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

Minutes from 12 June 2000 telecon

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:29:02 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000612112656.04f3eac0@localhost>
To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Available at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/minutes/20000612.html

Also included here:

12 June 2000 ER WG Telecon
Summary of action items and resolutions
Consensus: we will focus on tools that evaluate content rather than tools 
that evaluate tools.
Action: WC take to AU: we're looking at content. we're going to develop a 
test suite to evaluate content. This will help AU tools evaluate ATAG 
checkpoints that apply to WCAG content. If you want to include ATAG tests 
in the test suites, then AU needs to do that work.
Action WC send notes to people with open action items.
Action DB: Forward info about the FrontPage Accessibility Wizard to ER. Get 
more info.
Action: everyone to comment before next meeting.
Action: WC add test suite to deliverables.
Resolution: Replace the "example language" sections in AERT with link to a 
tool (as an example) or to text with in WCAG (rationale).
Action WC: propose to CG that ER meets with AU, UA, and WCAG on a monthly 
rotation such that ER has one joint meeting per month and 3 solo meetings.
Action WC, CR, MC, BM think more about how to save state information during 
an evaluation session. Put on the agenda for the 17 July meeting.
Resolved: Next week's meeting cancelled. Next meeting is 26 June.
Participants
William Loughborough
Harvey Bingham
Wendy Chisholm
Chris Ridpath
Dick Brown
Michael Cooper
Brian Matheny
Regrets
Len Kasday
Action items
WC I had an action item from the joint AU/ER meeting: WC take idea of other 
types of evaluation tools for ER. What exactly do we mean by evaluation? 
Does it include evaluation of tools or limited to evaluation of content?
CR our work is based on WCAG and therefore on content and not on tools.
WC CMN made an interesting point that if AU and UA become the interest 
groups for ER WG, that the division between the groups seems to be: "IGs" 
create normative guidelines, ER creates tools and documents techniques. 
therefore if an "IG" needs a tool they come to us.
WL Putting a tool on our list is an evaluation?
CR we put it there but not evaluating it.
WL we're not putting an evaluation in any other way.
DB Not sure we should evaluate tools. Not sure what we would base our 
measures on.
WL conformance testing. We are publishing reports on authoring tools.
DB that's how it conforms to AU guidelines.
WL The only tools that we could evaluate on this list are tools that are 
evaluators of themselves.
Consensus: we will focus on tools that evaluate content rather than tools 
that evaluate tools.
HB valuable to annotate each of the tools as we have done.
WL We're evaluating but not rating.
CR if we're just looking at content, we do look at tools. Where does Bobby 
fit in? It's not an authoring tool but it's evaluation.
WL It's on our list.
WC combining tool list with AU. therefore, bobby included in with those.
WL The question on the table is do we evaluate tools.
MC I like the idea of tool developers evaluating their own tools. If we 
have a set of test pages for people to run the pages against, that will add 
consistency across the evaluations.
HB We add to the suite of tests.
WL That in itself is a tool.
MC That is another representation of the AERT guidelines. We describe, this 
is what a tool should do and if done correctly this is what the result of 
the test suite should be.
HB Then anyone who has built a tool could contribute their test suites.
WC Are we suggesting that we will build a test suite? If so, does it 
include AU stuff?
MB For AERT we are dealing with an HTML page, ATAG goes beyond that.
HB If in evaluating a document, if we could identify what tool was used to 
produce it, we could report that in the evaluation of the page.
MC We've discussed that recently. The reason for doing it is that if you 
discover that tool X generates alt-text incorrectly in one way, you could 
easily search for tool generated problems.
HB also an AU issue.
WL Perhaps a Priority 3 guideline in WCAG to identify what tool you use to 
produce.
HB However evaluation tools may strip that and insert that they created.
WC Variety of ways that they can include who created it. META, comment, or 
DOCTYPE.
Action: WC take to AU: we're looking at content. we're going to develop a 
test suite to evaluate content. This will help AU tools evaluate ATAG 
checkpoints that apply to WCAG content. If you want to include ATAG tests 
in the test suites, then AU needs to do that work.
MC Reason we use test pages rather than URIs is that URIs might get fixed 
and then we'll lose our test.
WL Does Bobby use something like that?
MC in theory, yes still working on.
Action items from face2face
WC 21 action items! Many people are not here.
Action WC send notes to people with open action items.
WC accessibility wizard in FrontPage. Dick?
DB Recently seen e-mail, will forward some info on the ER. Been bouncing 
around for a while.
Action DB: Forward info about the FrontPage Accessibility Wizard to ER. Get 
more info.
Charter
Action: everyone to comment before next meeting.
Action: WC add test suite to deliverables.
Relationship with AU
WC reads from charter.
HB naive to think that we'll describe all of the algorithms that will be 
used. What we describe are those that demonstrate what can be done not all 
the possibilities.
/* silence. people want to look at off-line */
ATAG-TECHS and AERT harmonization
WC Want to point to a concrete example of how we might do this.
CR Example language is helpful.
WC Don't see how we're going to do this.
WL We're the examples for their techniques. Example language could just be 
example tools.
WC What if we point to tools and say, here's what they say, or if we point 
to WCAG and say here's the rationale.
Resolution: Replace the "example language" sections in AERT with link to a 
tool (as an example) or to text with in WCAG (rationale).
Relationship with WCAG?
CR we're setting up a relationship with AU, should we also set up one with 
WCAG? It seems very important for us to be involved in the work on WCAG 2.0
WC Has everyone looked at WCAG 2.0 Requirements doc? "2. Ensure that the 
minimal conformance requirements are clear " is most applicable. Joint 
meetings?
CR reluctant to increase meetings.
WC agreed. If we meet too much we won't get any work done.
Action WC: propose to CG that ER meets with AU, UA, and WCAG on a monthly 
rotation such that ER has one joint meeting per month and 3 solo meetings.
Save state of information
CR when we ask a user to confirm something, like is this a table for layout 
or data? Where is that info stored in the document or external?
WC Does there have to be one way or a few that are interoperable.
CR A few ways. But do we want to get into that?
WL what stage is RDF at? could we use it?
CR HTML could do that. perhaps "longdesc=""" means not required.
WL Same type of effort to make it a recommendation. That's a fundamental 
addendum.
CR It will bloat everyone's document. We would encounter resistance.
WL Legacy issue also a problem.
WC Suggest prototyping to see what feedback we get.
Action WC, CR, MC, BM think more about how to save state information during 
an evaluation session. Put on the agenda for the 17 July meeting.
Meeting next week
WC I am not available, Len also has sent regrets.
WL We can celebrate emancipation day.
Resolved: Next week's meeting cancelled. Next meeting is 26 June.

$Date: 2000/06/12 15:16:51 $ Wendy Chisholm
--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--
Received on Monday, 12 June 2000 11:21:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:36 GMT