W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2001

minutes for 30 Aug 2001

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:40:05 -0700
Message-Id: <200108302140.OAA12948@patagonia>
To: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

 Jason White
 Loretta Guarino Reid
 Gregory Rosmaita
 Matt May
 Charles Munat
 Andi Snow-Weaver
 Gregg Vanderheiden

Techniques documents:

PDF status
   - in process; the current version is at 
   - should have a new version next week
   - how to illustrate? 
   - provide code examples a la PDF Reference
   - Acrobat examples are not appropriate in this context
   - concentrate on code rather than tools

Most of our other technique examples are source-related: people often 
edit the source themselves. This is not true for PDF and Flash.

These techniques are targeted at tool developers; we assume they
are familiar with the technical details of PDF. The target is not
users of tools for generating PDF. Charles McCathie-Neville is developing
a document addressing how to generate accessible content as part of the 
Authoring Tools WG.

HTML status (Matt)
 -- reviewing WCAG 1.0 document, making minor modifications; should be done 
    by the weekend
 -- probably a few dozen holes that have been added (specific rules for how 
    to satisfied success criteria
 -- convert to XML
 -- get feedback on content
 -- user issues (how this technology affects which category of people)
 -- UA issues
 -- draft target date: next Wednesday

Server side and ECMAScript work happening, but Cynthia couldn't make 
today's meeting. (Lots of collaboration among Seattle folks.)

Need someone to work on SVG? CMN is an obvious candidate, but he is
very busy. We may have to search around.

SMIL also needs an author.

Technique are the third layer, what is the second layer called? Seems 
to be called different things at different times. Suggest naming it 
something stable.

Not yet resolved whether technology-specific documents are normative.
Clear success criteria might tilt the balance against making them normative.

Still lots of confusion about the technology-specific documents: what
form, normative or not, checkpoints or requirements, etc. We'll wait until
we have some draft documents to try to clear this up.

Usability testing proposal:

No one in attendance had any thoughts; need more time to review, and more 
of a critical mass of group members. May need to ask for critiques off-list.
Not everyone has experience in evaluating testing proposals.
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2001 17:40:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:38 UTC