W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > May 1999

Minutes April 23 Telecon

From: Leonard R. Kasday <kasday@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 21:14:14 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Minutes of ER Teleconference April 23 1999

Note: the dashed lines were added to the minutes to separate topics and
Topic headings were also added and are preceded by *

Daniel Dardailler
William Loughborough
Harvey Bingham
Chris Ridpath 
Bruce Bailey
Bill Shackleton
Len Kasday (Notetaker for this telecon)
Marja-Riitta Koivunen
Michael Cooper CAST (provider of Bobby)
David Clark    CAST     

10 total

Next Meeting [confirmed subsequent to telecon]

 Monday, May 3, from
11am-12:30pm, on the MIT bridge (+1-617-258-7910).

Agenda will be continuing discussion on Evaluation/Bobby.


*  Agenda and Status of Bobby. 

Daniel: agenda: evaluation part of ER.
Looking at Bobby.  Looking for short-term plan for Bobby, also medium term
plan for cooperation with ER to improve product.  We should separate User
Interface from functionality and relation to guidelines.

Michael:  No official release date yet.  Hope to synchronize with W3C
guidelines.  Targeting couple more weeks. Changing way reports organized.
Will have priority 1 accessibility errors.  Will  include  Bobby Plus,
which Bobby can't check.  Will make it clear you have to manually check
alerts in Bobby Plus before Bobby Approved. 

Status.  Then section for priority 2 and priority 3. Not planning on
different levels of Bobby approval, but each section will hopefully
correspond to WAI conformance level.  Perhaps will have Bobby approval
ratings then.  Still has hat markup.  Still has statistics at bottom.  This
makes timeline uncertain.  Will announce today that will be released in
"near future".


*  Bobby Approved Icon and W3C Icon 

Daniel; so Bobby will check all P1, will check as much as possible
automatically, and add manual checks.  Will it be different icon than W3C's
A, AA, AAA icon?  Will be integrated with W3C icon.

Michael: no discussion yet on icon

Bill S:.  Suggesting two different icons for page?  Bobby and W3C?

Daniel: yes. Could be. W3C are independent of Bobby.  W3C are what author
claims for conformance. Could be done with or without software.  They are
same if Bobby means conformance A. 

Bill: So eventually they may line up more?

Michael: yes.  Given manual items too.  Will check more.  Theoretically
should mean same thing.  Bobby Approved means have used Bobby. Hate to hear
that W3C icon doesn't necessarily mean Bobby

Daniel: do you mean that you don't have icons meaning same thing

Bill S:: I  looked over lens point 4.  We'll emphasize more strongly that
it's approved only after manual check. 

Harvey.  How many pages have Bobby approved?

David: maybe 500

Len: What if a person used an authoring tool to make a compliant page.
Would they then have to run Bobby to list the Bobby approved icon?

Michael: We don't require people to actually use Bobby to say Bobby approved. 

Bruce Bailey:  Some RFP's have put in language that pages must satisfy
Bobby approved.  Some language requires W3C validation.  But does
validation for W3C  require W3C validator?

Daniel:  W3C just has HTML validation.  HTML validity is independent of
actually using validator.  Can claim conformance without going through

David: till now we very clear that it's authors determination  on honor
system if you've met spirit can use. 

Len: you mean never required pass Bobby checker

David:  we don't monitor  its up to author

Michael: This was done  in response to known bugs or banners where author
has no control.

David:  yes but also false negatives e.g. frame  that are not bugs but are
other issues.

Daniel: Lets defer this discussion to conformance gurus Judy Gregg etc.  I
feel it's a problem to have different icons mean the same thing. Worse
having icons mean different things for same problem.  Still favor set of
Bobby approved icons that clearly indicate conformance with W3C guidelines.
 In WAI must point to version of guidelines tailored to precise claim.  So
since claims are different, but similar, should relate to each other.  

Daniel: re existing Bobby approved page.  Is there any standard way to give

David: For a little while did have two icons, one for Bobby 2 and one for
Bobby 3, which implemented HTML 4.0 std but we ended up backtracking for
Bobby approved.

Bill: S: Can we require accessibility to get HTML 4 approval? 
William L.: can't because HTML 4 is objective and WAI isn't objective.

Daniel: would different icons for different version help?

Michael: can do no problem.  Can simply add to standard:

Len: obviously alt text for the icon must change too. 

Michael: correct.

Daniel: so we have better idea of overall strategy.  Will address
conformance in WAI conformance group, e.g. distribute icon together.  


*  Table of what checkpoints can be checked automatically,  or be done with
computer-aided manual checking          

Daniel: For short term planing for Bobby, lets just look at UI.  For medium
term, lets talk about what sort of framework to track UI and functionality.
  One option is to have use checkpoints table in guidelines for tracking
all checkpoints and come up with table to track which can be automatically
or not.

Len. We should also add a column to whether software can help manual checking

Daniel.  Agree. Can check part of it syntactically. Therefore, you want bit
to show that manual checking can be aided..

Len: yes.

Daniel: wants feedback from CAST did you look at page I sent in response to
message from David: where we specify which checkpoints are automatable. URL
is http://www.W3C.org/wai/er/evalauto
It just replaces last columns of guidelines checkpoints with more specific
info what can be auto checked.

Bill S:. perfect way to do since its starting from the source   Helps scope

Daniel: yes. On CAST side we have a table comparing Bobby to WAI guidelines
and techniques [note added after meeting: this is

Michael: I think the table is up to date.

Daniel: ER would replace CAST table that gives WAI technique with table
that gives checkpoints with level of Bobby support

David: your table documents what the current status is. I think ER could
offer second and third table and see if there's any way to more fully check.

Len: you mean you want algorithms  

Daniel: last column would link  to technique document by ER on how to
check.  Like text equivalent for altifier.  

David: speaking as member of ER not member of CAST interpreting what ER
should be looking at, I think that  is in the charter.

Daniel: Yes it's inside our charter.  But if evaluation software will not
use makes no sense to do.  So want commitment in long term to use our
techniques as input.

Michael: definitely will be using as input.  We already know there are
issues and need help.  Will be rewriting parser to support DOM.  Will give

Len: Will there be an open architecture to plug in other algorithms

Michael: yes in Bobby 4.0 in year hopefully.

Bill: can we set up table with writable access to discussion where members
have posted suggestions?

Daniel: this is not how our document works.  Usually we have editors and
discussion happens in working group.  Mailing lists accessible. However,
solution via consensus is written by editor.  Can have open issue lists 

Len: Can we have links from table to threads in mailing list

Daniel: Sure done in WAI PF all the time .  But no free input yet.

Len: Are the guideline numbers stable?  Could use in  subject lines.

Daniel: yes we can have subject line convention to make easier

David: we talking about issue document?

Daniel: yes.  Tracks not just consensus but also suggestion of the week.
Table is resource.  CAST participation can use table as input to table and
also participate into creating table.  Best to have experts guiding us.
Makes it better focussed.  So David and Michael would be providing

Harvey:  Michael, could you look at  the list and fill in the columns

Michael: yes need to do in context of current Bobby and Bobby with new
parser. Current parser does one tag at a time not structure.  Suggest start
fresh for new parser.

Len: yes best in order to focus resources.

Len. Could we hear about capabilities of new Bobby to guide us?

Michael: no info now. Will implement Document Object Model.  Parser will be
richer will have more properties.  But mostly to make it easier to write
report.  Will present as we go.


*  User Interface Issues 

Daniel.  Lets discuss UI issues.

Lens email


Issue 1.  Background image etc. makes text unreadable.  

Michael. Completely remove or write white?

Daniel. Provide background for just Bobby text. With style sheets.

David: still question about not all Browsers support style sheets. And also
then what is benefit of mimicking page?  Why not do just text only

Len: If we had text only it would need to point to the part of the page
where errors appear

David: Clicking on hat goes to error but error has multiple instances

Daniel: looking at page see a bunch of hats, bunch of errors, so just
stopping background would help. Could do with frame to keep separate.

Michael. Whatever we do has to work on online and downloadable version.
Better for one window.

Len: but can produce HTML so exactly the same

Michael: downloadable version uses browser on system but can also use built
in browser which may not support frames sufficiently.

Daniel: Consider  black background

David: my view problem is that author defined background without defining
text color.  If they did then text would show.
Daniel: but background is two stripes dark and light on right.  Author does
corresponding text to show against background.  So for Bobby half would be

Len: Could we fix that by showing Bobby text against background of table?

Daniel: we've got the issue.  Lets work offline to figure out how to force
background at bottom.


Issue 2: This is about the way the HTML with the problem is identified.
Non HTML writer want to get English

Len: and visual pointer to visual page.

Daniel: not something I'm strong about
Daniel: I'd like a backlink. E.g when it says avoid ASCII art don't know
where they come from.  no mention of line even  one instance not clickable

Michael. If there's just one instance it can be just a general tip.  The
problem doesn't necessarily appear in the code.

David: Questions and tips are general and can't be tied to particular code
for them

William L. but if they aren't there its confusing to say one instance

Michael: will be section in which Bobby can't check automatically will
remove one instance stuff

William L. download time goes to wrong place.

Bill: how tightly coupled is UI to the backend

Michael: a little of both. Separate but also dependent on examination logic.

Len: can you have backlink

Michael: can do wherever there is Bobby hat.

William L: when you have percentages instead of absolute dimensions can you
light up that?

Michael: maybe

Harvey sometimes can see 10 or 100 hats

William L. what does  hat with plus mean?

 Bill: can you evolve into pseudo authoring tool?  You'd click hat and it
would open box to fix the problem.

Michael: Chris, please jump in with a-prompt to connect repair to Bobby 

Chris: a-prompt trying to do.

Maria suggest different hats for different errors for tips, errors,

Len: have number next to hat

Michael: will be changing.  Plus hats checkpoint priority 1 that Bobby
can't check but can point to.

Bruce: can you put in comment to tell Bobby to ignore?


Michael: are you looking for more interactive way?

Bruce: W3C HTML checker us good in that click on logo validates page.  

William L. but Bobby result puts reader through hoops.  Not good for readers.

Daniel: proposed before can do it now but not promoted 

Bruce: need to get rid of judgment things [in report output from clicking
on logo]
Michael.  Will have documentation.  Nice to suppress report. 

Len. But have disclaimer that check is not complete; that judgment calls
still need to be made

Michael: will play with.


Daniel: On a page you can get "no longdesc" for 10 images and "no D link"
for 4 images. Why aren't they the same?  Why not fold into one?

Michael: Isn't d link fallback that you need even if there is longdesc?

Daniel: yes need to have to both all the time

Michael.  Can have in one item 

Len: can you detect when there isn't a D link?

Michael: not with current parser don't know-if d link near etc.


Maria: which part of page to hats refer to? 

Michael: all are placed before offending element.

Maria: How about all hats in one box for one element

Michael: some can be collapsed.


Daniel: what's deadline for comments?

Michael: next Friday April 30 deadline for comments on user interface.
Other comments welcome anytime.


Daniel: For handling firewalls, be able to upload file.

David: older version had option. A while ago

Michael: not in 3.1 release but possible later.

Toronto face to face another call couple of weeks after 3.1 released. 

Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
Universal Design Engineer, Institute on Disabilities/UAP, and
Adjunct Professor, Electrical Engineering
Temple University

Ritter Hall Annex, Room 423, Philadelphia, PA 19122
(215} 204-2247 (voice)
(800) 750-7428 (TTY)
Received on Sunday, 2 May 1999 21:12:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:28 UTC