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

Minutes of AUWG Teleconference on Monday, 18 October 2004

From: Karen Mardahl <karen@mardahl.dk>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:14:11 +0200
To: "'List (WAI-AUWG)'" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000101c4b55f$cedcbd70$0401a8c0@karen>

MINUTES from AUWG Teleconference on Monday, 18 October 2004 


BF: Barry Feigenbaum
JR: Jan Richards
JT: Jutta Treviranus
KM: Karen Mardahl

TB: Tim Boland
MM: possibly in transit to Dublin?


1. A group of UI researchers will be observing the call for a research
project. Confidentiality is assured. If anyone objects please let Jutta or
Jan know right away:

JT introduced the researchers observing our call. They are working on a
design of VoIP called Vocal Village, that experiments with visualized sound,
among other things. (See http://www.vocalvillage.net/ for general interest.)

2. MM's proposal to re-integrate "multi-plexor" document

>JR's draft wording for doing this:

JR:  quick refresher. We broke this out of ATAG because it could point to
any version of WCAG; so if WCAG came out in multiple versions, we could just
change one external doc and still keep up with WCAG. Gave us some
independence. MM now proposes to bring it in, still having a link to
existing or future versions, and then end up releasing ATAG at same time as
WCAG. If WCAG ever should release a 3.0 or 4.0, we could do minor changes to
adapt ATAG to that. (See above link and the mailing list for other
discussions on this matter.)

JT: Rationale is less confusion, less complexity. 

JR: Powerful for WAI to come out with WCAG and ATAG at same time. Support
from Gregg V. and Judy B. as well as others.

JR: When we have the public release of our docs, there should be an
explanatory type doc to explain the reason for the connection between WCAG
and ATAG with these priorities etc.

BF: What delays can we expect? Since we are now going to synchronize more
with WCAG.

JR: We can still go to Last Call after F2F. Don't see big delays. 

JT: We don't when WCAG will be released. It does tie us to WCAG.

BF: No objections. 

JR: Our doc should be quite stable - just not finalized until WCAG is ready.
Gives us time to get conformance piece really nice.

KM: Roberto wrote that he agreed with bringing this text back in, and I
agree too.

JR: ACTION FOR ALL TO CHECK BEFORE F2F: Please check that text is OK in
Guidelines section 1.3 and 3. "COnformance".

3. JR's Shareability proposal:

JT: Within e-learning, there are learning object repositories that already
do the things mentioned here, allowing sharing of learning objects. 

JR: Changed some wording to fit terms from WCAG and UUAG. 

(Went a little OT.)

KM: Interested in seeing if we can sort of standardize on terms and phrases
among these docs.

JR: Tricky using wording from WCAG and UUAG as they often diverge from each

KM: But we can at least get inspiration from them. 

JT: Or if we are "ahead", make suggestions to promote harmonizing!

JR: Good point for CG.

4. Technique workplan progress check (items should be completed before the
F2F - on Oct 25-26):

(For call, we used this link instead, as it was updated:

Work from the following until a new working draft is prepared:

(BTW: We are hoping to have these turned into internal working drafts 
before the F2F, but Matt is travelling so this may not be possible.)


. 3.1.1(10) - Prompting and assisting for Metadata - most effort re:
Metadata is focused on inclusion withing WCAG.(JT/JR, LN)-underway

JT: has been lots of discussion. Dublin workshop going on just now. Hope to
get decision within WAI following discussions at workshop. Hope to have some
agreement about accessibility metadata, and not just metadata and its
relationship to acccessibility. One step is Dublin Core, one of the most
used, already ISO standard. DC has agreed to add an accessibility element
which will take in accessibility metadata. Telephone call after meeting to
come up with some agreement on what we should do with this in WCAG, and then
how to deal with it in ATAG. Should be resolved by F2F.

. "Project Review" from staff contact to W3C Team (Judy(?), Tim) that be
explaining our testing challenges (MM) - This is working it's way through
the system.

JR: The ball is in Judy's court. Process should be significantly easier now
that we have multiplexer back in ATAG. Would have been source of
controversy. No more news just yet.


. NEW: Get Bug-Tracker (Bugzilla?) up and running

No news.

. Guidelines - Examine success criteria for completeness and wording, ensure
correctness of Glossary
(Tim B.)

No news.

KM: Have some notes that I'll send along to JR.

. Examine techniques for guideline 3 for gaps.

KM: Still typing away. Notes are on paper!

. Examine techniques for guideline 4 (especially 4.5) for gaps.

KM: Still typing away. Notes are on paper.

JR: Working on some ideas. Will submit to group.


. Automated reviews of spelling, grammar, broken links

JT: We'll deal with this later.


. 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) - done with a number of changes to intro and conformance. 
(see http://jan.rcat.utoronto.ca/public/auwg/guidelines.html)

JR: Broken refs. into normative and informative. Adopted UAAG TOC structure.
Should look stronger and smoother than before.

. Examine techniques for guideline 1 for gaps.
(Karen) - KM comments added.

. Examine techniques for guideline 2 for gaps.
(Karen,Greg) - KM comments added.

. Updating the Testplan, implementations of the testplan (i.e. templates)
(TB,KM,GP)-several documents sent to list:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JulSep/0125.html and 
several that follow.

Simplified approach: 

. Look for broken document references
(Jan) - done

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


. Finalize reference to ISO16071

. Examine figures

5. Tim's updated ATAG20 test suite:

JR/JT: leave until Tim is available.

6. ISO reference (message by Roberto):

JR: Seems quite OK for now.

JT: remember this is a CD - Committee Draft- still. CD is based largely upon
the IBM SW Accessibility Standard. 

JR: Our intro text is much better now and justifies our using external

7. F2F planning and agenda setting. The venue is set for October 25-26 in
San Francisco.
>- We are hoping to take ATAG2.0 to last call after this meeting, so the
guidelines themselves are likely to be the primary focus.

JR/JT: Need to check that registrations have gone through. 

Agenda discussion:

Since people are phoning in from Europe and East Coast, the following agenda
was planned:

Monday morning: Go through guidelines first 9-12 PST (12-15 EST, 18-21 CET)
Afternoon: do work initiated by morning activity.

Tues. morning: Finalize consent for last call. Then test suites.
Tues. afternoon: review of techniques.

It's important that we deal with guidelines at F2F. That's why we need
concession in a time frame when callers can be present. Techniques are a
note - should be faster to approve. It helps ATAG, however, if Techniques
look good when ATAG is up for inspection.

The latest guidelines are here:
PLEASE review before F2F next week!!

<end of minutes>
Received on Monday, 18 October 2004 22:14:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:51 UTC