Dec. 17 Conference Call Minutes

Participants

JT: Jutta Treviranus
JB: Judt Brewer
JR: Jan Richards
HS: Heather Swayne
CMN: Charles
WL: William Loughborough
LN: Liddy Neville (on IRC)

Discussion of icons:

JT: Should we just count e-mail votes.
CMN: Yes
JR: That would mean Emmanuelle's would be used and for various design reasons I'm opposed to that (I've tried to work out a compromise).
JB: We could submit this to WAI's graphic artist.
JR: Good idea.
JB: These are very small, could they be made larger?
JR: Of course, but the document should not be overwhelmed by the icons. They are mainly for quick reference.
JB: OK

Default Alt-text discussion:

JT: There is general agreement that we need to make a 2.2 exception covered alternative equivalents.
All: No problem.
JT: We will use proposal 3 from CMN's Dec. 6.
CMN: Specific tecnique 0176 needs to be deleted. Need to explain why in erratum.
JT: Can we go ahead with the erratum?
All: OK

WL: wants atag doc to get 'inreached' by eowg so W3C companies can jump on board

Conversion Tool Techniques:

JR: Concerned about muddying the waters of tool type definitions.
CMN: Need to be able to filter anything applicable
HS: Techniques were written with certain tool types in mind. If others want to read the whole document they are free to do that.
JR: Let's go through tech by tech on the next call.
JT: Is the week of the 14th too late?
JB: What about the 7th? Do it as soon as we comfortably can.
JT: Action Item: OK - meeting on the 7th and the 14th of January.
HS, JR: OK

Process

JB: AU needs to get something published
JB: But it should be high quality. It is not good to put out a working draft to replace a note.

"Required" terminiology rewording

JT: All OK

New process

JB: New staff contact in January. Charles has done a ton of work over 3 years.
JB: Ian Jacobs will be primary contact for
CMN: Probably will be part of the new working group.
JB: 50% time of new person for AU (3 monthes from now).

FAQ Discussion:

CMN: Following discussion last week, new FAQ posted. Group will have to keep working on this.
JB: W3C has never put out a FAQ on a new working draft. But, original FAQ did not work at all. Too dense. AU should tear it down and rebuild it. Audiences: developers, press, community (advocates, etc.). Good info, but doesn't flow as a resource.
CMN: Agreed. But it needs to continue being worked on.
JT: Even if we make it fairly basic as a support for future publication.
JB: What about "Issues List". Have people seen it?
CMN: It will be published on Friday.
JT: Action Item: Everyone respond about Issues List by Wednesday