LK: Agenda items?
HS: Item - summarize what's been going on in joint meetings.
LK: Item - what's up with Adobe & PDF accessibility.
HB: Heads up - Re my collection of resources and policy papers. I want to widen to include documents from other companies (Microsoft, Sun etc.) Then invite other W3C companies to make available.
LK: Where housed, EO?
HB: Could be. Will decide later.
HB: Another heads up: Survey I did re accessibility tools & books. There are now about 350 books that deal in some way with web authoring. 10% in abstract may deal with accessibility. Second editions can be a result of adding accessibility topics.
LK: (summarizing what's been going on in AU & ER) - Created a set of techniques (AERT). Many just formalize WCAG. Some folded into WCAG2, others (like heuristics) added to AU docs.
HS: Just handing off to WCAG?
LK: Not really. Meeting with WCAG but not handing off.
LK: We're working on a language for expressing accessibility evaluation (EARL).
HS: Who determines what text to use in this language?
LK: We use formal statements. Plan to use RDF [LK describes RDF].
HS: What is value of EARL? It seems to require different tools, one for testing, one for evaluation.
LK: Results of accessibility evaluations can be stored in standard language. Different tools can share data.
HB: Evaluations can be generated by different tools and then used by other tools.
LK: Moving from a natural language to formal language in RDF. Now using N3 which is simple form of RDF.
MMP: Can't comment on PDF as I'm working on GoLive. Re EARL - we can easily integrate evaluation languages.
HS: Is Adobe allowing others to create an evaluation like that?
MMP: Yes. Our product can be extended this way. Doesn't matter if we develop or others develop. Both can be plugged into our application.
LK: If Adobe adopts then other companies may too.
HB: Many evaluations require human judgement so how will that be recorded.
HS: AU is trying to evaluate tools to see how they meet the standard.
MMP: If tool detects poor Alt text then could feed into GoLive.
LK: ER has general idea about how output should be used.
HS: UI is implementation issue. Concentrate on language is priority.
LK: AU does get specific
HS: Just use term 'prompt user'. Other term like 'fit naturally'.
HB: Note: AU guidelines now moved to stable document.
LK: If EARL continues, how will it effect AU document?
MMP: Important to EARL to get examples to show it works.
LK: Does AU have a method
HS: AU has guideline that says: tool must be accessible.
HB: Does Microsoft or Adobe have a process to review EARL?
HS: Our team is in transition but will soon be able to review guidelines.
LK: People from 'testing' dept. would be good.
HS: We have central group that deals with this.
HB: Does Adobe have same sort of group?
MMP: We're in transition too but I think there is a person. Will send email with name. Dianna Callesen (email@example.com)