W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2003

AUWG Teleconference Minutes (April 21)

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:21:46 -0400
Message-ID: <3EA54FFA.C1DF9708@utoronto.ca>
To: "List (WAI-AUWG)" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>


JR - Jan Richards
TB - Tim Boland
PJ - Phill Jenkins


(1) Comments on Tim's Success Criteria comments

(2) Continued review of Success Criteria

(3) F2F Planning


(1) Comments on Tim's Success Criteria comments

TB: Introduced his objectivity comments.

TB: Meta questions: what is the purpose of the success criteria? This is
not clearly introduced in the ATAG document. It should be referenced at
the front.

TB: UAAG has conformance statements. What's required, what's optional.
UAAG approach is more clear.

TB: QA framework does not use the term "success criteria"

Discussion of TB's comments sent to the list

1. Success criteria are not consistently stated.

TB: ATAG checkpoints need consistent wording and consistent grammatical

PJ: Propose a common imperative sentence form using "Ensure". But we
must check to make sure that this works for all checkpoints.

TB: Make it clear in the introductory info that it is Authoring tools
that must "ensure".


2. Terminology is not consistent or well-defined

TB: WE need to review all these terms carefully to make sure they are
proper and consistent, then point to the proper definitions.


3. The kind of accessibility desired is not stated explicitly. 

JR: Don't see a need to label different kinds of disabilities in ATAG.

PJ. We should remove term "accessible" from the success criteria of 1.1
and define it in terms of checklists followed.

TB, JR: Agreed.


4. Subjective words (like "quickly" and "easily" are used) are used

TB: remove any subject words (quickly, easily, etc.)

JR, PJ: Agreed.


5. It seems like implementation techniques, informational statements,
and conformance requirements are mixed in together

All: We need to look out for this.


6. Some of the success criteria seem to be duplicates of one another

All: We need to look out for this.

JR: What all of this suggests to me is that we should do a thorough
face-to-face review of the Success Criteria with Tim present. For each
success criteria, we would examine it for all of these things.

(2) Other business.

PJ: may not be able to come to Budapest.
TB: won't be in Budapest (can meet in Canada or U.S.)

TB, PJ: What about a meeting at NIST (Washington, DC) during E-Gov

E-Gov Conference
June  9-12, talks 
June 12-13, exhibits

Maybe we could hold our meeting on?
June 12,13 or 9,10?

All: Let's check how Jutta and others feel about this.


Please let me know if any changes are required to these minutes.

Jan Richards, User Interface Design Specialist
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC), University of Toronto

  Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
  Web:   http://ultrajuan.ic.utoronto.ca/jan/richards.html
  Phone: 416-946-7060
  Fax:   416-971-2896
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2003 10:21:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:48 UTC