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

Minutes AWUG 8/15/2004

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:45:48 -0400
Message-ID: <4122363C.8020807@utoronto.ca>
To: "List (WAI-AUWG)" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>

AWUG Meeting August 15, 2004

Scribe:

Greg Pisocky

Attendees

BF: Barry Feigerbaum
GP: Greg Pisocky
JR: Jan Richards
JT: Jutta Treviranus
KM: Karen Mardahl
MM: Matt May

Jan opened the call by going over the agenda.

JT: Let's start with the next face to face. The proposal is San 
Francisco mid-October

---

4. Ideas for the next F2F location. San Francisco in October has been
proposed. We need to decide soon...8 weeks from Monday is already 
mid-October.

MM: After the 8 weeks is better than earlier than 8 weeks

JR: 8 weeks from today would be the 11th

JT: end of the week fourteenth/ fifteenth

MM: I will ask Bob what his restrictions are

JR: We ran through the availability of group members on last call

JR Read the availability of various members

JT: Trying to stick to Mondays.

KM: Monday and Tuesdays would be okay, but I have to stick to the phone. 
18 19

JT: 11 and 12 is too early Either 14 15 is Thursday Friday or 18 19 or 
25th 26th which are Monday Tuesday.

MM: I have communicated those two dates to Bob and we will see

JR: Can we say if Jutta chooses wither of those dates then the group is 
okay with it

KM: Fine by me

JT: Is 14th 15th late enough for you

MM: I would prefer 25th 26th. I am closer to the 10 weeks we prefer.

JT: So let's say barring objections from Bob 25th 26th great. Moving on 
to agenda item 1.

---

1. Technique work plan progress check. (Monday is the deadline for
so-called "Hard" [H] items)

JR: I won't report on the old things. I will skip to new. A template 
example has been added to checkpoint 4 so you can see on my personal web 
space.

JR: If we can just go take a look at 4.3.6 This is an example that shows 
a page that is being built from a template and units are being added but 
an abbreviation or possible abbreviation is being detected and the fix 
is added
right away. Is every one good with that as a placeholder? Of course if
people have better examples they can

JR: Next is prompting and addicting for style sheets. Technique 3.1.1 
(13) There are now techniques for prompting assisting with style sheets 
A to L. If people want to read them now we can take the editor's note 
off them if they're okay.

JT: Affecting the existence of "non" standard practices?

JR: Which one is that

JT: H

KM: And then on G you have a box around editing

JR: I have little spans all through the document that I can't see in my
editing view. Has everybody read through it. Any other issues. I will 
assume that will stay in. Moving to the next work item. Now we have 
Jutta's piece. Do you mind if we skip to Matt's because Matt's is 
finished. Matt sent something to the list at 12:33

KM: Action item device independent handlers.

JT: Matt proposes we keep technique A and add 3 others. Can people see 
those or should I read them. My question to Matt on section D should we 
say Double click is that a substantive difference than on click.

MM: .. When you do on double click there isn't an easy analog. You have 
to come up with some other way to fire those events if double-click 
exists. I have seen examples of documents that are accessible except 
there is a double click event that throws it all off

JR: Roberto also responded. Jan read Roberto's response. I will copy 
what I just said, making a section D. Does it make sense as well to say 
that accessible code and scripts are also good candidates for storage 
and reuse. In this case device independent handlers.

JT: I would say so definitely

KM: Does it have to be a separate item or should it be a more general
statement.

JR: You're right. That's actually something which applies. We have this
statement about ten other times. We say labels and long descriptions are
good candidates.

JT: We should make a note

JR: I will put in here the tool prompts authors about which no common 
device independent analog exists (EG double click events) and avoid 
presenting these events as default options.

JR: Now Jutta we can go back to your report on prompting for meta data

JT: Much of the discussion Liddy Neville and I has centered around two
issues. ! meta data in general is good and accessibility meta data is 
also good. A third question is what would be the accepted meta data and 
standard if you have accessibility meta data. WCAG, Dublin Core ...
The screen shot of  and how it prompts for a common language 
interpretation of meta data and what it means to  do... WCAG has 
definitely not said anything about accessibility meta data is good.

JR: Thanks for the update. So I guess we will be watching that. Let's 
say WCAG incorporated accessibility related meta data. How best should 
authoring tools incorporate this.

JT: There are two classes 1) label a resource as to whether it is 
accessible or not and 2) ACMED IMF what you do with meta data for a 
primary resource you rank it ... But if you create caption file or 
alternative to a given resource than the description is much longer. If 
there is  a restricted vocabulary then you would want to create a drop 
down list. We have given lots of thought as to how to do it. I think the 
tile method is a good example. None of that can be included until we've 
solve the WCAG issue.

JR: We'll wait on WCAG and once we find out what they require we'll put 
it in.

JT: Matt, do you know the time line for making comment on WCAG 2

MM: They put out a call for feedback. Anytime we want to give it to them 
we can. We can look through the bug database they have set up for that 
and see if they have made any reference to meta data. The meta data 
issues are a bit sticky.

JR: I am looking at WCAG 1 and I have a checkpoint 13.2 not accessibility
meta data but it is enough for us to have our meta data prompting in there.

JR: I also have some stuff from Anastasia Chatam. I will use that as well.
Okay anything else. Next item is prompting and assisting for document
structure.

GP: Karen Barry and I need more time. We sent an email with an outline.

KM: We'll have an actual text within 2 weeks.

JR: Good start. Looking forward to the finished results.

JR: Next prompting and assisting for other types of accessibility
information.

KM: It appears to me Jan you have all the bases covered. I am blank on 
new ideas.

JR: Not the worst thing because we have 18 sections on prompting for 
other things.

JR: Next prompting and assisting to get authors to use the most up to 
date formats. We have a link which you can take a look at now.

KM: A comment to Barry and Greg. I feel this crosses over to what we 
were talking about earlier.

BF: I agree. We talked about things about you should author your HTML so
that is readable by human beings.

KM: Nothing wrong with that, it just reinforces what we have been 
talking about.

JR: (to Barry) Would you like me to keep this as a separate pieces.

JR: All the remaining items are mostly for Tim but there is the one 
project review for Matt.

MM: I just need (?) to take a look at. I hope to have something after 
the CG call on Wednesday.

JR: That's all the items, I hand it back to Jutta.

JT: Back to agenda, let's go through given that we have a backlog

---

2. If we get sufficient participation on the call we can make some 
decisions about the following areas:
- conformance area of guidelines
http://jan.rcat.utoronto.ca/public/auwg/guidelines(+conf_sect_rewrite).html
- ATAG references to WCAG doc
http://jan.rcat.utoronto.ca/public/auwg/wcagrefs(+conf_sect_rewrite).html
- the new position of real-time prompting discussion (tech 4.3.2)
http://jan.rcat.utoronto.ca/public/auwg/tech4.html

JR: The priorities of the whole conformance area of the guidelines has 
been rewritten.

JT: We're looking at item 3 determining conformance

JR: ... Section 3 the different conformance levels. Graphic shows as you
move down the conformance levels you meet different priority 
checkpoints. And then for the authoring interface you might be using 
WCAG or ISO16071. From there you move down the different priority 
levels.. After that I
reorganized a bunch of notes that were floating around about claimants. 
I have taken the conformance statement which used to only occur in the 
ATAG references to WCAG document and I put it here. And that's pretty 
much it. It's a lot to read now, but if people want to take a look at it 
and let me know we can take the editor notes out of here.

JT: And in terms of the bridge document how are we doing with that.

JR: If you replace in the URL where it says guidelines with wcagrefs you
will get the document which has also been changed a little bit. Long URL ...

JT: Okay so the ending of it as well..

JR: The way it works now we have the priority level references. Let's 
say for web content priority level checkpoint Level 1 requires meeting 
essential aspects of meeting accessible web content and then there are 
two ways of doing it. WCAG 2 has gone back to levels A AA AAA which 
makes it easier for us. We can as a shorthand say WCAG 2 level A That's 
what your content has to meet. We can make our lives easier.

JT: Does anyone have any concerns or comments on conformance or the ATAG 
2 references to WCAG

KM: Nice work!

JR: Thanks.

JR: So I will remove all of the editor's notes

KM: You don't have a title tag on your picture

JR: Oh yeah, there's alt missing and things. Not good. I see this as a 
non-text to something better done in text.

JR: We can skip to the third which is a new position for the real time
prompting discussion. It should go in 4.3.2 .. Well if you have a real 
time workflow this is what you need to know.

JT: Anyone have comments on that? Any objections putting real time under
workflow.

NONE

JR: That is my report on that.

JT: Are there additional decisions we should cover.

---

3. Comments on WCAG 2.0 draft.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-20040730/
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JulSep/0054.html

JR: I have already sent to the group the basis of a submission that we 
sent to WCAG that there is no mention of ATAG in WCAG. I offer the 
suggested text. I mentioned the extreme changes in context and Jutta's 
definition of meta data. We can send this off to WCAG as our authoring 
tools WCAG submission.

KM: I believe it's an important point, You will be using an authoring 
tool to create web content.

JT: Do other people have suggested edits. Jan should we add the meta 
date recommendation and then send it off?

JR: I'll make (the appropriate changes) and then you can send it off.

KM: I agree with Roberto's recommendation. An authoring tool will 
typically be employed to create WCAG content.

MM: Had a disagreement with Greg at last meeting where he was alone in
saying ATAG would not be sufficient.

KM: Everyone's talking about WCAG but people are ignoring the authoring
tools.

MM: We're just starting to get traction I think with a number of people.

JT: Jan and I will create a draft that can go to WCAG and if everyone 
can comment that would be great.

MM: I would say you post it to the list and I can make sure it makes the
agenda.

JR: Okay, great

JT: We're run out of time. Any last minutes items.

KM: One question for you Jutta. I saw conflicting meta data conferences. 
Do you see a problem?

JT: One is Dublin core and one W3C. Everyone agrees, this is a massive
problem, we're drawing from a fairly massive pool of experts.
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2004 16:46:18 GMT

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