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

Minutes of AUWG Teleconference on Monday, 27 September 2004

From: Karen Mardahl <karen@mardahl.dk>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:45:34 +0200
To: <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001301c4a4db$54c423f0$0401a8c0@karen>

MINUTES from AUWG Teleconference on Monday, 27 September 2004 


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

MM: possibly in transit to Switzerland?


>> 1. Technique workplan progress check (and volunteer drive).
(See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JulSep/0118.html)

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

JT: More complicated than expected. Something for Techniques is easy -
Authoring tool supporting metadata; when you begin to reference WCAG, it's
not easy - where within WCAG will it be required and how referenced. Lots is
happening with Metadata and accessibility Metada concerning various aspects
of compliance, transformers, equivalents, etc.

JR: Please forward the "easy" part

TB: Content Metadata workshop in Dublin in October - is it related to us?

JR: Yes, relevant. An IMS member will be attending. Liddy will be sending us
some Dublin Core related material. IMS member is attending the Content
Metadata workshop in Dublin in October. Some issues about compliant vs
accessible transformation material is a bit tricky. Yes, (answer to Tim)
this is related to us. Liddy will send some DC related techniques.

. "Project Review" from staff contact (MM) to W3C powers (Judy(?), Tim) that
be explaining our testing challenges (timeline would be over a month)
(MM) - This is working its way through the system.

JR: This entails presenting our conformance scheme to see if that is what
can be permitted  through the system (re:ISO doc e.g.). MM has prepared
background info. This is basically a major conference call with JR and MM
making presentation - bit informal. Gives idea of what they're thinking
about our approach.

TB: Heard WAI people discussing coordination with the QA material.
JR: Yes we'd like to cooperate but details haven't been worked out details
JT: MM will keep us updated on progress? 
JR: Yes.

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

TB: Have prepared a few templates and draft test plan. Wants feedback from
group before going further. Has draft templates + structure + draft
reporting structure + test process. Is there enough detail? Asking right
questions? Please give feedback when you get draft later this week. Hope to
prompt good discussion.

(Discussion about sending files via email as zip. If they are too much to
send via mail, TB can notify KM for posting on her site.)


. NEW: Get Bug-Tracker up and running
(MM) - should be soon now

JT: No new news, but general agreement that it is very necessary.

. Do a more general review of UAAG to see where we do things differently and
if that is necessary - especially, examine conformance mechanism in relation
to that proposed in UAAG.
(Jan, Matt) - underway

JR: MM has been away. UAAG has been through tighter W3C process, might as
well "take advantage"/learn from that, if we have no particular reason for
keeping our particular method. Although if we differ, we'll most like just
keep our version.

. Guidelines - Examine success criteria for completeness and wording, ensure
correctness of Glossary
TB volunteered

. Examine techniques for guideline 1 for gaps.
KM volunteered

. Examine techniques for guideline 2 for gaps.
KM, GP volunteered

. Examine techniques for guideline 3 for gaps.
KM, Jan volunteered

. Examine techniques for guideline 4 (especially 4.5) for gaps.
KM, JT volunteered 

JR: Use guidelines and techniques as listed here:
Will post fresh docs shortly after this telecon. Will put info on when they
were last updated so we can all make sure we are working on the latest docs.

JT: As an aside, may have some implementers lined up to help out.


. Automated reviews of spelling, grammar, broken links

. Look for broken document references
(Jan) - done - but will send out report on Monday

JR: will upload with fixed doc references after call. Wait at least 1 hour
after call.

. Look for broken doc structure
(Jan and Matt at Editor meeting)

JR: will be done in a few days.



. Finalize reference to ISO16071
(See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JulSep/0115.html)

JT: Need to review what Roberto has posted. Note that ISO is not stable.
Will be ready in 2006.

TB: is it appropriate to refer to the "stable" spec?

JT: Now have access to all docs as a Canadian rep. to this project.
JR: Can send relevant docs to me to go through for our references.
TB: Has decision about appropriateness of referencing ISO16071 been
JR: Yes, it is OK, but there are other issues such as: is it OK to have 1
spec and then point to another for its conformance details (the WCAG
references)? Should we instead bring the WCAG refs. back into ATAG, and then
release new ATAGs (2.1, 2.2, etc.) each time a new WCAG comes out.

TB: ISO defines levels, but doesn't mention conformance. The "impact
category" can be replaced. One can list a number of guidelines and any
jurisdiction or country can then categorize in different ways for their own
JT: We can say "this is the ATAG category" for the impact category.
TB: So ATAG is equal to a country - an "application profile."
JT: The present form of ISO 16071 is in committe draft (CD) at present.
We'll find out when it is stable and figure out status.

. Examine figures

JR: Have checked figures for correctness, cosmetics, weakness, etc. Will
continue to work on this but ANY AND ALL help is MORE THAN WELCOME!!! 

TB: ATAG document needs to be WCAG compliant, yes?
JT: Oh yes - was agreed ages ago. 
JR: Major editing ahead with regards to that!

>> 2. Tim's updated ATAG20 test plan:
(See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JulSep/0084.html)

TB: Took earlier test plan and revised. Takes into account both ATAG 2.0 and
WCAG 2.0. Tried to keep the conformance structure the way it is. Not quite
sure of how submitters to testing would be testing against conformance
levels - First success criteria, then level 1, 2, and 3; second success
criteria, then level 1, 2, 3, etc.

But in ATAG, "all level A should be met" then the next, etc.

As soon as there is an updated version of ATAG, will update test plan
against that. 
When there is a WCAG test suite, may be possible to reference - if
appropriate. Depends on how they define WCAG conformance. ATAG may be free
to impose a more stringent WCAG criterion than WCAG would define for its own
purposes. Just wondering. We may want to.

JT: How are you dealing with relative priority?

TB: "Level A must satisfy all WCAG at level 1." Then you go to AA, etc. You
hit all the levels. There's one item in AA, where it's dealt with
differently, but that's the only variation. Aims to be consistent with what
Jan has done with references. Corresponds to appropriate ISO16071 core and
secondary. Comments?

GP: A little daunting! 
JT: Maybe not put in linear form, but to some how use hyperlinks, etc.
TB: It is a super-set. All inclusive.
JR: Lots of repetition.
TB: Yes if you combine ATAG and WCAG this is what you get! Helps to organize
my understanding.
JR: Good to have a listing of all these items.
KM: Could JT's implementers help?
JT: They'll probably find it daunting as well.
JT: Long lists could be addressed with ER's test pages?
(Several agreed we do need to have this overview in some way.)
JT: Inventory of everything that needs to be done! Filtering could make less
daunting. Could we make this into manageable bits? Redundant bits will fall
TB: will try to work on. 
JR: Toggle between views perhaps?

KM, GP: Happy to help out [with making list less daunting.]

JR made ACTION: Putting together templates to be used by a tool as well as
updating the test plan per the comments from tele.conf. to make the list
lest daunting. Working on implementations of test plans. Still send out test
plans as previously mentioned.

>> 3. F2F planning. The venue is set for October 25-26 in San Francisco.
(See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JulSep/0117.html)

>From today's call, BF, GP, JT, JR will be attending.

KM and TB by phone.

TB: Can items be scheduled early for those on phone please?

TB: mentioned next ATAG meeting could perhaps be in Boston during plenary? 

JR/JT: Is a deadline for registering for plenary. Also some issues for
people like MM with multiple commitments.

JR: If we do get to Last Call after F2F, we could do some advocacy,
promotion, road show stuff.

KM: If you did that in the Boston area, I know there is a potential for a
big audience for that.

>> Miscellaneous

JT: Want to mention VoIP call. have been exploring this for our calls. Will
investigate and send info to the group. Has been used with MAC and is great.
JR: If anyone knows of other systems, let us know.

<End of minutes>
Received on Monday, 27 September 2004 21:45:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:50 UTC