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

Minutes from AUWG Teleconference on Monday February 14, 2005

From: Karen Mardahl <karen@mardahl.dk>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 23:47:26 +0100
To: <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <007601c512e7$28922960$0401a8c0@karen>

MINUTES from AUWG Teleconference on Monday, February 14, 2005

Attendees

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

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

>>1. Beginning of revision of Guidelines based on reviews.

Review comments have (nearly) all been moved to Bugzilla:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/ 
(Search for product ATAG, component ATAG 2.0.)
We can work from here from now on as it will make it easy to identify and
track our issues.

Focus is on ATAG itself, not the guidelines, just now, so we only spent a
short time on bug 974 from TB, who points out the need for consistency in
our presentation in the Techniques doc. This is because accessibility also
means predictability, i.e. how information is presented and
cross-referenced, and so on.

Most of call related to bug issues 976, 1120, and 1125, which all relate to
ISO.

976 relates to mapping between ISO and ATAG. ISO has 2 priorities, we have
3. ISO removed primary, so now there is only core and secondary. If we
remove primary, then we have the following mapping:
L1 - core
L3 - core and secondary

Question is: can we just say that L2 maps to core? 
This has impact on TB working on test suite. TB will contact Roberto Scano
for info on what happened to primary. JT will investigate as well.

Bug 1120 refers to Section 508. There are those who feel 508-compliance can
be more relevant than ISO, because it is complete, as opposed to the ISO
document, which is still a work in progress. And this is from a US
perspective. 

Another question that has been raised elsewhere: Why are we writing a doc
that covers both software and output issues? You cannot avoid WCAG if you
are working with web accessibility. Not so clear cut for those working with
authoring tools. There can be numerous references. Should the developer be
able to state up front which standards they reference? This was regarded as
a bad direction to move in. Should we somehow group UAAG and WCAG and
Guideline 1 to permit a vendor-supplied reference to other standards?

JR: Perhaps we will end up being legislation-driven like WCAG. 

JT: Are we talking about 1 or 2 documents now? Can we have a coherent
argument for this with inherent benefits and issues that may arise? And what
user-interface reference should we reference. How do we tackle software
accessibility when not web-based?

JR/MM: will write summaries on these issues that arose in the discussion of
our compliance with ISO.

>>2. Face to Face planning

JT: There are some complications with the April 7th-8th venue in Dallas with
regard to the e-Learning 2005 conference. We wanted to meet with vendors,
but it is not easy to coordinate. Some are willing to host at a later date.
One possibility is in the greater Toronto area. JT is working on this with
help from Matt, and we should know by Feb 15th whether it will be in Dallas
at least.

>>3. Other

TB will be at Technical Plenary in 2 weeks' time in Boston. Can meet with
others there or ??

Next phone call is Feb. 21st.

<end of minutes>
Received on Monday, 14 February 2005 22:47:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:05 GMT