, w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Minutes are available at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/meetings/6jun00.html

And included below.

Please let me know of any changes, questions or misrepresentations.


WAI Authoring Tool Guidelines Working Group
WAI AU Teleconference - 6 June 2000 (Joint meeting with ER WG)
Date: Tuesday 6 June 2000
Time: 2:30pm - 4:00pm Boston time (1830Z - 2000Z)
Phone number: Tobin Bridge, +1 (617) 252 7000

The Latest Draft is the Recommendation dated 3 February, available at 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203. The latest techniques draft 
is dated 4 May March, available at 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WD-ATAG10-TECHS-20000504. The latest draft of the 
Accessibiltiy Evaluation and Repair Techniques is dated 15 March at 
Review outstanding action items
Integration of AERT and ATAG techniques
Tracking tools and extensions
Evaluation of tools
Other business

Jutta Treviranus
Chris Ridpath
Wendy Chisholm
Colin Birge (Microsoft)
Harvey Bingham
Michael Cooper
Gregory Rosmaita
William Loughborough
Charles McCathieNevile
Heather Swayne
Phill Jenkins
Dick Brown

Action Items and Resolutions
Resolved: AU will review and contribute to AERT as applies to AU.
CMN and WC pursue database technology.
WC take idea of other types of evaluation tools for ER. What exactly do we 
mean by evaluation? Does it inlcude evaluation of tools or limited to 
evaluation of content?
Resolved: We will meet consistently on Tuesdays rather than switching 
between Mondays (ER time) and Tuesdays (AU time).
Resolved: Next joint meeting 11 July, same time same place. Next ER at 
regularly scheduled time (next Monday). Next AU at regularly scheduled time 
(next Tuesday).

Integration of AERT and ATAG-techs
JT We need to discuss how it is easiest to integrate the two documents. How 
do we distribute the workload? Are there common format structures to apply 
to both?
WC Did not resolve how to integrate but that ATAG has interface stuff, AERT 
also has example language. One possibility discussed but not resolved was 
to move example language from AERT to ATAG-techs. Others recollection?
CR That'show I remember it as well.
JT ATAG has a checkpoint that points to AERT.
HB not more than one source for this material. Perhaps details are in one 
document that are pointed to by both documents.
CMN A database format to generate the two documents. For ATAG we're 
generating techniques for a variety of tools. That approach in general 
would work well for us. Currently AERT is building this document and AU is 
not. We're here to discuss how we (AU) can provide input to AERT. Should we 
push off things like messages to the AU document. That would come back kind 
of funny. AU has techniques that are general. We aim to have real live 
examples, such as Bobby or Word, so that instead of providing abstract 
messages we provide real-live examples. Demonstrate them as examples of how 
it works in real life.
JT We all agree that we do not want to redundantly do the work. Arguments 
for the same text in both documents so that all the info that you need is 
in one document and because of ordering in the difference contexts.
GR The biggest point from the face2face was communication and collaboration 
between groups. One advantage that AU has over ER is developer input. This 
will help ensure that AERT algorithms are not developed in a vacuum.
HB ATAG-TECHS are primarily references to Amaya.
CMN That's the starting point.
JT Are you looking at the latest working draft?
HB From February.
JT Intention is to go beyond Amaya and to use samples of working code.
WL In terms of text from AERT appearing in ATAG-TECHS, we could use 
CMN The approach at the moment is to point to AERT from ATAG-TECHS. One 
reason to look at other ways (generating multiple views), is that a 
developer could get a view of the ATAG that meets the needs of the 
developer (based on what type of took they are developing).
JT ATAG-TECHS wants to point to AERT and potentially flesh it out. Do we 
simply link to it? Put it in a database that we can both reference? From 
the ER perspective, how could AU WG contribute to AERT in a useful way?
WC AERT algorithms and ATAG are interface. perhaps the "example language" 
is not needed.
WL is the only use of AERT for evaluation?
CMN The AU developers coming from ATAG are a subset of AERT.
GR If we expect tools to do some things automatically, the authoring tool 
needs to do eval and repair on the fly.
JT Common set of techniques authored by ER WG that are applicable to ATAG 
Guideline 4. WC talk about the interface?
WC ATAG interface
CMN so you point to ATAG for interface stuff (interacting with the author), 
we point to AERT for the nuts and bolts for checking.
JT What do you think about CMN proposal for database.
CMN how is AERT generated?
WC scripts. Len and I have talked about using the schema and transforms 
that was developed by XML schema group.
CR AERT as database or document?
JT Goal for AU is to generate not just 2 documents, but various views. If 
in a database and modular chunks we can produce those views.
CMN Wendy and I will have to work together. The tools will be useful by all 
of the WAI guidelines groups. The goal is to produce multiple views.
JT Do you see that as a valuable thing for ER?
DB yes good idea.
HB agrees.
CR agrees.
/* everyone seems to agree */
CMN an organic process. How do we contribute to AERT? Where appropriate 
take part in the discussions?
CR We could use people to take a look at the document.
WC The link to developers and feedback is key.
@@Resolved: AU will review and contribute to AERT as applies to AU.
CR We're looking to get out a new version in the next few weeks and then 
another in a few months. Should we stick to that schedule?
/* yes */
WL Designing new ideas doesn't preclude releasing documents.
Tracking tools and extensions
WC ER has a list of tools. AU has a list of tools. Very related. Let's 
combine. People could search for tools based on a variety of attributes of 
the tool: meets AERT automatic checks, conforms to Level A of ATAG, etc.
CMN RPMFind also uses metadata (RDF) and that's how we could store and 
search through metadata. WCAG has an RDF scheme for conformance. That info 
could be included as well. Then we could use that info in various places on 
the web.
WL a framework for working with resources.
JT making some of it sound automatic.
CMN bits that are not automatic: Rpm2html needs some modification to 
provide for our needs. Assessment of tools doesn't happen by magic - 
someone needs to collect a library of tools.
JT it would be a consumer tool? Help them find a tool for their needs?
CMN yep.
GR people are looking to us to do that. I get lots of message per week 
about what is the most accessible tool for someone who is blind or low 
vision. People are looking to us to provide information for personal decisions.
CMN WAI gets asked for that info. AU would like to say "this is the state 
of implementation in regards to ATAG."
WC Keeping it up to date long term....?
JT One strategy is to update objective information.
WC We discussed this in ER. Our ideal is for each release of a product, a 
manufacturer would use a web form to update the database.
GR we need to coordinate this with EO. What ER and AU needs to do is look 
at the requirements doc for WCAG 2.0. Particularly, audiences. We are 
addressing similar groups. It's not just developers, but purchasers, and a 
slew of others.
CMN PJ pointed out a while ago, that one of the most useful things to know 
about a review is "who did it."
PJ Also good to know if the product that's available or one they are 
working on. Internally track info like: Person, date, level. then 
"yes/no/planned". Of evaluations. There are debates about what constitutes 
Yes or No.
JT The questions need to be objective. One way around is to have them show 
an example within the evaluation. It does not leave an ambiguous yes.
CMN Examples will help developers figure out how to answer questions.
WC Needs to be as painless as possible.
CMN It is generally in the developers interest to claim that their tool is 
accessible. By thinking through it will help them think about it.
WC No doubt that it's a good exercise. But if people have to spend time to 
substantiate their claim, they won't do it.
JT It becomes a marketing tool. People will take the time.
CMN What do developers have to say. It's not from a lack of good will 
mostly a lack of how to interpret something if there are not examples.
JT We're talking about a database of tools and making it easy to find out 
info about the tools.
DB Is that a certification?
CMN We need to be clear that these are somebody's assessment and we don't 
provide guarantees.
JT The more we limit it (through examples) the less we have to assert it's 
someone's opinions. We may have a developer who evaluates their own 
product, we could then have someone else evaluate it.
WC Interesting issues with certification and marketing that we need to be 
aware of.
GR Whenever a WG member performs an evaluation, they need to give the 
developer a chance to respond. Likewise, users should respond to developers 
PJ who said it, multiple evaluations, what exactly was evaluated.
WC ER info is not based on conformance but general info about what 
functions tools provide.
@@CMN and WC pursue database technology.
JT we need a testing procedure in AU.
GR working on. have an item to do so.
Evaluation of tools
CMN AU has been evaluating tools against ATAG. AERT is not a normative 
reference so there it is not possible to claim conformance. AERT is based 
on WCAG. A tool could claim that it meets requirements of WCAG. There is a 
secondary approach to conforming to AERT, not by fulfilling techniques but 
by producing content that conforms to WCAG. This tool fixes these problems 
in relation to WCAG. There is an RDF conformance scheme for the various WAI 
guidelines and a tool that can pull this info together. Perhaps ER should 
create a conformance evaluation tool. A test suite.
WC a test suite to evaluate tools?
CMN so that you could mark it off as you went.
CR we would like a set of test files to run through tools to see how they 
support AERT.
JT that's also important. CMN is getting at a process to test an authoring 
CMN In simplest form, a checklist of things to try. AU generates: here is 
how we determine if we conform or not. Integrating that into WART and 
produce RDF would be handy.
WC Not sure in our scope. Would like to take that back to ER WG for discussion.
CR agree.
@@WC take idea of other types of evaluation tools for ER. What exactly do 
we mean by evaluation? Does it include evaluation of tools or limited to 
evaluation of content?
GR Do tools actually work? As part of ER, I would hate to lose IG.
CMN AU and UA are not chartered to write code. On the other hand, it does 
say that we look for things that we need in software. I do think they meet 
the needs of ER in terms of a feedback loop.
WL As well as IG group. One of the tools that ER will not build is to 
evaluate evaluators. There's no tool for that. That's done by people.
HB ER charter does suggest deliverables for ease of use.
WC Currently in ER draft charter we state that WCAG WG must evaluate our 
tools to ensure we have interpreted WCAG correctly. Perhaps have a similar 
situation with AU and UA.
GR ER is drafting techniques for application of WCAG in mechanical process 
and that's what AU is doing. We're saying these are the guidelines, these 
are what the tools should do. What's the difference?
JT We're referencing them. This is a side issue. CMN said that we may wish 
to produce a tool to help evaluators evaluate authoring tools. WC has 
action item to take to ER WG. AU needs to look at the piece in our charter 
about producing the tool. The secondary issue is having a tool that 
evaluates the evaluation tool. We extended that to the ATAG document.
CMN The tool to evaluate specifications is called W3C Member review.
JT Other thoughts about tools that evaluate tools?
HB One thing that is useful was a group of people getting together to fill 
in a checklist. Could we get this info from the vendors.
JT We need an objective review process. Interrator reliability. It would be 
useful to gather examples. How do we make the conformance evaluation 
process foolproof?
CMN I don't think we have enough experience to answer the question. Let's 
do it and see what we learn.
JT We need a number of evaluations of any one tool to determine where the 
ambiguities and where we need to fix the process.
Other Business
CMN run the next meeting at this time? first tuesday in july?
WC that's the 4th of July.
@@Resolved: We will meet consistently on Tuesdays rather than switching 
between Mondays (ER time) and Tuesdays (AU time).
JT When is our next meeting then?
WC monthly? Lots to do between now and then.
CMN good to keep in contact and refocusing on each others issues.
@@Resolved: Next joint meeting 11 July, same time same place. Next ER at 
regularly scheduled time (next Monday). Next AU at regularly scheduled time 
(next Tuesday).

Copyright  2000 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio ), All Rights Reserved. W3C 
liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your 
interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member 
privacy statements.

Last Modified $Date: 2000/06/06 20:03:11 $
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2000 16:06:39 UTC

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