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

Minutes from 9 July meeting

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 11:21:24 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Participants: Katie, Chris, Sean, Wendy, Harvey, William

Meeting summary:

- We went through some of the issues on the AERT issues list to determine 
which were closed, which were for WCAG and which were for AU.  WC will 
update the AERT issues list and send a note to both groups to let them know 
that we have these issues to add to their issues lists.  However, since WC 
maintains the WCAG issues list, she'll update it to incorporate the AERT 

- We briefly talked about Annotea and EARL and the possible tools that 
might generate EARL.

- We talked about what WART will produce, a checklist, linearized EARL, 
EARL.  WC will continue to work on WART.

- WL and SP agreed to continue working on a primer.

- SP feels the EARL schema is stable. There is some concern that recent 
discussion in RDF-core might change aspects of RDF, but that those changes 
wouldn't affect EARL much or at all.

- We're considering having our next F2F the first week of October in 
Brighton and we would like to try to colocate with PF.  CMN will take idea 
to PF.  SP will send list of possible meeting places to CMN.

---Detailed minutes

CMN AU issue, AU point to EARL. say it's closed.
WL EARL is the solution, we're addressing the solution not the issue.

WC a WCAG issue
CMN Argue for AU. in WCAG the test is simple, if you don't have an 
accessible page, you can use an alternative. If not, it's part of the 
assessment of accessibility.
WL Can say that to both.
CMN In WCAG, prefer not to do that, say "make an accessible page."
WC Part of this is manual, but WCAG needs to make checks clear.
CMN Run it against WCAG.
CR There are some ways to do checking, "is this object described in the 
text page."
CMN It's a possible negative test.
WC For ATAG Techniques.
HB Do we assume that each version has a date that we can compare.

WC Big lump or smaller messages?
CMN smaller - to deal with.
WL Separate subject lines.
WC Easiest to say to WCAG, "issues 1-30 in our issues list is yours, add to 
your list."

#30 - WCAG, w/CC to AU
CR Always disliked text-only page solution.
CMN A good technique.
CR Then never come back to ATAG.
CMN Real-world examples where can't.

WL detecting accessibility issues...
WC Waiting for checkpoint solutions for scripts.

#12 ATAG

#14 ATAG

#15 ATAG

#16 WCAG

#17 ATAG

#18 WCAG

Annotea and EARL

CMN EARL is a language to describe problems in content.  The problem that 
EARL doesn't address is how do you find those when you are doing an 
evaluation.  Where do you put those results.  Annotea provides one 
possibility, to associate results with content.

SP Wouldn't have one inside the other. Since you have URI of page inside EARL.

CMN Annotea associates 2 pages, it might get it from extracting from 
EARL.  The annotation scheme needs the info.  Annotation at: URI, it might 
be in annotation or referenced in annotation. An implementation detail of 
associating the two in a look-up exercise.  It gives us an implementaiton 
of attaching the things and querying them. If we use that mechanism we will 
repeat the URI twice.

SP Take it out of EARL.

CMN Do that if we tie ourselves to Annotea. Don't think we should. Use it 
as A method.

WC could store locally.

CMN Or inside the page you are working on.

WC Talked w/SSB lately?

CMN No, have talked with Hiawatha Island (Frontpage plug-in - ACCRepair) 
and Usablenet (plug-in for Dreamweaver). They are both interested.

WC What determines if they will implement them.  SP and WL, where do you 
think we are?

WL Saw thing for linear-EARL, is there an authoring tool for EARL?

SP There is the bookmarklet.

WL There is also linear version, could form basis of people wanting to 
write EARL who don't know.

SP When handling RDF, know model.  If you handle a subset, should be easy 
to output.

WL WART should generate EARL w/out people realizing it is generating EARL. 
And the linearized version could be how EARL gets generated from plain 
text.  Anything like UWIMP?

SP I see what you're getting at, WART should be structured enough ....

WC What about a checklist?

SP If WART could generate EARL, then transform into XHTMl version, "here's 
what we trasnformed it from" if you care.

WL THen generating data points. e.g., what problems scripts make, then say 
"what portion are the result of script stuff."  My original point is, the 
DI WG could use a more technical explanation of what EARL could od.

SP Started writing new primer.  Quickly got technical.  I drew a circle 
labeled animal circle inside "human" to show subclass example. when i 
loaded on IE, it only had labels. Want some way to linearize it, an 
alternative version. Transform gracefully.

WC State of schema? Open issues?

SP We should be fine despite some of the RDF-core discussions to change 

WL Anyone from WAI following?

SP Nothing too controversial. It's stable.  Need some more general 

Next F2F: First week of October in Brighton?  Try to meet with PF?
CMN will take idea to PF.
SP will send list of possible meeting places to CMN.

wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
tel: +1 206.706.5263
Received on Monday, 9 July 2001 11:11:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:32 UTC