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

Minutes AUWG Teleconference on Monday, 30 August 2004

From: Karen Mardahl <karen@mardahl.dk>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 00:25:44 +0200
To: "'List (WAI-AUWG)'" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c48ee0$4b06eca0$0301a8c0@karen>

MINUTES from AUWG Teleconference on Monday, 30 August 2004 

Attendees

BF: Barry Feigenbaum
GP: Greg Pisocky
JR: Jan Richards
KM: Karen Mardahl
TB: Tim Boland

Regrets: Roberto Scano


>>> Agenda Item 1. Technique workplan progress check.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JulSep/0074.html

* TB: Item from July f2f: QA review of ATAG work (GL's, techs) - just
completed.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JulSep/0068.html

Preliminary evaluation of the ATAG2.0 documentation against the recent QA
SpecLite. The QA docs are basically about writing good specs - normative and
best practices tips. Looked at all normative principles, and it appears that
we have satisfied most of them definitely. Bit unsure about a few such as,
do we deal with extensibility?

JR: Not sure it applies.

TB: Might need statement saying this. Also do we have any deprecated
features from 1.0? Need to deal with that.

ACTION ITEM: JR will see if there are deprecated features in 1.0. Specify
degree of deprecation and consequences (See QA doc for details on what we
need to say.)

TB: draft update of ATAG process using QA Handbook.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JulSep/0069.html

TB: Based on recent QA handbook. View this as an appendix to a more rigorous
version that came out earlier. Concerns test suite and methods of approval.
This submission is a QA process update. Evaluating our processes based on
the handbook. Looks at how the QA guidelines can help us meet our milestones
and deadlines: coordinating QA deliverables with spec. milestones. Looking
at consistency.

TB: Need to consider a number of items: do we want to be involved in
evaluation of testing or use of logos or viewing submitted reports. Need
more definitive process for testing in future. Approval will be needed on an
ongoing basis for test materials. Once we have test materials, the group
should do assessment of them.
May be other questions that group may want to consider.

TB: Haven't looked at the Aug. 30 version best practices yet that just came
out.

JR: Looks good. Nothing badly broken. Lots to keep in mind, but it all makes
sense!

TB: Yes, just something to keep in mind. Will be sending out draft test
materials.


* 3.1.1(10) - Prompting and assisting for Metadata- disguised screenshot of
TILE - JT/JR, LN

JR: Still in progress, but some work done:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JulSep/0039.html

* 3.1.1(11) - Prompting and assisting for document structure - GP, KM, BF 

GP: We tried to look at a higher, generic level of prompting for doc.
structure. Found 6 points with examples that we feel handle the scenarios we
could envision:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JulSep/0079.html
Just need to incorporate into the Techs document and we can also start
making illustrations.

JR: Great. This is also quite key so perhaps it can be mentioned elsewhere,
earlier in the Techs.

KM: BF has a document that we could use, like a white paper, or some
separate reference. Techiques can have compact version, but for those
interested in more information on document structure and its value, we could
provide 

TB: How can it can recognize structure? How can it tell things are missing?

(Discussion between GP, BF, and TB on several possibilities.)

BF: Structure would be in context of tool. We can say structure is good, but
we can't get too specific - it's up to the tool how it will handle this
matter.

GP: Many tools have mechanisms in place now. We tried to cover a spectrum.
Still - up to the author also.

TB: So degree of structure or support is an attribute of the tool. Up to
tools what structure they'll support. 

GP: One point we wanted to make it that tools _must_ test for structure. Can
be rudimentary or highly evolved. 

BF: We didn't address interchange of tools. 

JR: Remember what we're doing here. WCAG defines degree of structure. Then,
we tell tool how to assist the author to get the structure needed for WCAG
compliance. Good job here of fishing out general techniques.


* 3.1.1(17): Prompting and assisting for other types of accessibility
information - KM

KM: Apologies. Thought item was closed last time. Hadn't been able to come
up with other items. I'd happy to still keep searching for other items if
they should come up.

* 3.1.1(18): Prompting and assisting the author to make use of up to date
formats - JR, BF

JR: Barry, do you want to add any more to this?

JR: It's possible to add documents (like a white paper) that can be
referenced.

BF: Are there rules or guidelines about that?

JR: Check with Matt May.

* Barry to continue with work on High Level XML - related techniques for the
document (with discussion on list). 

TEST PLAN WORK ITEMS

1. Try to put together set of templates (what questions) that can be used a
tool - TB 

TB: coming out shortly

2. Updating the test plan draft since several ATAG and WCAG iterations
have been made- TB

TB: coming out shortly

3. Update Process (administrative etc.). TB 

Done

4. "Project Review" from staff contact (MM) to W3C powers (Judy(?), Tim)
that be explaining our testing challenges - MM. (timeline would be over
a month) TB volunteers to help.

Still in progress

>>> Agenda Item 2: If we get sufficient participation on the call we can
make some
decisions about the following areas:

Mostly editorial changes to Introduction section of ATAG:
http://jan.rcat.utoronto.ca/public/auwg/guidelines.html#Introduction

Changes to Checkpoint 2.2:
http://jan.rcat.utoronto.ca/public/auwg/guidelines.html#check-prefer-w3c

Glossary modifications:
http://jan.rcat.utoronto.ca/public/auwg/guidelines.html#definitions

JR: Take a look at these items that we didn't get to cover. Especially the
Intro in light of the QA docs that TB told us about. Send input and comments
to the list.


>>> Agenda Item 3: Authoring Tools section in WCAG 2.0 draft.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JulSep/0073.html

JR: Yvette P. Hoitink from WCAG took on the action item raised by JR's mail
about including a reference to ATAG in WCAG:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0389.html
The ensuing discussion culminated in this wording:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JulSep/0078.html 

JR: Important that WCAG as a group become aware that AUWG is important to
their roll-out strategy. 
ACTION ITEM: Let Yvette know that she can go ahead with this latest wording
from JR:


>>> Agenda item 4: F2F planning. The venue is set for October 25-26 in San
Francisco.

JR: Macromedia is kindly hosting us. Don't forget to sign up or submit input
for agenda. We plan to get ATAG out for LAST CALL after this meeting, so it
will be quite important!!!
Received on Monday, 30 August 2004 22:25:17 GMT

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