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

RE: Minutes for AUWG Teleconference (10 May 2004)

From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:26:45 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20040511152357.00ab15a0@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

The WCAG Techniques Task Force is also working on presentation/linking 
issues for their
techniques (how success criteria relates to one or more techniques, and 
inversely, how a specific technique could map to one or more success 
criteria).   Sounds like there may be some overlap.  Is it worthwhile to 
coordinate the approaches of the two groups?

Thanks, Tim Boland NIST

  At 09:17 PM 5/11/2004 +0200, you wrote:

>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 15:32:56 UTC

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