AUWG Teleconference on Monday, 1 November 2004

MINUTES from AUWG Teleconference on Monday, 1 November 2004

Attendees

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

Regrets:
RS: will try connecting from home

-------
Agenda:
-------

>>1. Review of Last Call plan including process discussion:
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004OctDec/0031.html
>>http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#last-call

JT: Discussed briefly at last F2F.

MM: This tells everyone in the other WGs that we're ready for comments,
because we're about to implement our document. Ours isn't a new format,
instead it's something worked into other applications. Shows consensus of WG
that we've done our due diligence and we think it's ready to be a standard.

Other groups job to review/comment/possibly meet. Our job to respond either
to accomodate changes or debate reactions. 
(JT had ? about UAAG): UAAG went through the old process. Only thing missing
was Candidate Rec. UAAG went through CR - comes after Last Call. There you
can advance, or go back to doing a Working draft. Part of our work is
finding implementations of everything we've talked about - or invent them.
Need min. 2 for each checkpoint. UAAG had as many as 7. Or - need proof that
something is possible. (BF had ?): No limit to number of products. There
were however a few items with difficulties in finding examples of
implementations.

JT: Need to be in established products???

MM: Reflects well upon us if they're in shipping products. Need to state
that item is in product X. There can be open source products in various
stages of development. We could always get things into such products very
quickly if we could get developers to react. Some make builds weekly so that
could go quickly. Could use a product about to ship, but just couldn't use
it in conformance papers.

JR: I've prepared a comparison (substances change log) of ATAG 1.0 and 2.0 -
including deprecated items.

JT: After Last Call, we go to CR, find 2 items per checkpoint, then what.

MM: Beyond that, we go to Proposed Recommendation. In PR: first have a vote
of membership who review doc (in 3 weeks). All have to vote Yes or No (may
allow conditions to yes or no vote). Then, if no one stands in way, the
chair, staff contact, and Judy meet with director who reviews everything,
incl. comments, ensuring they're addressed properly. If OK, can recommend.
If not, can send back to Working Draft. This happened to UAAG. Due mostly to
it being completely dependent on other standards. Their CR stage was not
fully established, and some other things happening that threw things off for
them. 

TB: what can we do to avoid these problems?

MM: Have a good test suite and good test data! That's a win key! We have no
major issues really. Should pave the way for a good CR.

JT: Timeline?

JR: 
Nov. 1: deal with chk. 4.3 and glossary.
Nov. 8: Ask for WG last call.
Nov. 15: WG vote for going to last call.


>>2. Review of TB's proposed scope text:
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004OctDec/0029.html

TB: Looked at WCAG and AUWG website for inspiration. Relates to QA.
Important to reflect sense of what's covered and not covered. Placement in
introduction is OK.

JR: Checked in (after a round of approval)

>>3. Review of JR's proposed changes since F2F:
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004OctDec/0033.html

JR: Some changes are editorial. Important one is (3) moving the look and
feel checkpoint into a "Note to Implementors" at the end of Guideline 4.
This is not normative (too difficult to test) so it is easier to list as
informative.

TB: Why isn't it normative? Because it's not a way to satisfy success
criteria? Couldn't it be used in combination with other items?

JT: Technique of a guideline as opposed to checkpoint of technique. None of
the checkpoints address this directly. 

??: Could have reference in section discussing prompt/repair that referes
back to this note?

JT: Rather than a technique for Guideline 4?

JT: Should it be integrated or Technique of Guideline 4?

BF: Don't like "demoting" to Techniques.

JT: Should we try for success criteria again?

JR: Would have to re-do scope of it again - difficult in short time span.

JR: Could integrate part of it into text just after Guideline 4 and move
specifics to Techniques for guideline 4? 

TB: That's OK. 

JT: Guideline is summary and checkpoint begins to spell out matters. Put
"less objective pieces" after the Guidline and then integrate rest into
techniques.

JR: Put back as checkpoint but with much smaller scope.

JT: Didn't we talk about UI conventions at F2F?

TB: Often tools tier together. It's difficult to say "all font sizes must be
the same".

GP: Shouldn't attempt to integrate 3rd party tools into Authoring Tools -
imposes undue burden on manufacturer. Marketplace does look at this however.
Does tool do what it should - and in an efficient manner? Bit much to try to
specify look and feel. 

JT: Text should tell the reason we're doing this (aiming for look and feel)
is so author doesn't find a jarring difference between 2 tools.

JR: Noted - and will propose wording in a day or two. Will move a statement
into intro for guideline 4 text. Rest goes to techniques (4.5?) on look and
feel. 

GP: Which area carries most weight? Guideline, checkpoints, what?

KM: Some manufacturers might be quite negative about having an guideline
that is nearly impossible to meet.

TB: Guidelines should be achievable. If not achievable, shouldn't be there
(in guidelines).

JR: Will send proposed changes out later.

(Moving on in this agenda item)

JR: Further highlights for this agenda item: Added Sample Conformance
Profile under 3.2.3.

Also added some text in 1.4.2 explaining that newer versions of ISO16071 can
be used as they come along. (Like the section with conformance to different
versions of WCAG.)

BF: should provide synopsis of what ISO16071 requires?

JR: Would be useful to get abstract to use for such a text. 

BF: Was thinking of something akin to table of contents. So people could get
a feel for the document.

JR: Will follow up with Roberto for a copy to look at.

(Moving on)

JR: Take a look at glossary - lots of changes. Need feedback - especially
words in red.

KM: we should all submit to the list and discuss there. 

>>4. Review of JT's proposed changes to 3.1 and 4.3.

JT: Prompting is one of the major tenets. Not discussing repair (after the
work is done), but encourage to do the right thing from the beginning. This
checkpoint covered that, but has gotten gotten sparse. Want to warn authors
they're about to go "down an inaccessible path". It's a service to inform in
advance. But - how do we make something subjectively measurable without
constraints?!

GP: Give them lower priorities?

JT: Still not quite adequate. Author will say: Why didn't I know this at the
beginning? Putting at end  of list of choices doesn't mean it won't get
chosen.

GP: Cautionary flag would be sufficient.

JT: Even icon.

GP: Perhaps this could be test itself - presence of cautionary icons? 

JT: No, must be stated as success criteria.

JR: Could be done. Compare choice that is accessible or inaccessible. 

JR: Is this more like what is in techniques 4.1? 

JT: No, this is prompting: you have a set of menu choices, toolbars, etc.
with various choices. 

(Discussion that 3.3 be moved to 4.1.)

JR: Under Guideline 3, it was relative priority, which was "more demanding".
In 4.1, it is "only" AA. 


JT/JR: We'll be having weekly meetings in the weeks ahead.

>>5. The group will be asked to do a "working group last call" with 
>>comments sent in before Nov. 8.

(This agenda item was covered in first agenda item where JR discussed
timeline.)

<end of minutes>

Received on Monday, 1 November 2004 22:59:32 UTC