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

Minutes from AUWG Teleconference on Monday March 14, 2005

From: Karen Mardahl <karen@mardahl.dk>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:51:51 +0100
To: <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c528e8$69ba06d0$0401a8c0@karen>

MINUTES from AUWG Teleconference on Monday, March 14, 2005


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

JT: Jutta Treviranus

>1. F2F date setting.

Everyone present (and Jutta) seem to be fine with April 28-29 as mentioned:
KM will phone in. Other participants are from "Desire to Learn" and Canadian

JT will need to request exception re: 8 wks notice for meetings.

Will be held in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada. Travel and hotel info will
follow later.

>2. Discussion and assignment of work items from the last call:

Item (1) To get a proposed rewording of the bundling clause...

TB has commented on list.
JR: Just because a tool only covers some steps in a workflow, shouldn't
prevent it from being ATAG-conformant.
TB: A tool could seek conformance on its own, or be included in a process
(with other tools) and the process could be conformant. These details would
need to be worked out.
JR: Tool requirements vs. process requirements? With bundling, you need to
specify which checkpoints are covered by which tool. Could identify process
and then tools in process. This would be identified as "the bundle" that
would be aiming for conformance. This leads to 

Item (4) To get a proposal for looks at how the priorities might be
around a single tool vs. whole process standpoint.

JR: Had action to to examine more closely, and in response to TB, tried to
include this.

BF: Leads to question, how do we give tools partial credit? Don't want to
ignore it. Manual options seem to be an escape clause.
TB: Do we encourage tool developers to aim for higher standards, or do we
reflect current market conditions?

JR: Combination, just like UAAG and WCAG. We have relatively low entry

TB: Factors that drive bundling? Market?
JR: E.g. 2 tools working on their own. One discovers that bundled with other
tool, can make a conformant process that is ATAG compliant - and without the
other even knowing about it. This is not necessarily an attempt to make
developers make business with others.

JR: RE. manual methods of checking, etc. Wouldn't those looking for bundling
partners want someone who can do things automated, rather than manual?

BF: Partial credit could be granular. At the level of the four guideline.

Item (3) To get a proposal to bring in UAAG and WCAG (for Web based tools)
as a 
stand-in for ISO16071...

We looked at Matt's work
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2005JanMar/0059.html) and it
looks like good potential in this idea.

Item (5) BR and GP to undertake to provide the group with assessments of how
primary tools (DreamWeaver, GoLive or Acrobat) do against ATAG. Due Mar. 21.
=> Jan to ask BF if he would like to join this effort.
BF: Yes.

BF: Note, too, a new free web project being developed:
Might be nice to get this assessed but it would be huge task.

Most important action items that need to be covered.
1) Can we get UAAG/WCAG to replace ISO16071?
2) Bundling - what are the different requirements, ideas about partial
credits (BF), testing.

JR: We need people to take on action items. Good if two people can take up
an item and discuss on list as JR and TB did with bundling. Opens up

KM: Losing overview due to all ideas coming in from all directions. Will try
to set up guidelines that include the many ideas to try to put things in

JR: Don't forget bugzilla. Find a bug that you can work on!

>3. Including the new bundling proposal:

Discussed in Agenda 2.

Next phone call March 21st.)

<end of minutes>
Received on Monday, 14 March 2005 22:51:50 UTC

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