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

correct URI: 28 September 2000 telecon minutes

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 18:23:49 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000928182240.055434b0@localhost>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
In the future, if I send a URI that begins, "jigteam.w3.org" and if I don't 
catch it, replace the "jigteam" with "www" and you'll get to where you need 
to go.
cheers,
--w

available at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2000/09/28-minutes.html

28 September 2000 WCAG WG telecon

Summary of agenda items for next week's F2F
Go through edits to recent draft to determine if we should
       keep as is
       modify and try again
Actual discussion of proposed changes will occur in following telecons and 
discussions on the list. This is just to get a feel for consensus on edits 
not to bring the group to consensus.
Break into groups to discuss technology-specific techniques. As part of 
this discussion, consider how we will handle "until user agent" clauses. 
Can we get rid of? Do we need to state assumptions? Is there some way to 
say "this is ideally what we'd like but it's not supported yet so in the 
meantime..."
Should we consider XML in this document or keep it separate?
       KB believes that creating a new language and writing content in a 
language are two different activities for two different audiences, thus 
keep them in separate documents.
       JW believes that these documents and practices are quickly converging.

Discuss user interface metaphors and how they are influenced by changes in 
technology like Voice Browsing and XForms. How will we address these 
metaphors in WCAG 2.0?

Open discussion about reactions to the Device Independent Authoring 
Workshop to harvest interesting ideas, update those who did not attend, and 
give those who did attend a chance to digest.

With regards to the afternoon with AU WG: ask them to review WCAG 2.0 for 
dependencies with ATAG 1.0 and discuss how filling out a Web form can be 
creating Web content.

Planning
       When should we aim to go to last call?
       When would people like to see a Recommendation?
       When and where is our next face to face meeting? Volunteers to host?
       When should we publish working drafts of the techniques that we've 
discussed?
       Are people interested in inviting experts in various technologies 
to present to the group to educate us and for Q&A about how our spec 
relates to other technologies? e.g., invite a MathML guru to discuss MathML 
so we can determine how well our draft will cover MathML as well as what 
techniques we should develop for MathML.

Normative vs. Non-normative (  issue #17 in the issues list). As part of 
this discussion Kynn will hopefully demonstrate (or at least discuss) using 
XML/XSLT to generate multiple versions of the document.
       If multiple versions exist, how does one claim conformance? How do 
we write the conformance statement?
       How does one claim conformance on muliple views of documents? How 
does an author who is generating multiple views determine if they conform?
        Gregory and William will present "cyber-ghetto" issues.

Summary of action items
       Action WC: Summarize agenda items.
       Action: WC/GV/JW: Propose times for handling proposed agenda items.
       Action WC: Add dynamically generated (from database) to open issues 
list.
       Action WC: Add link to test pages from WCAG Home page underneath 
the work on Techniques section.

Participants
       William Loughborough
       Loretta Guarino Reid
       Dick Brown
       Matt May
       Jason White
       Wendy Chisholm
       Kynn Bartlett
       Andi Snow-Weaver
       Cynthia Shelley
       Gregory Rosmaita
       Gregg Vanderheiden

Regrets
       Ian Jacobs
       Charles McCathieNevile

Agenda
Jason White - 27 September 2000.
Determine agenda and priorities for f2f meeting.

Agenda for F2F
WC Propose quickly go through list of changes to latest draft. Get "ya's - 
good edit" or "nay's - bad edit." Ya's we'll leave as is, the Nay's we'll 
go through once we get back and work on to make better. I would like clear 
idea if we have consensus on these changes, some were fairly substantial
CS and GR agree good idea.
JW CMN suggests a techniques session. Wishes ATAG would have done more work 
on Techniques before going to Rec.
CS, LRG, WC like that idea.
JW Editing on the spot, proposing techniques in smaller groups. Whole group 
considering.
WC Also help us to see who interested in which technologies.
GR Definitely helped with UAAG Guidelines last year.
WL Which languages?
WC Name any of 'em! Should first write about those that we get the most 
questions about, but should help people using whatever language conform to 
WCAG.
WL Want parallel documents to HTML and CSS?
WC Yes.
JW And checklists as discussed last week.
WL The number of items that will be covered by these technologies will be 
small. Of the 65 checkpoints, SMIL is only associated with 2.
JW Yes, there will be a limited number.
WC What about XML? Kynn, still think it should be a separate document?
KB Different audience: using a technology versus creating a new language.
JW Think the distinction will become less.
Resolution: put it on the agenda
CS Stating our assumptions. What do we expect a browser to do? Make that 
more concrete.
JW UAAG will be relevant. By the time WCAG 2.0 begins process to Rec we 
should have UAAG in place. Will be dependency on them.
CS How to determine when UUA clause is met.
WC Or how to get rid of it.
CS Although spec will always be ahead of implementation.
LGR Seems at odds with the backwards compatibility item.
MM The existing UUA are preferable but not reliable, it is the direction 
W3C wants the technology to head. Since Backwards compatibility is the goal 
of several specs it seems to put it in "this is how things should have been."
JW We have by and large eliminated "until user agents." last week, 
discussed the idea that requirements that are dependent on UA should be 
treated in techniques with exceptions and qualifications.
WC Perhaps part of the break-out groups discuss until user agents in 
regards to specific technologies in break out sessions on techniques.
JW user interface design and metaphors are being influenced by Voice 
Browser working group and XForms.
CS With several of us going to the DIW there should be good new info.
WC Should we have a discussion about that for those who did not go (an 
update) as well as letting those of us who did go share thoughts and ideas?
/* lots of agreement */
WC Anything in specific to discuss with AU WG?
JW What dependencies do we have that ought to be discussed?
WC Anything in particular we want them to think about or read? The new 
draft? Specific checkpoints?
WL Forms. Cuts across UA, WCAG, and AU. The browser or server becomes an 
authoring tool.
WC What exactly do we need to ask?
WL We have to make our forms requirement so that it acknowledges what the 
ATAG requires.
WC So we can ask AU WG for help how to address that.
WL When you fill out a form on a Web page you are a Web author.
MM You're average content management system is essentially that.
WC HTML WG asking for requirements, spend some time thinking about at the 
F2F or on the list?
JW We're getting a lot of agenda items, prioritize?
WL HTML, Techniques, when a technique is applicable to a variety of 
technologies and priorities appears in one place with no caveat.
JW We haven't dealt with priorities yet.
WC Planning - set milestones, aim for when go to last call, next f2f, etc.
WC Normative vs non-normative
GR Home page: no link to test pages.
Action WC: Add link to test pages from WCAG Home page underneath the work 
on Techniques section.
/* WC goes through proposed agenda items */
GV We have not dealt with the document-based vs. server-based flexibility. 
How do our guidelines work if the server actually serves different pages to 
different people. "All content should be servable that meets the following 
specs."
JW Basically what guideline 2 says. If there are issues with that, then we 
should put them into the discussion.
GV One form kicks it out as vanilla HTML (no tables, charts, etc.) like an 
alt-text page. In old one, alt-text page is last resort. Perhaps it should 
be a first resort if it is databased based.
JW /* Reads from latest draft */
GV Have this discussion before the XML discussion.
JW That's where guideline 6 comes into play - requirements for if you need 
to provide a style sheet or other mechanism, etc.
Action WC: Add dynamically generated (from database) to open issues list.
WC Kynn - how's your XSLT with WCAG coming along? Want to demo?
KB Not sure that it will be ready, but could discuss.
WC People find that valuable?
GV Have to discuss after the normative/non-normative version so that people 
know what to conform with.
WL In the checklist document, "if you are using tables, vs frames" etc is a 
mini-thing of what we are talking about.
JW Yes, include on agenda. If using XSLT to create the versions, the XML 
would have everything. That could be downloaded as the document set.
KB Try to have something available.
WL We are in danger of ignoring the "cyber-ghetto." This discussion reeks 
of this issue. Possible that things like "final form" can be exclusionary. 
/* part of the database discussion */
GR Having a floppy with agenda, documents, etc.would be helpful.
Action WC: Summarize agenda items. Propose times for handling.
CS Either now or on the list, discuss what groups of technologies we want 
to discuss.

$Date: 2000/09/28 22:07:17 $ Wendy Chisholm


--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--
Received on Thursday, 28 September 2000 18:17:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:06 GMT