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

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

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:42:47 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000421124149.00bc0100@localhost>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org, w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Charles,

we may want to have some discussion on the ERT with the AU group, however 
if you look at the list of issues we wish to cover these are addressing 
basic holes in the ERT.  The list of issues are checkpoints for which we 
have *no* techniques at this time.

--wendy

At 12:08 PM 4/21/00 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>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

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--
Received on Friday, 21 April 2000 12:34:24 GMT

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