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

Re: Please review: proposed agenda for ER/AU f2f

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:08:08 -0400 (EDT)
To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org, w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0004211207070.11944-100000@tux.w3.org>
Hello,

it would seem to make more sense to do the brainstorming on ERT in
conjunction with the AU group. I am not sure how many AU people are coming
for one day and how many for both days.

cheers

Charles

On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:

  Hello,
  
  Based on last week's ER WG discussion the rough agenda is:
  Thursday: work through open issues with ERT (brainstorm), set goals, create 
  plan.
  Friday: joint meeting with AU WG. Strategize, demonstrate tools, plan.
  
  I've tried to fill in more detail.  Please comment.
  
  Thursday
  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 
  correct.
  
  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.
  
  9:30-10:30
  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
  
  10:45-12:00
  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
  A-prompt
  Allaire HomeSite
  Bobby
  W3C HTML Validator
  Schematron
  Tablin
  WAVE
  others?
  
  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
  http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/erwg-charter.html
  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 
  tools;
  to provide a discussion forum to review and collaborate on tool development.
  
  AU WG
  http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/charter3
  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: ?@@
  Requirements:
  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
  /--
  

--
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia 
Received on Friday, 21 April 2000 12:08:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:35 GMT