Minutes from Feb. 16 Teleconference

Participants:

KM: Karen
JT: Jutta
JR: Jan
BF: Barry
GP: Greg

============================

F2F

JT: Shall meet in the lobby of the hotel Kip picked out at 8:15am on
Thursday?

OPEN ISSUES

JR: "Authoring tool interface"

JT: Proposes "The display and control mechanism available to an author
to communicate with and operate the authoring tool software." 

All: AGREED

JR: "APPLICABLE WCAG REQUIREMENTS "

GP: "If the authoring tool is capable of producing the Web content in
question.

APPLICABLE WCAG REQUIREMENTS: "A WCAG checkpoint is applicable if the
authoring tool is capable of producing the type(s) of Web content
referenced in the checkpoint."

All: AGREED.

JR: What should we use for "Equivalent Alternative" 

GP: "Equivalent Alternative"

ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION
Any information that is necessary for an *accessible authoring practice*
including, but not limited to, *equivalent alternatives*.

All: AGREED.

EQUIVALENT ALTERNATIVES
Content is "equivalent" to other content when both fulfill essentially
the same function or purpose upon presentation to the user. Equivalent
alternatives play an important role in accessible authoring practices
since certain types of content may not be accessible to all users (e.g.,
video, images, audio, etc.). Authors are encouraged to provide text
equivalents for non-text content since text may be rendered as
synthesized speech for individuals who have visual or learning
disabilities, as Braille for individuals who are blind, or as graphical
text for individuals who are deaf or do not have a disability. For more
information about equivalent alternatives, please refer to the Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). 

All: AGREED.

JT: User testing over-ride...

JT: Started last week but didn't finish. Issues 2,3,4 are related.

JT: We can encompass the pretext for the override in guideline 4. This
stuff is not totally under the control of the tool. Authoring tools can
choose the usability test route if they can prove that it meets the same
outcomes.

JT: Previous idea about tackling all of 4 in one usability test. Too
much for right now.

Action: JT and JR: To work on the wording for this

Action: KM: Can make a start on the wording with links to ISO9241. Can
send something on Feb 17 to help JR and JT get started.

We resolve Item #4 as a functional spec with some possible usability
extensions to guideline 4 only.

Action : JR follow up with CMN about Geoff

#4 resolved

#5 - More discussion at F2F

Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 17:48:31 UTC