W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2000

Minutes from 1 June telecon

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 17:31:43 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000601173054.05367220@localhost>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
The minutes are available at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/meetings/20000601.html

The minutes are also included here:

1 June 2000 WCAG WG telecon
Summary of action items and resolutions
Action: JW draft a comment about how the technologies fit together.
Action: CMN and MK checkpoints for MathML.
Action: JW take issues of ETA to WAI-CG
Action: WC ask Jon Gunderson about UA - can we install it and use it?
Action: JW, GR, WC check out bugzilla as potential issue tracking tool.
Action: JW search for other issue tracking tools.
Action: WC send issues from techniques doc open issues to the list.
Participants
Jason White
Charles McCathieNevile
Dick Brown
Wendy Chisholm
Gregory Rosmaita
Tim Noonan
Andi Snow-Weaver
Cynthia Shelley
Agenda
Checklists and work items arising from last week's meeting.
Open issues in the Techniques document modules.
Harmonization of guidelines concerned with accessibility, device 
independence (mobile computing etc.), and internationalization--preliminary 
discussion.
JW not only issues with techniques, but how to track issues.
GR I have XHTML checks to add to WC's draft, but they are trapped in my out 
box.
Technology-specific checkpoints
Refer to http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2000/05/wcag-techs.html
JW This document shows that the approach we discussed last week is a good one.
WC at WWW9 authoring for mobile computing was a major theme. There is the 
need for an authoring philosophy and authoring tools so that authors don't 
go insane trying to create content for everyone. People want to derive 
multiple presentations from one source.
JW also Internationalization group. do they have guidelines?
GR one of the other issues at www9 was the intersection of accessibility, 
usability and internationalization. There was a guy at Helen Petrie's 
workshop on Monday that said that an issue that many authoring tools that 
output Japanese use HTML 3.2. They also used summarizers for content on 
mobile phones. There is a convergence with mobile.
JW And the relationship between mobile, accessibility, and 
internationalization should become stronger as these continue to converge. 
The accessibility community has an important role here. We can contribute 
to the common understanding of how one can author to meet these various 
requirements. The process of abstraction could be a benefit as it might 
identify authoring strategies that meet these various needs. This also gets 
at the processing model I discussed in my e-mail from yesterday. One could 
group techniques per technology and bring together those technologies that 
will be used in combination, e.g. HTML and CSS, or XML and XSL. The process 
of transformation is under user control either by virtue of the user having 
a style sheet and receiving the markup on the client and applying the 
cascade or a transforming proxy server. The overriding principal is that 
the content must be formatted or transformed to meet the requirements of 
the user and the device the user is employing. One role for the guidelines 
could be to specify the processing requirements - from source to destination.
GR are you suggesting a processing module or process and interoperable?
JW something along those lines. there would be a general understanding of 
the way in which the material can be processed to meet access requirements 
as well as other requirements. Source content with semantics in the markup 
that gets transformed into formatted output. It might go through 
intermediaries (FO's), but regardless of how done it is under the user's 
control.
WC so how move forward?
JW think it would be at the guidelines level.
WC do you want to draft something?
@@JW draft a comment about how the technologies fit together.
JW you had tried to apply checkpoints to every technology when in fact some 
are complimentary.
WC any way to create general principles instead of documenting all 
permutations?
CMN I would like to continue the exercise of generalizing the guidelines.
JW GV is working on. Also, last week we discussed 3 levels of information. 
High level guidance, technology-specific checkpoints, then 
technology-specific techniques.
WC next steps then? should i continue working on other checkpoints? The 
generalized checkpoints worked very well.
JW yes.
WC other technologies? MathML?
CMN would like to. Try to work with Marja.
@@CMN and MK checkpoints for MathML.
WC interested in DOM.
JW anyone want to attempt DOM?
CMN way you would use DOM in languages, like SVG-animation.
JW there are some that pertain to user interfaces, perhaps those should be 
considered in relation to DOM and Forms.
WC scripting and changing the DOM.
JW if there is a client-side programming languge, and manipulating document 
content, the same requirements apply to applets. By the way, we need to 
work on our terminology to distinguish the 3 levels effectively.
GR I'm not sure what we're doing breaking out into technology-specific 
modules. You can't use XML without XSL. Should we demonstrate the 
technologies rather than hard and fast modularization. I tried to be as 
forward and backwards looking as possible. We can't deal with these in 
isolation.
CMN one approach in ATAG-TECHS we have some techniques that are specific to 
a language or a type of tool others are very general. It gets to the point 
that to manage it we need to look at the underlying structure of the document.
JW yes, that's what we're trying to achieve here as well. It is important 
to have a concept of how the content will be processed after it is created. 
Some techniques will cover a range of technologies others will be very 
specific to one or another. I thoughts that's what we were moving to aim 
towards.
GR It seems impossible to discuss HTML without discussing style sheets.
CMN that's jason's proposal.
JW yes, that would be a serious mistake. we have to discuss them in 
combination. other issues with checklist?
Issue tracking
WC summarizes issues with issue tracking.
@@JW take issues of ETA to WAI-CG
GR also take mailing list archive.
CMN that is being dealt with next week.
TN and registration process.
CMN that will come later. there is an issue with resources.
@@WC ask Jon Gunderson about UA - can we install it and use it?
CMN has anyone used bugzilla? developed as part of mozilla project. redhat 
uses it as a way to keep track of stuff in their systems. not sure if it is 
accessible.
TN i had an outstanding action item to review Techniques navigation and it 
looks much better.
WC I would like people to check out bugzilla.
@@JW, GR, WC check out bugzilla as potential issue tracking tool.
@@JW search for other issue tracking tools.
WC What do other companies use?
CS proprietary.
DB there are some commercial products.
CMN history behind ETA is that we wanted an issue tracking system. Decided 
that none of the available software was very great.
DB does Linux ship with something?
CMN might be bugzilla.
JW when we set up a system do we try to compile a list of oustanding issues 
or start from scratch and ask people to submit new issues.
WC there are 17 open issues for techniques, most of them are still very 
open. issues for guidelines are mostly dealth with.
JW can we close some of them on the list.
WC sounds good. also need to address cognitive and learning disabilities.
JW we will have a teleconference devoted just to this topic. we are working 
on scheduling that.
CS Another issue that I would like to address, "What are the minimum 
requirements for browsers?"
JW earlier we addressed the issue of device-independent guidelines and 
relation to mobile, I18N, etc. That is an interesting place to address 
those assumptions. To ask those other communities their thoughts.
CS Another piece of it is the prohibition against scripting.
WC no prohibition.
CS there are instances where it takes a lot of work and duplication of work 
to make scripts accessible on script-capable and script-incapable browsers.
CMN this gets to Greg Gay's point. We should figure out what is the thing 
that we believe is out there as the deployed browser and make that 
explicit. Then we can say, "this is why we do or don't say provide a 
substitute for forms." There was a time when forms were not readable and we 
needed to supply a phone number.
CS the other problem is the "until user agents" clause. How many user 
agents have to for this to be satisfied.
CMN yep.
CS JW, your point about goals of the guidelines, perhaps i haven't read the 
introductory material, I don't think all of the assumptions have been stated.
JW it says, "this is inteded to make content as broadly accessible as 
possible. focusing on people with disabilities, but there is a secondary 
goal for making the guidelines applicable for authoring for a variety of 
devices."
@@WC send issues from techniques doc open issues to the list.

$Date: 2000/06/01 21:19:45 $ Wendy Chisholm
--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--
Received on Thursday, 1 June 2000 17:25:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:04 GMT