very raw minutes

These will take me a few days to clean up and put on the website, so I
thought I would post them as is for your enjoyment <grin/>

Charles

Present:
Jutta some of the meeting
Charles McCN
Fred Barnett
Jan Richards
Heather Swayne
William Loughborough
Matthias Mueller-Prove


regrets
Jutta the other bits

Minutes

Welcome Matthias

MMP Some of you have met me in Amsterdam. We are working on Adobe GoLive 5 and have started a small group for the next release - one of the top issues is accessibility. I work on the User Interface for GoLive, In live in Hamburg, and I work on trying to work out the relationships between hypertext and Graphical User Interface.

CMN am staff contact.

WL, JR met in Amsterdam

FB Rep from HTML Writers' Guild

HS Program manager from MS - in Accessible Technology Group, working on Office.

Face to face
CMN W3C Process requires 8 weeks notice. Ottawa conflicts with WCAG. Educause is in Nashville Tennessee - cvalue is potentia lfor participation from Courseware developers, 

WL Dates for Bristol?

CMN 5-6 October - same as the WCAG

JR I am guessing that Jutta is leaning to Nashville. Bristol would be good for me.

HS Would rather combine with WCAG or Educause - so Ottawa is not good.

WL how about ER?

CMN Don't know yet.

HS User Agent?

CMN Not sure

WL I vote Bristol.

CMN How many people could go to Bristol?

JR Yes

HS I could possibly get a MS rep to attend it and WCAG, but would have difficulty myself

FB Neither Nashville nor Bristol

MMP Bristol is easier, but I am open to majority.

CMN What about Nashville, mid-October?

JR Probably

HS Couldn't make 14th - the next week or before

WL that would be OK.

Ottawa?

WL Not if WCAG will be in Bristol - I would object to them being conflicting
HS Agree

MM No problem

JR No hassle, but I don't want to conflict with WCAG. I can't make Nashville

Action CMN investigate options for Nashville and Bristol.

Databases
CMN AU/reviews will be on database tomorrow I hope. Techniques will take longer, but testing document should be out next week. One possibility is to open access for adding tools - do we do that or action CMN to keep copying from list.

HS, WL safer if it is copied by CMN than wide open.

JR

JT joins
Meetings
Ottawa is on the outer.
Looking at Educause or Bristol in conkjunction with WCAG

JT Karl Hebenstreit floated a possiblity of sponsoring at Educause.

CMN Possible to find hosts in Bristol - either 1,2 or 9,10 oct.

JT Nashville could be before, after or even during Educause

Subcontract discussions
JT Discussed in Coordination group. Two issues arose: 
1. There may be some funding that could be used for such a project, but in interim we will work through Karl Dubost - W3C Conformance manager. I'll be talking to him about report generator and testing process. I will send some stuff to the list. Questions - are we going to look for important things and then fail, or are we going to test thoroughly even when we know it has failed. Other questions - how do we structure the tool - depending on tool type, or single process for all tools? And so on.
CMN please ask Karl to keep that discussion on Au list.
2. Suggestion that AU needs to do a minimum requirements process. This may not be practical in the same way for AU. I'll send my thoughts to the list
WL Do we ahve joint meeting with UA?
JT We could if that's useful
CMN My understanding is that the testing document is about establishing minimum requirements, so we are in essence doing what Jon has suggested
JT es and no. We have a huge array of tools, and the end user is an unknown quantity. It is very difficult to be explicit in all cases. There may be cases where there is no minimum requirement for a particular type of tool.
CMN We are dealing with a wider range of tools and possiblities, but we are trying to establish what needs to be done to meet the guidelines - essentially making it clear what are the minimum requirements.
JT The purpose of this is mulitple - we want to give a consumer guidance on how to check something, and we want to enable developers to make a claim and be able to back it up
WL At this particular time if you are going to rule out anything on the basis of conformance there will be no available tools. What people want to see is "tools X doesn't do that but I can so I'll use it"
JT We do want that flexibility in gradations. Expect two messages from me.
Action JT Try to get permission to publish Jon Gunderson's message.

Next meeting next week is with ER - please look overf the  AERT

Received on Tuesday, 25 July 2000 15:38:01 UTC