W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2005

Minues from AUWG Teleconference on Monday January 24, 2005

From: Karen Mardahl <karen@mardahl.dk>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:47:22 +0100
To: <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000301c50266$aba6c400$0401a8c0@karen>

MINUTES from AUWG Teleconference on Monday, January 24, 2005


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

Regrets: Roberto Scano


Pre-meeting talk: discussed Guidelines vs. Principles. 

GP: AU and UA have guidelines, WCAG has Principles. Should we change to
MM: UAAG and ATAG are oriented toward developers and products, not the
end-user audience of WCAG. Developers dont'/won't think in same way as
GP: Fine, but what is relative weight of guidelines vs. principles?
TB: If GP asks, others will ask. Good to have definition or rationale.
MM: WCAG oriented toward end-user creating content. UAAG/ATAG provide
technical specs. aimed at developers. Gets developers to use the document
more effectively.
JT: We should keep this in mind as we move forward.

>> 1. Discussion of Last Call reviews, discussion of possible extension of
review period, and soliciting of further reviews.

JT: Judy B. advises solicitation of more reviews. From consumer groups and
developer groups. Those who have responded, have responded directly to list.
Some non-developer groups have requested extensions. No requests for
extensions from any dev. groups. We really need more.

JT/TB: We need to have tools that implement "a lot" of ATAG - evidence that
each checkpoint is OK with at least 2 tools, but preferably as many as

MM: WCAG 2.0 is probably biggest gating. We could have CR within 6 months
and then sit waiting for WCAG to be ready. We can use the time to build test
suites, etc. Perhaps long Proposed CR period.

ALL: Agreed to extend deadline and solicit reviews.

KM: Suggest 1 week to solicit groups, and then they have 3 weeks to respond.

ALL: Agreed that we contact as many as possible by Friday Jan. 25, and they
can respond latest Feb. 18th.

JT: We can use Judy Brewer's mail as a method for contacting groups.

TB: We need to coordinate who contacts who. 

MM: Will send out list and keep tabs of some of the major groups.

>> 2. Face to Face planning

JT: Previously discussed San Francisco again due to a special Sun think-tank
on e-learning taking place there. Meeting coordination with them not
possible. Looking at Dallas April 7-8 now. We really need to do our test
suite and the greatest involvement is necessary to get the most done.

GP, MM, BF, TB, JT could attend in person, and most likely JR as well. KM by

JT: ACTION ITEM: Settle F2F. Will try to find host, as well as some
developers to participate in our meeting.

(Washington, D.C. is also an alternative possibility.)

>> 3. Review techniques gaps and problems as per action items assigned
during last teleconference.

TB: Should we have 2 techniques for each success criteria?
JT: Good idea.
BF: When due?
JT: 2 weeks time. Just go through the sections and look for any possible
gaps in the techniques (as discussed a while back. Review due in two weeks,
then we start addressing any issues that come up. This is 

>> 4. Other


<end of minutes>
Received on Monday, 24 January 2005 22:47:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:52 UTC