AUWG Teleconference Minutes (Mar 1, 2004)

AUWG Teleconference Minutes (Mar 1, 2004)

Participants:

TB: Tim Boland
GP: Greg Pisocky
KM: Karen Mardahl
JR: Jan Richards (acting Chair for meeting)

Regrets:

- Roberto Scano
- Barry Feigenbaum
- Matt May

=======================
Action Items:

Action: Tim: Look over and suggest steps for Guideline 1 for those who will
not have ISO.

Action: All – take a look at QA, look the structure used by WCAG, 
familiarize with ATAG techniques as they are now.

TB: Action Item: will at updating the Issues list for the Test Suite.

TB: Action Item: work further on the process document

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

AGENDA

1. Workplan for Techniques.

Previously techniques were divided amongst the group. Tim asked if there was
an open issues list for techniques. Jan indicated yes there is.

TB issues implementation techniques linked to 16071
JR you need to refresh it's under resolve
JR new issues, I missed the first ones.checkpoint 4.X still lacking
techniques, new editorial editions require group approval Ideas for a
process or workplan?

JR what if we took the first two week period and then after that take one
check point per call every two weeks

TB somebody would then take an action for that particular checkpoint

JR we have already done that. Perhaps the group as a whole coould take away
the techniques.

TB okay

JR if we followed that the 10 weeks could take us to our next face to face

KM I think it's a good idea to say that by the next face to face we have
that done.

TB 16071 was discussed at the face to face. Just refer to that document and
only add where there are additions.

JR Refer to the document and provide a short synopsis of what's inside for
those people who won't purchase it.

TB Paraphrase the 16071 for those who don't purchase it

JR for that we are looking 3 to 4 weeks out. Great, for now that is an
action on all of us. Take a look at applicable QA things look at the
structure useed by WCAG with their techniques gateway and format specific
techniques and familiarize yourselves with our core techniques document.
Okay the next call will look at those wider organizational issues.

Action: Tim: Look over and suggest steps for Guideline 1 for those who will
not have ISO.

Action: All – take a look at QA, look the structure used by WCAG, 
familiarize with ATAG techniques as they are now.


2. Workplan for Test Suite

JR Let's move along to workplan for test suite. TIm how would you like to
proceed on this.

TB If you recall our coordination discussion as well as some comments Jutta
had there needs to be more thought given to test procedures, test the test,
develop the test, debug the test, level of trust. I think we need to set up
some sort of a more detailed process of how this would work. Maybe some
templatees. What some templates would look like. I know you have done some
work on templates.

JR Right

TB Evaluation of para tools, test cases whatever. I do not know if we are at
that point yet. I guess create some templateees on what I call forms. If a
developere were developing a tool ---- how would someopne write a test,
develop a test and so forth.  There is a QA docuemtn but I think it is
fairly generic. We'll need some sort of a test suite to get out of CR. Is it
your feeling the document is in some sort of stability with the guidelines
and check points.

JR Yes they are

TB THey could be developed in conjunction with the ??????????? (misse dthis)

TB I would again want to consult wi8tht the QA process to make sure

KM Are all tho9se documents available on the QA website

TB They should be. I know the QA process for the Workging groups are kind of
buried. (A-Prompt Bobby same issue )

JR what are some of the action items that we can create at this point. One
thing i HAVE a big issues list. At this point there are only two. Could you
take a look becquase I am sure there are more.

Issues for guidelines, techniques and test suite.

TB I can certainly generate a look at the take an action to comment on the
issues you could at some point, are you linking off the authroing tools
website the W3C, I could also take a crack at some templates, I guess some
sort of a process docu7ment.

JR Okay great.

TB You will send us the notes of theis meeting so I know what I signed up
for.

JR Yes

late Jan assigned action item to Tim take on the issues list for the test
suite. We all have an action item to look at the QA techniques.

TB I could also take a crack to work further on the process document.

JR the Peer stuff

KM I was going to say, there was  product I would like to test.

TB You actually have a product that we can run through the process,. Can you
send me a description of the product

KM It's just Author-It I was curious how compliant there output is and what
it is like using it.

TB You want to test

KM I would just be a person using the tool

JR 3rd party tester

KM Authorit.com one word

TB Informally develop a process any ????????????????

JR for the record it's either Authorit one word or Author dash it.

TB Permission to solicit manufacturers for verify the quality of our testing
process.

TB When do you think we might have a CR

JR I think so Matt was saying this would be the last TR. After this we
might, what is this CR is the first one of the recommendation. So the last
call working draft would be the next one. Perhaps even three months.

TB To leave CR the W3C requirement is to do interoperable implementations of


JR OF each checkpoint

TB RIght You need more than one to complete the test. For CSS for example
every standard needs to be supported by two implementations. Two for every
checkpoint. You are really referring to every feature in the standard.

JR Okay good to know

TB that's to get out of CR


Tim Boland at NIST.

TB: Action Item: will at updating the Issues list for the Test Suite.

TB: Action Item: work further on the process document


3. Plan for publishing "Multiplexer" doc to TR?

JR We probably need a plan for publishing the ATAG references to WCAG
document as a draft note

TB THis note then is non normative

JR it doesn't have any requirements as such

TB ??????????? normative or non normative in some sense

JR I suppose it is normative in the sense of what does Priority 1 mean

TB if it's normative then it needs to go thouryhg\\\ some sor t of process

JR Action item JAn to look at what kind of document that needs to be.

Multiplexer = ATAG references to WCAG.

4. Ideas for next F2F?


JR Finally moving to ideas for the next FtoF. Denmark in June. This was a
private conversation between Jutta, Matt and Karen How do other people feel
about possibly haveing the next meeting in Denmark in early mid summer.

TB Phone or IRC  I could deal

JR Greg?

GP That should be fine

JR Karen

KM I can make it

JR A few years ago we held it in Seattle hoping Microsoft would show up but
they didn't make it.

KM (Provided some background etc.)

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

Karen’s Notes:

1. Workplan for Techniques.

Techniques are non-normative. It’s a companion to ATAG.
Plan is to have it ready for TR by next F2F. We can chunk the work between
now and then. Need to coordinate with the latest ATAG. Might need lots of
cleanup in, say, Guideline 1. Have ISO reference there, but we should have
more comments for people who may chose not to get the ISO document.
Action: Tim: Look over and suggest steps for Guideline 1 for those who will
not have ISO.
Action: Everyone: Look at QA’s way of doing things. May be ideas and
inspiration for fixing up G.1. Also, perhaps follow WCAG’s way of setting up
their Techniques Gateway section.

Question came up about testing these steps for G. 1. How do we test them?
Perhaps combine with Tim’s test suggestions. Have to make sure they are not
normative.

2. Workplan for Test Suite

Tim came up with a draft test plan previously. Need to work out a testing
method. Tim suggests we need a template to progress. There is a generic QA
process document that might prove useful.
Action: Tim: Look at updating "Issues for Test Suite".

3. Plan for publishing "Multiplexer" doc to TR?

Multiplexer needs to go out as a Draft Note soon. Is it normative?
Jan: Look at what kind of document that needs to be? Might be important if
it must be normative.

4. Ideas for next F2F?

Europe? Denmark was mentioned. Tim couldn't but Jan, Greg, and Karen can.
Matt's sending Karen lead info to follow up on after Cannes.

Received on Tuesday, 2 March 2004 13:25:44 UTC