W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > February 2001

06 February 2001 ERT/AU telecon meeting

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 18:40:32 -0500
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20010206183938.00bedb20@localhost>
To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org, w3c-wai-au@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/2001/02/06-minutes.html

06 February 2001 ERT/AU telecon meeting
Summary of resolutions and action items
       Resolved: AU will discuss XML authoring tools at the 20 February 
2001 meeting. Lauren will attend.
       Resolved: no change to checkpoints in ATAG concerning checking for 
accessibility issues. Interpretation of how this applies to a variety of 
tools is as minuted here and discussed in ATAG 1.0.
       Resolved: ATAG Techniques are not normative and should contain as 
many ideas as possible, therefore open to all suggestions by ERT WG. It is 
up to ERT WG to decide how to pass info on to AU WG and what info to pass 
for inclusion in ATAG-TECHS.
       Action CMN: get a genuine answer in the next day about telephone 
participation at the face to face meetings.
       Resolved: next joint meeting is the face to face, 1 March. After 
that, the next joint meeting is Tuesday, 3 April 2001.

Participants
       Lisa Mauldin (MS), Lauren Wood (Softquad), Len Kasday (Temple Uni), 
Chris Ridpath (ATRC), Wendy Chisholm (W3C), Mathias (Adobe), Jan Richards 
(ATRC), Jutta Treviranus (ATRC), Gregory Rosmaita, Charles McCathieNevile 
(W3C), Harvey Bingham, William Loughborough

XML Authoring
JT We are working on 2 deliverables. 1 - issues for next version. 2 - 
organize techniques into various views. As part of 2 we've been looking at 
various authoring tools. One suggestion is XML tools. How well does our 
document handle XML tools.
/* lauren leaves */
Resolved: AU will discuss XML authoring tools at the 20 February 2001 
meeting. Lauren will attend.

AERT integration into ATAG-TECHS
LK We have a variety of techniques, some are heuristics. How will these be 
handled in AU to determine a level of compliance?
GJR So far, the need to repair has driven the priority rather than how 
complex or difficult it is.
CMN The priority is primarily based on WCAG priority in terms of what have 
to do.
WC Not level of priority, concern over normative vs. informative. 
Techniques are informative. AERT is smorgasbord of informative stuff.
CMN To be normative, have to demonstrate that if you don't do it access is 
not possible.
GJR Example is the alt-text registry.
CMN For most of the ATAG life we said, you must be able to configure 
prompting. We dropped that since it was not a requirement for accessibility.
WC Does this answer our concern, LK, that we can suggest anything for 
inclusion in ATAG-TECHS?
GJR Oh, your question is if AERT become normative?
LK The simplest test is to check alt attribute to see if alt-text is 
present. Do I have to do that to conform to ATAG?
CMN No, can give the author a note that says, "Please check this."
LK All an author has to do is to have a single sentence that says, "please 
make sure that everything in WCAG is satisfied."
GJR There is also guiding the author, providing documentation, alerting. 
It's both these are things the tool does, and other things the author needs 
to be aware of. What if you have a tool that includes a copy of WCAG, does 
that conform? no.
CMN No, that does not meet the requirement. For example, what Bobby does: 
here is what we've checked, here is what we have not checked. That would 
pass. There are automatic checks that tools may not implement. If you say, 
"make it accessible" that is not checking the problems but telling the 
author to deal with it.
JT The criteria is that the tool will create an accessible page and should 
therefore be an integrated part of the tool. Dependent on user interface of 
the tool.
GJR Feedback from developers has been that rolling AERT into ATAG-TECHS 
gives guidance that they felt was missing.
LK If I create an authoring tool and it does not flag images without 
alt-text, can i do that?
JR OK to have manual checks, that's not the same as "go to WCAG" as long as 
you have an itemized check.
LK You could have a wizard and each dialog box quotes a WCAG checkpoint, 
and it says, "check that all images have alt-text." once click OK button, 
get next quote.
JR Yes.
LK That's not much more that pointing to WCAG.
JR It's less than a providing a list.
GJR No, that fails. It has not looked at your document.
CMN No, it's walking you through WCAG step-by-step.
LK Some people want to see all in a checklist.
JR What would people rather see?
LK In terms of passing ATAG, this will pass.
JT It would not be integrated into the user interface.
JR But that's a different checkpoint.
GJR Integration is essential.
LK This is an extreme example, and someone wouldn't want to do this. This 
sounds to me that we aren't requiring any automatic checks.
WC This is just a test case to determine that any crazy-automatic check 
that the ERT WG may suggest to AU for inclusion in ATAG-TECHS will not be 
required by anyone to implement.
JR There is a special checkpoint that says you have to prompt for alt-text.
JT Right, Techniques are not normative.
GJR Are there any places in ATAG 1.0 where stronger verbiage is needed, 
like the special checkpoint for text equivalents. For example, the minimums 
in UAAG.
LK My personal opinion is that if you have a checkpoint for evaluation 
techniques, then it ought to have some substance. e.g. checking that alt 
attributes exist.
GJR We ought to attach this from both points of view. UAAG says "these are 
the things that must be exposed" and ATAG then says, "these are the things 
that must be checked or included."
LK There is a checkpoint that says, "detect automatically where possible."
GJR More comfortable with minimums or maximums?
JT The developers feel strongly that that is difficult. Dependent on the 
style of the interface. Not enough developer freedom.
WC That's what they always say. <grin/>
GJR They are balancing deadlines and all kinds of pressures.
JT Authoring tools are too varied. Can't generalize.
WL MS Word can save a document as HTML. To accomodate 508, MS could take 
that feature out and say "We don't have to worry about ATAG-like issues now."
LM The principal is that any product that saves as HTML will be market 
driven. NotePad saves as HTML, will it incorporate a process? Probably not, 
due to the robustness of the product and the purpose of it. We'll look more 
at VisualStudio - authoring environments.
LK 4.1 says, "check for accessibility problems"
HB Where possible.
LK Do developers like that kind of requirement or does it leave them 
never-knowing when they have satisfied it?
GJR Techniques will eventually lead you to AERT where it clearly says what 
can and can not be automated. Give them a variety of choices.
LK In effect, this says, "implement everything that is an automatic check 
in AERT?"
JR "Where possible" it doesn't say "where possible to automatically do it."
LK Where you have the development resources.
GJR Or feasible for the product.
CMN Essentially we allow some weasle space. On the one hand you can develop 
a tool where you can not do any checking if it fits into 3K of memory. We 
started doing product evaluations to give a sense of what the working group 
thinks does or does not meet the requirements. What are the acceptable ways 
of satisfying the checkpoints. Doesn't make AERT normative. Some are 
straightforward and give a reliable result. For a lot of them, they are 
neat ideas but they do not give you a firm answer either way. However, help 
the author. ATAG applies to a variety of tools generating a variety of content.
LM In theory, an authoring tool can provide an interactive checklist. 
However, if FrontPage does that we would not conform?
GJR Where appropriate with the look and feel of the tool. If you provide 
feedback on other things should do it for accessibility as well. e.g. in 
notepad wouldn't expect a pop-up window, but in word you might want or 
expect that.
LM The more the robust the product, the higher the expectations.
GJR Notepad with a copy of WCAG might meet Level A, if you stretch it. 
However, single A not be popular with disabled users. Integration are 
priority 2 checkpoints.
JR Everyone must remember 3.1, which takes care of a lot of the things we 
want you to check for.
LM I can prompt the author a the beginning when I load an image. You're 
talking about an image by image basis.
JR I agree that there should not be a time to fully disable. We need to 
talk about this.
WL There has to be an "it" there. We have spoken about, "you can disable 
it." However we require there must be an "it" there. Being able to disable 
it and controlling when applied, but the function has to be there.
LM True, but if I'm going to say, "the it has to be there" I might as well 
as how it should be implemented.
GJR If you're not on a network, then the tool may not be accessible.
LK Conclusion?
LM Discuss it further.
LK What do people see as the points of debate?
CMN The specific question asked by Lisa is one that came up specifically 
during the last call. There is a question from Adobe.
GJR It's like the seatbelt law, you should wear it but don't have to.
CMN Right, we can't force anyone to use anything. My first impression of 
LK's question was, "is ATAG-TECHS normative b/c if so we will be careful 
what we put in." However, they are not and we want as many techniques as 
possible to let author's decide what is reasonable and feasible.
LK In 4.1, when it says, "check for an inform author...where possible." 
This does not, except where mentioned otherwise is a judgement call as to 
what is reasonable and feasible in context of the tool. The conclusion then 
is not sub-checkpoints under that.
GJR Are you asking us to add minimum checkpoints or to make normative more 
techniques?
LK I can not speak for ERT WG, but personally it makes me uncomfortable. It 
seems that "check for" does not have a well-defined meaning if you say "do 
what is reasonable." it would feel more comfortable to check for prescence 
or absence of an attribute. Then, at a minimum warn the author if any of 
those are absent. so that a developer knows when he has accomplished it.
HB To help the author deal with it.
CMN Accessibility problems defined, basically WCAG. Tool has to check or 
ask the author. Comes from checkpoint text. If you think that it doesn't 
then any person in the universe can send comments. My personal check is 
getting into formalized subcheckpoints will be a major hassle.
LK Checkpoint stands and interpretation is minuted.
Resolved: no change to checkpoints in ATAG concerning checking for 
accessibility issues. Interpretation of how this applies to a variety of 
tools is as minuted here and discussed in ATAG 1.0.

AERT open issues
LK How are these going to be resolved. We've started to go through them in 
ERT WG. There are about 2 dozen left.
JT Have we separated out the WCAG issues?
LK Yes. Where is the final list?
CMN ERT has an issues list for AERT. Expect that ERT come up with 
techniques - you're the experts.
LK Will you be content getting resolutions on issue even if they come from 
a small subcommittee?
CMN Up to ERT to decide. We just like having the content provided. Be aware 
that these are not normative and welcome as many suggestions as possible 
and will not say "you must do this." Look at the incorporation draft, it 
says, "if you do these things, we reckon you've met the checkpoint."
LK Then we can close as, "it might be figured out, we haven't, there you are."
JT Obviously, the more you figure out the better.
LK The main thing is not to have anything that is wrong or misleading. 
However, having figured out every last check we'll go as far as we can.
CMN If we don't pick up that it's wrong and include it, it's our problem.
LK We will not deliberately include anything wrong.
Resolved: ATAG Techniques are not normative and should contain as many 
ideas as possible, therefore open to all suggestions by ERT WG. It is up to 
ERT WG to decide how to pass info on to AU WG and what info to pass for 
inclusion in ATAG-TECHS.

Next Meeting
CMN It's the joint meeting at the face to face, the first Thursday at the 
month. Do we want a follow-up meeting after that?
LM Any more feedback on if we can call into the meeting?
CMN It's appears to be technically possible. We don't know the final answer 
to. We have to check if each group can get a space that is callable. 
Microsoft is saying they don't want to turn up but dial in.
LM I wouldn't have said it that way, but MS is saying that no working group 
members attending any WAI meetings.
CMN We'll have to check across the working groups. Given that early hotel 
registration closes soon.
Action CMN: get a genuine answer in the next day about telephone 
participation at the face to face meetings.
LM If we can't dial in does not mean that we will show up. Fighting this 
decision.
Resolved: next joint meeting is the face to face, 1 March. After that, the 
next joint meeting is Tuesday, 3 April 2001.

$Date: 2001/02/06 23:31:44 $ Wendy Chisholm

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/-- 
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2001 18:33:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:38 GMT