W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > October to December 2001

minutes from today

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 15:34:16 -0400 (EDT)
To: WAI AU Guidelines <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0110081531130.10980-100000@tux.w3.org>
Many thanks to Phill for doing IRC and telephone - it made scribing much
easier.

online at

http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/meetings/8oct01

or below

Action Items and Resolutions
Carried over actions, plus...

Action CMN: Edit requirements document and ask Director for permission to
publish first Public Working Draft of Wombat Draft

Action CMN Coordinate publication of Frontpage 2002 review with Microsoft

Action CMN Make future drafts of Wmbat refer to current group draft of
techniques

Minutes:



<Phill> Holiday in USA today is not much of a holiday, more of a day for
stores to have sales.

Action items review:

KHS: having problems installing XP so haven't done that yet. (was action from
Face to face)

CMN: have found Frontpage review and repointed on mailing list. Will
coordinate with MSoft and get it published.

KHS: sent outlook thing

Wombat Requirements:

HS == Heather Swayne joins

PJ some questions:

PJ 1. second requirement - unnecessary redundancies. what are they?

CMN e.g. requirement for accessible pre-packaged content/templates

PJ 2. idea of getting ready for WCAG 2.0 - is that a requirement for Wombat?
Thought we were debating whether to go with 2.0 or not.

CMN when WCAG 2 appears we want to be able to put out new ATAG that refers to
WCAG 2.

PJ We can promote wombat to REC without waiting for WCAG 2?

CMN Yes

PJ want it to be clear that we will be ready, but it is not a requirement to
ship wombat that we incorporate WCAG 2.0 Maybe "ready for" is enough. Will we
publish wombat to REC before 2.0?

CMN depends on how long WCAG 2 takes. If we are ready miles ahead of WCAG 2
we should publish wombat as 1.x

PJ OK. Maybe we should take "part of that involves ironing out any bugs we
can find in ATAG 1.0" and make it a seperate reqirement?

CMN Yes, that makes sense

PJ 3. Number 5 - is that about minimum required? SHould we use that term?

CMN OK

PJ 4. Number 6 - we want to explain why there is each checkpoint.

CMN We want basic rationale because a common question was why is checkpoint X
here? what problem does this checkpoint solve.

PJ didn't get that from reading this.

PJ those are my questions.

CMN from here I can take and edit requirements and publish - this is a living
document. I need to publish it to get director's approval for first working
draft of wombat, so do I need to bring this back to group, or can i go ahead
and edit and take iit to the director?

PJ I am OK with you taking it forward after edits

HS Fine with that

KHS me too

<Liddy> you can take it ...

Resolved: CMN to edit requirements and go to director.

PJ Might want to be clearer about the fact that this can be updated.

Review Process

KHS templates Jan put up - should we be using those?

CMN Use what you like. If you use those, or the chapter in Techniques
document, then you can give us feedback on them which would be helpful in
updating them.

CMN Spoke to a developer - want to do a piecemeal evaluation in real time -
publish as I go. They were happy about that, but it misses the 4 week thing -
how do we capture that?

PJ You can't send it to them in pieces beforehand?

CMN Not really because of nature of the tool. The developer has agreed that
this is fdone as we go, and is published before review. That's important -
without that I am not so happy about publishing straight away. Should we
mention working like this as a possiblity in our review process?

chaals thinks we should

<Phill> Where is it being published in piecemeal?

CMN It will be published on the web, in space hosted by the developer. (it is
an online tool)

<Phill> Then it isn't really a wai-au published review.

CMN true

<Phill> wai-au can encoureage and later caputre the full eval on w3c space

CMN So we should wait for review / 4 weeks before linking it from AU reviews
stuff?

PJ link to it as ongoing, publish it ourselves when it meets our criteria for
review porcess

CMN makes sense to me.

<Phill> linking to on-goinging is OK, as long as developer is ok

CMN Everyone happy with that (with developer being OK as proviso)

<Liddy> yes

Techniques gaps. Anyone for any?

CMN Liddy was interested in Math/Science techniques. We would love them...

<Liddy> they're hard!

Action CMN to incoporate into techniques from Face to face re graphics /
whiteboards into techniques stuff.

<Liddy> I am not sure what they are but they seem important to me

chaals thinks they are important and that there are some starting points
online.

PJ Do all checkpoints in Wombat have icons for different kinds of tools?

CMN The icons are for techniques.

PJ have we gone through each checkpoint to see if they aply to all kinds of
tools? for example I am not sure if all checkpoints apply to all types of
tools. for example do we require prompting for conversion tools?

CMN In principle a conversion tool that finds it is missing information must
prompt the user to get what it needs. In fact, reviewing this question is an
ongoing part of owrking on Wmbat.

<Phill> Should Wombat explicitely say it applie to all type of tools?

CMN Yes. In so far as we agree that it does.in principle it does that, and
says so.

<Phill> Should Wombat or the tech doc list the tool types & icons?

CMN At the moment only techniques are divided according to relevant tol
types, so tech document should have the list. If we agree that this can be
aplpied to Wombat itself, we woudl incorporate that to Wombat.

(NB Wombat == checkpoints, tech == techniques, which are just suggestions)

PJ can you add a link from Wombat to current techniques document?

CMN Sure.

PJ Currently it links to public draft, not latest group draft.

Action CMN make Wombat techniques links go to current group draft.

any more for any more?

Next meeting

It is not clear whether next meeting will be with ER (as planned) or not -
CMN to advise via list.
Received on Monday, 8 October 2001 15:34:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:46 UTC