W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: Minutes for AUWG Teleconference (10 May 2004)

From: Karen Mardahl <karen@mardahl.dk>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 21:17:56 +0200
To: "'List (WAI-AUWG)'" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c4378c$aa6b89e0$0301a8c0@karen>

Hi! Here are the additional minutes I promised. regards, Karen

Additional Minutes for AUWG Teleconference (10 May 2004)

Attendees:
JR: Jan Richards
JT: Jutta Treviranus
BF: Barry Feigenbaum
KM: Karen Mardahl

Regrets:

Matt May
Tim Boland

Agenda:

>> 1. Finalization of the implementation techniques document structure.

JR trying out presentation ideas in
http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca/public/auwg/tech3.html
http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca/public/auwg/tech4.html
Begins with checkpoint, then success criteria, followed by the techniques.
Success criteria are in form of table. Also made new icons. Wants to know if
we need the icons at all to both classify techniques _and_ the examples?
Perhaps they are only helpful at example level. Wants feedback on this.

JT pointed out the history of icons as a means to help a developer zoom in
on just their area of focus. A condensed version in other words.

KM felt tables had to go at some point, but perhaps OK for now to hold the
words. More important that we all focus on the words themselves! Same with
icons - can be dealt with later on. Suggested a checklist derived from
techniques. Perhaps that could be more helpful than icons; replacement for
icons? Likes the checklist approach used by WCAG.

JR elaborated on the checklist idea - that it could even be automated. 

>> 2. Implementation Techniques for Guidelines 3 and 4:

JR prepared guidelines 3 and 4:
http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca/public/auwg/tech3.html
http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca/public/auwg/tech4.html
and received feedback from BF and KM.

BF went through his input:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004AprJun/0022.html
which had a number of good points.

BF: Discussed use of "can" (vs "should" or "must") on some techniques. There
are a few of them that should be close to required in a tool (if it has that
relevant aspect such as WYSIWYG).
JR: TECHS non-normative - can't tell you what to do. However some things are
logical - if you don't do such and such, you won't "pass". We will have a
conformance suite that will be dealing with this as well.

BF: Suggested an announcement at beginning of document about the "can"
dilemma and the potential to comply with ATAG.
JT?: Could do an asterisk note - for required things.

BF: Idea to suggest alternates to image map input such as
latitude/longitude.
JT/JR: This leans towards WCAG responsibility.
KM: felt it was nice, but more a design matter.
Others: Why not promote the idea of good design as we go along?

BF: For 3.4.3 suggest the user marking the content with a role/flag to
ensure certainty.
JR thought it a good idea. 

BF: Feels there should be more emphasis on wizards and guidelines in G4 -
i.e. something with sequential prompting. 
KM: Good idea - another opportunity to cover issues concerning topic of CMS
or indirect authoring
JT: Knows of a system that does this. Will send screenshots to JR for
inspiration for guidelines.

BF: Suggested that we had examples that were not so HTML specific, e.g. SVG
or MathML as well/instead.

JT: Added that we need to revisit where WCAG is now and where they are going
to make sure we keep up/keep ATAG docs in synch.

BF: Feels things are rather low-level in general in TECHS - shouldn't we
encourage other languages. Are we only talking about writing HTML, or are we
discussing whatever can be used toward content?
JT: Dealing only with tools themselves - but we can point out that you will
tend to have accessible results if your tool is higher level where your
low-level choices are already made for you. You may be more likely to have
accessible content at the other end.
BF: Can we not make some examples of the higher level stuff.

KM: Went through her comments from
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004AprJun/0021.html

All: Agreed with JR's suggestion to move definition of Prominence to
Glossary in ATAG 2.0.

>> 3. F2F Planning (proposed for Copenhagen, 12-13 July 2004)

KM, JT: Discussion. Dates are OK. KM will prepare invitation/meeting page
and send to Matt for posting, cc: to JT.

Closing remarks: 

JR: reminder that there is LOTS more work to be done! Drop a line to the
list about the section you will work on so we don't get duplicate efforts -
a kind of version control!

JT: Charter has been forwarded for approval but no news yet on status.

End of minutes.

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Jan Richards
Sent: 10. maj 2004 23:10
To: List (WAI-AUWG)
Subject: Minutes for AUWG Teleconference (10 May 2004)



(Rough) Minutes for AUWG Teleconference (10 May 2004)

Attendees:
JR: Jan Richards
JT: Jutta Treviranus
BF: Barry Feigenbaum
KM: Karen Mardahl

Regrets:

Matt May
Tim Boland

Agenda:

F2F Meeting

KM, JT: Discussion...

JT: Action: Contact Matt May to do meeting page, send out announcement.

---

Techniques structure:

JR: Introduces...

BF: Agrees it would be better to eliminate tables.

KM: Agrees.

All: Decided to keep tables for now, but will remove before publishing.

KM: Would like to have an ATAG checklist like WCAG has one.

JT: Good idea.

---

Techniques comments:

BF takes the group through his email :
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004AprJun/0022.html

All: Editor notes added to docs.

KM: BFs ideas on Wizards could help us cover off the "indirect" 
authoring examples.

KM takes the group through her email :
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004AprJun/0021.html

All: Editor notes added to docs.
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2004 15:17:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:49 UTC