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

Re: Minutes from 9 July meeting

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 11:38:54 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Charles also attended the meeting but I forgot to include him in the list.

At 11:21 AM 7/9/01 , Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>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 issues.
>- 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

wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
tel: +1 206.706.5263
Received on Monday, 9 July 2001 11:28:55 UTC

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