W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > April 2000

Please review: proposed agenda for ER/AU f2f

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 11:22:56 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org, w3c-wai-au@w3.org

Based on last week's ER WG discussion the rough agenda is:
Thursday: work through open issues with ERT (brainstorm), set goals, create 
Friday: joint meeting with AU WG. Strategize, demonstrate tools, plan.

I've tried to fill in more detail.  Please comment.

9-9:15 intro's

9:15-10:30 ERT
-Checkpoint 12.3 - Divide large blocks of information into more manageable 
groups where natural and appropriate
-Checkpoint 13.3 - Provide information about the general layout of a site
-Checkpoint 13.4 - Use navigation mechanisms in a consistent manner

10:30-10:45 break

10:45-12:00 ERT
-Checkpoint 13.5 - Provide navigation bars to highlight and give access to 
the navigation mechanism
-Checkpoint 13.8 - Place distinguishing information at the beginning of 
headings, paragraphs, lists, etc
-Checkpoint 14.1 - Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a 
site's content

12:00-1:00 lunch

1:00-2:30 ERT
-Checkpoint 14.2 - Supplement text with graphic or auditory presentations 
where they will facilitate comprehension of the page
-General scripting discussion: when is it used? when can you replace 
scripts with  HTML on the page itself?  when is it possible to push the 
functionality it to the server?
-Technique 1.1.11 [priority 1] Check A elements for valid text content
@@handled by technique 13.1.1 - verify that targets are clearly identified? 
What else do we need to check for?
-Technique 2.2.1 [priority 3] Test the color attributes of the following 
elements for visibility. ... Requirement: Determine color 
visibility.@@needs work?

2:30-2:45 break

2:45-3:45 ERT
-Technique 3.7.1 [priority 2] Verify instances where quote markup should be 
used. ... Lots of emphasized text (greater than x words??@@)
-Technique 5.5.2 [priority 2] Check TABLE elements for valid CAPTION 
element. ... Requirement: @@
-Technique 6.2.1 [priority 1] Check the source of FRAME and IFRAME elements 
for valid markup files. ... @Adjust Javascript to point inside the wrapper?
-Technique 6.2.2 [priority 1] Verify that equivalents of dynamic content 
are updated and available as often as the dynamic content. ... 
Requirements: any actions that change the display must change the 
equivalent @@Is this computable in a practical time (cf. NP complete) . 
Computer science help needed here. Of course, as in other parts of 
document, the fact that the equivalent changes is no guarantee that 
equivalent is correct than it is guaranteed that "alt" text for an image is 

3:45 -4:00 break

4:00-5:00 planning
What needs to be done?  Who is going to do it?  Assign action items.

Friday (with AU)
9-9:30 intros, overview of yesterday, getting people on the same page.

Techniques discussion.
Reviewing commonalities between AU Techniques and ERT Techniques.  Sharing 
information about open issues and common problems.  How should these two 
documents relate to each other?
Refer to the ATAG1.0 Techniques:  http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WD-ATAG10-TECHS
and the ERT Techniques:  http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/

10:30-10:45 break

Tool discussion.
Review commonalities between AU and ERT tools.  Share information about 
implementations, implementors, needs.  Has AU identified techniques that ER 
has found implmentations of?  Who works with the implementor to see that 
techniques are included?

12:00-1:00 lunch

1:00-2:30 Demos and discussion
Allaire HomeSite
W3C HTML Validator

2:30-2:45 break

2:45-3:45 Strategizing
What is the most efficient way for out two groups to work together?
We've both been realizing overlap in goals and resources. How should we 
handle this?

(proposed draft) ER WG
The mission of the Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ER WG) is:
to document techniques for creating Evaluation and Repair Tools;
to find tools that implement the techniques and where there are none, 
prototype or participate in the development of an implementation;
to assess the implementation of these techniques in evaluation and repair 
to provide a discussion forum to review and collaborate on tool development.

To complete the development of accessibility guidelines for authoring 
tools, and to perform initial assessment of implementation of these 
guidelines by authoring tool manufacturers. These guidelines should address 
how authoring tools can:
provide author support for creating accessible Web documents;
ensure an accessible user interface for authors with disabilities.
Assessment of implementation is expected to allow improvement to the 
supporting documents produced by the group, and if necessary to begin 
revision of the guidelines themselves.

3:45 -4:00 break

4:00-5:00 Planning
What needs to be done? Assign action items.  Resolve outstanding 
coordination issues.

---Other open issues that could be discussed on Thursday

- Technique 6.4.1 [priority 2] Check for device independent event handlers. 
... Requirements: Objects must not contain device dependent event handlers. 
@@Does this mean checking Java, Flash, etc? Can we only do this for 
scripting? Or prompt the author to check?
- Technique 6.5.2 [priority 2] @@Need something for scripts and 
programmatic objects?
@@ is this covered by 6.3.1 (Verify that the page is usable when 
programmatic objects are disabled)?
- Technique 7.3.2 [priority 1] Verify that programmatic objects do not 
create moving content. ... @@ what about OBJECT, EMBED, and APPLET?
- Technique 9.3.1 [priority 2] Check scripts for logical event handlers ... 
"onMouseMove" remove or replace with ??@@
- Technique 10.3.1 [priority 3] Verify that a linearized version of tables 
used for layout is provided. ... Suggested repair:
If it has been determined that the table is used for layout (see Technique 
5.1.1) then create a linear version of the table by: [@@insert heuristics 
from table linearizer - basically replace TABLE markup with text structural 
markup]. The author will then need to check that it is readable.
If it has been determined that the table is used for data (see Technique 
5.1.1) then create a linear version of the table by: [@@table linearizer 
heuristics? basically, for each cell repeat the column and row headers 
associated with it]. The author will then need to check that it is readable.
- Technique 11.1.1 [priority 2] Verify that W3C technologies are used, 
where possible and appropriate. ... Element: ?@@
Check for uses of non-W3C technologies such as: PDF, Flash, GIF images, JPG 
images, proprietary HTML elements (@@other major ones??).
@@link See 1.1.1 for images used for mathematical equations.
Note. I left out JavaScript because there is not a W3C equivalent 
technology yet.
- Technique 11.3.1 [priority 3] Check that documents are served per user 
preferences. ... Element: ?@@
Requirement: ?@@
- Checkpoint 12.2 - Describe the purpose of frames and how frames relate to 
each other if it is not obvious by frame titles alone
@@ covered by 1.1.8?
@@Suggest that if the FRAME "title" does not describe the frame that a 
"longdesc" is needed?
- Technique 13.9.1 [priority 3] Verify that information about document 
collections is provided. ... Elements: @@? LINK, A
- Technique 14.3.1 [priority 3] Verify that a consistent style of 
presentation is used across pages. ... @@This requires looking at pages 
throughout the site. Need two levels of checking: page vs site?
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
Received on Friday, 21 April 2000 11:14:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:30 UTC