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

Meeting Minutes from August 2 AUWG Conference Call

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 11:04:54 -0400
Message-ID: <410FA996.6040206@utoronto.ca>
To: "List (WAI-AUWG)" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>

(Thanks to Greg Pisocky for doing the minutes)

Authoring Tools Accessibility Work Group (AUWG)

Meeting Date 8/2/2004

Called to order by Jan Richards

Attendees:

Jan Richards: JR
Barry Feigebaum: BF
Roberto Scano: RS
Matt May: MM
Tim Boland: TB

Regrets:

Karen Mardahl
Jutta Treviranus


JR: Agenda Follow up on work plan.

Techniques draft forward to fairly complete by fall.

Very easy, easy and hard. 5 day, 2 week and 4 week deadline.

One very easy item from Jutta which was followed up between Tim and Jan.
Jan's message of July 21 st reconciled all the versions between Tim 
Jutta and Jan. The success criteria. Check point refers to 4.3 Ensure 
that accessible authoring .. Prompting must be integrated into workflow.

TB: I think what you read sounds good.

JR: Does the group agree. That will go in temporarily at least

JR: Next item is rewording of techniques to get rid of phrasing can and 
to change all places consider as well as make minor changes to the 
guideline and general reformatting of the techniques to move away from 
table centric to better more accessible formatting. Those are now 
available on my private web space to look at. The changes are extensive 
but do not make a difference in the meaning.

TB: The techniques and guidelines documents would pass a web content
accessibility check right?

JR: Right. Barry has also pointed out the examples would be accessible 
as well (easy to make)

JR: Next item is techniques for guideline 3.1.1.6 and 3.1.1.7 
Aesthetically I am not perfectly happy but you could use some tool that 
emphasizes the top left and change the tab order there is an accessible 
interface.

MM: Is this from Flash, do we have permission

JR: It is not Flash. There is no problem with intellectual property. Is 
this fine to leave in here? Are people okay with the idea.

JR: The second example is below 3.1.1.7 a this is an example of a 
template I believe. No it's navigational short cuts. It's basically a 
prompting system that asks a user if you would like to add a skip 
navigation link. Remember, this is non normative stuff, it is meant to 
provide developers with ideas.

JR: The next work item is , oh this is in 4.2 that I took an action item 
to mirror the structure we showed in 4.4

TB: So we're consistent

JR: Right and that we have examples for each of those things we mentioned.

JR: Final complete action item was one Tim took to go over the
configurability checkpoint.

TB: I made comments and you (Jan) responded with some good improvements.
Basically I had priority 2 and 3 questions. You had said that all the 
priorities would be revisited. Tim started reading sections rapidly. 
Noted that Jan had responded with improvements.

JR: I agree that configurable needs to be better defined. I agreed all
success criteria must match. That would be the definition of 
configurable, right there in the success criteria.

TB: Degree of accessibility configurability subset of tool 
configurability as a whole.

TB: I like your point about the variability we are trying to target.

JR: Are people okay with this new wording?

TB; By respectively you do mean that the prompting goes together?

JR: Right.

JR: Moving along. Those are the things we're done. Still to do..Only 
thing over due content management template system example. I have 
something I can show you but I am not thrilled with it. It's in 
techniques for 4, 4.3.6 Is everybody there?  Read the URL. There is an 
example four three six that says template. The idea behind this is that 
this is a tool for designing templates, actually working from a 
template. Some of the navigation is done. Then you can pull in fields 
from  a database. So this is an example of integrated checking within a 
sequencing mechanism. If people have other ideas I would really like to 
hear them. Just write an email and we can take it forward from there.

JR: Next work item is the 3.1.1. 15 prompting for device independent
handlers. Change in difficulty to make it hard.

MM: I would like to use the UAG techniques how browsers are supposed to
handle it as my model.

JR: Two more illustrations  for 4.3 that's being worked on.

JR: Prompting and assisting for meta data Jutta and Liddy took this.

JR: 3.1.1.13 Work item for Tim and myself

TB: You had suggested a strategy and I concur with your strategy. I am 
still working on that.

JR: If you know of any tools that make the details of CSS use easy for
authors you could let us know as well

Barry Feigebaum joined at 4:32 pm eastern

TB: We could put something in the next couple of weeks.

JR: Prompting and assisting for other types of information. Karen which 
will be deferred

JR: Prompting and assisting to make use of up to date formats. How do 
you get users to actually use these formats

BF: The way to do it is to make it more appealing to use the new formats 
as opposed to not using them.

JR: Well we can write up a few lines about that in the next few weeks.

JR: One of the final items with a due date is for Barry to continue work 
on the high level XML related techniques for the documents.

GP: Barry Karen and I can get together to avoid slippage before it happens.

BF: I will set up a call later this week.

JR: A couple of items which do not have deadlines because they do not 
relate to techniques

TB: I am taking the new QA specification document and applying against
guidelines. I still have the techniques to look at as well.

JR: Test plan work items

TB: Similarly with the templates. I had a question as well, I assumed we 
are talking about the latest WCAG. Are we talking about ATAG 2 
representing WCAG 1

TB. JR: Discuss test plan - a lot depends on project review outcome.

JR: I have also been spending time to update the conformance sections of
ATAG

JR: Matt ideas on timing of project review

MM: Before we get the team to discuss our situation, I need Judy's
attention. I sent the proposed proposal for WAI review.

JR: You got my email for tying our relative priority strategy into the
review?

MM: Yes I did

TB: So this project review could involve other WAI groups as well?

JR: It is specific. I believe what's point to happen a conference call 
will occur with all of the W3C members in the WAI domain. We will 
present that to all of the team members and they will provide 
recommendations.

MM: Project reviews happen immediately after our global communication 
calls. It's everyone from every site discussing this stuff.

JR: I believe that's it for out list of work items. Next item of the 
agenda is I have made some potential changes to conformance area to ATAG 
as well as WCAG references so just take a look at those as well. No 
changes, just an attempt to make things clearer.

JR: Next face to face as well as a host. Matt has spoken to a contact at
Macromedia in San Francisco. Matt what are the days we are kicking 
around at the moment? I would personally prefer a Monday Tuesday. 
October 11 - 12.

JR: Available all Mon,Tues in Oct.
BF: Available all Mon,Tues in Oct.
MM: Would prefer meeting later in October
GP: Cannot make it Oct 18,19.

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

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896
Received on Tuesday, 3 August 2004 11:05:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:03 GMT