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

current version of cif

From: Sharon Laskowski <sharon.laskowski@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 11:47:05 -0400
Message-ID: <3BAF5579.FCEEACD8@nist.gov>
To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
CC: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org, asgilman@iamdigex.net, emile.morse@nist.gov
The draft of the cif available on the web site has most of the same content as
the version submitted to NCITS for standardization; some of the formating and
wording has changed.  If anyone wants to see the current NCITS version, let me
know and it can be arranged.  

Sharon
 Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
> 
> Summary of action items and resolutions
> - Action everyone: review the CIF
> http://zing.ncsl.nist.gov/iusr/documents/cifv1.1b.htm
> we'll discuss more next week.
> - Action WC: check w/AG about assumptions and connections between CIF and EARL.
> - Action SBP: send summary of CR and SBP discussions to the list.
> - Action WC: incorporate short descriptions of implementations and look at
> incorporating prose from Schema into the primer.  Incorporate the summary
> SBP sends to the list.
> - Action WC: create RDF file of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints.
> - Resolved 15 October - next joint meeting with AU.
> - Action everyone: nominate items for the F2F agenda next week. Joint
> meeting with PF.
> 
> Present
> - Chris
> - Wendy
> - Katie
> - Sean
> - Sharon
> - Charles
> 
> *** CIF
> 
> SL free version (earlier, basically the same) is at:
> http://zing.ncsl.nist.gov/iusr/documents/cifv1.1b.htm
> I'm not sure of the connection between these two that EARL.
> 
> WC Marking up the data. CIF looks like a schema to me.
> 
> SL Based on best practices. Could view as fields.
> 
> WC Assume Al's connection is that if EARL could be expanded to be the
> markup language for CIF.
> 
> SL Don't have large numbers of reports and info that need to be
> automated.  What kind of machine processing do on a report?  Perhaps,
> compare info from two users.
> 
> WC Perhaps if consumed by procurement people, could compare tools.  CMN -
> value of EARL for evaluating AU tools?
> 
> CMN Value is to query results.
> 
> SBP EARL is basically a database format, it is non-proprietary.  If putting
> reports into a database format, EARL is something to consider.
> 
> SL No incentive to put into database format since not enough of
> them.  Usability test is not looking at conformance.
> 
> SBP Data analysis can only be done by a human.
> 
> SL Right, it is context driven.
> 
> CMN What you are storing is prose descriptions.
> 
> SL Tables of time on task, or results of questionnaires.
> 
> CMN Can  use EARL for anything you can regularize.  If you have a numeric
> scale, options, that's a useful place to have EARL.  The other side of
> stacking up data, makes it easy to do a piece of evaluation, have someone
> else finish it up next week.
> 
> SL Not how a user test works.  Could translate fields into EARL or another
> language to store as database.  If there were usability tests, how would
> one use them?  What automated things would you do with them?  Some newer
> approaches - where collect data from 100's of users - you might want to do
> something with EARL in that respect.
> 
> WC Other telecon that KH is organizing?
> 
> SL GSA looking for knowledge management tools.  Using CIF to get usability
> info out in the open.  Possibly looking at using EARL to store comparisons
> of tools. But, not sure if enough data to use EARL.
> 
> Action everyone: review the CIF
> http://zing.ncsl.nist.gov/iusr/documents/cifv1.1b.htm
> we'll discuss more next week.
> Action WC: check w/AG about assumptions and connections between CIF and EARL.
> 
> *** Test files and expanded WART
> 
> WC At WCAG F2F decided going through test files and "voting" on what
> accessible or not would be useful exercise to determine if everyone agrees
> on interpretations of WCAG.  Expanding WART to go through test
> files.  On-line form.
> 
> CR Had associated with WCAG 1.0, now what about 2.0?
> 
> CMN Most are useful tests for both versions.
> 
> WC Status of test files?
> 
> CR Going through second pass.  Will there be an AERT 2?
> 
> WC No, there will be an HTML Techniques document with "rules."  Those rules
> taken from AERT.  AERT primarily HTML with a little CSS and scripting.  We
> will be expanding CSS techniques, and generating SMIL, SVG, etc. with
> AERT-like rules.  Please keep in touch with Matt May.
> 
>   *** tagged PDF repair process
> 
> WC When generating files in PDF, will also generate tags that are stored
> w/in the format that are basically HTML.  However, don't always get the
> best tags.  e.g.,  table header shows up as TD instead of TH. Use outline
> view to change.  A last resort, not a way to generate content, but to
> edit.  Particularly since when regenerate the file, your edits are lost.
> Not a way to send that info back to the generating application.  We don't
> deal a lot with PDF, but it is an interesting repair process that I don't
> think we've encountered or thought much about.
> 
> KHS Heather sent more info to AU list about Word creating PDF files.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2001JulSep/0113.html
> 
> *** EARL Primer to EO
> 
> WC Thoughts? Stuff to change?
> 
> Action SBP: send summary of CR and SBP discussions to the list.
> Action WC: incorporate short descriptions of implementations and look at
> incorporating prose from Schema into the primer.  Incorporate the summary
> SBP sends to the list.
> 
> *** EARL to XHTML
> 
> CR Could we have a summary at end: 50 passed, 20 failed.  instead of lists
> of pass and fails.
> 
> SBP No statistical functions in CWM.
> 
> CR Can it format into a table? or graph?
> 
> SBP Table, yes.  graph - SVG?
> 
> CMN If in xml send to graphviz...although probably not the time of graph we
> want.  Passing 15 out of 27 is not particularly useful info.  These are the
> ones you passed, these are the ones you failed is an artificial measure.
> 
> CR Useful to know if passes/fails are P1s or P2.
> 
> SBP Good point. Have to put that in the EARL itself.  List of test files
> and if P1 or P2...then could merge that.
> 
> CMN Say that X, Y, Z meets checkpoint 3.1.
> 
> CR The RDF refers to a test file, test file refers to AERT, AERT refers to
> WCAG.  Therefore, could get that info that way. Is it possible to go
> through all the info using XSLT.
> 
> CMN If AERT is regularly formatted, can strip it out.  Could do, but
> quicker to do by hand.
> 
> CR Should the info go in the test file or RDF output.
> 
> SBP We'll have an RDF file on the W3C web site so that we can merge that
> info in.
> 
> CR Someone needs to create that file.
> 
> Action WC: create RDF file of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints.
> 
> *** New structure of home page
> 
> WC changed structure. Will be keeping up to date.  Let me know what you
> want to see on here, what is useful or not, etc.
> 
> CMN Racing cars.  We need racing cars on the home page.
> 
> *** Joint meetings with AU.
> 
> WC Used to have them the 1st of the month. Haven't had for a while.  Next
> week is the 1st but we'll be at the f2f.  What would we talk about in a mtg
> with them?
> 
> CMN Test suite. 1st of november is out as well due to AC mtg.
> 
> Resolved 15 October - next joint meeting with AU.
> 
> Action everyone: nominate items for the F2F agenda next week. Joint meeting
> with PF.
> --
> wendy a chisholm
> world wide web consortium
> web accessibility initiative
> seattle, wa usa
> /--
Received on Monday, 24 September 2001 11:48:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:39 GMT