W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2004

[techs] Summary of Face to Face meeting, 4-5 March 2004

From: Michael Cooper <michaelc@watchfire.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 17:31:38 -0500
Message-ID: <D9ABD8212AFB094C855045AD80FB40DD033FB636@1wfmail.watchfire.com>
To: "WAI GL (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

PRESENT

Ben Caldwell
Wendy Chisholm
Tom Croucher
Michael Cooper
Lisa Seeman
Katie Haritos-Shea
Eric Velleman
Henk Snetselaar
Jose Alonso
Alistair Garrison
Shadi Abou-Zhara
Wendy Buckley
Andrew Arch
Matt May
Shawn Henry
Judy Brewer
Natasha Lipkina
Lofton Henderson
Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux
Olivier Thereaux

There were many observers present and I apologize if your name was not
captured.


DISCUSSION

Roadmap - Wendy presented an overview of the tasks needed to produce WCAG
2.0, including the techniques documents that need to be ready at the same
time, and a possible timeline. It was daunting indeed and helped us to
understand what work needs focus. HTML and Gateway techniques need to have
new drafts soon, and we need to produce CSS, Script, and Web Applications as
well. Other sets of techniques are desirable but not as critical.

Gateway techniques - in order to progress on Gateway techniques, we decided
to go through the Bugzilla issues list [], close as many old issues as
possible, and assign the rest (mostly to Tom). Closing the remaining issues
will be a large part of the task of preparing the next draft.

Test matrix - we reviewed the test matrix [] of operating systems, browsers,
and assistive technologies and came up with a lot of additions and
subtractions. This matrix identifies the priorities of tool combinations for
which we need test data of our techniques. There was some discussion about
how many versions back we need to test, but weren't able to come up with a
solid guideline for ourselves about how to make that decision. We also
discussed the priorities we want to assign, which ended up as:

p1 - we must obtain test data 
p2 - we should try to get decent test data if we can 
p3 - nice to have 

EO - The Education and Outreach Working Group joined us to talk about
materials they are developing [] and the impact of WCAG 2.0 on that work.
Some of the documents relate to ones we are working on but we were able to
tease out differences, or to note the differences between educationally and
technically oriented views of similar information. Documents that need the
most coordination include the Curriculum, Gallery of accessible sites
(especially since we need such implementations as well), quick tips. Other
documents need looser coordination. We decided it would be a good idea to
have a monthly 1/2 hour coordination call between the two groups to keep the
ball rolling.

WCAG 1.0 errata - the possibility of revising WCAG 1.0 to incorporate the
errata was of some concern to EO because of the need to produce support
materials, and do so again when WCAG 2.0 is release. Nevertheless, on the
whole most people present at the meeting favoured doing this. There are a
lot of concerns to be worked out, and a group of non-WCAG people offered to
do some preliminary work on this. We prepared a draft work plan for next
steps that this task force can follow.

Conformance - the question of whether checklists (derived from techniques)
need to be normative as a way of proving that the technology-independent
guidelines are testable (and therefore can be normative themselves) was
raised. The consensus of the group was that this should not happen -
techniques and checklists are designed for different functions, may be
incomplete, and must be able to change as technology changes. There was not,
however, consensus on alternative approaches to meet the guidelines need.
Tom and Michael will expand a proposal to the list to see how it falls with
the larger group.

HTML techniques - taking the same strategy as we did for Gateway, we used
Bugzilla to prioritize our work for the next draft. 

VoiceXML techniques - Katie and Janina presented work they have done on
techniques for VoiceXML, a technology which was not designed with
accessibility in mind but which has interesting possibilities. They found
their approach worked well with ours and have volunteered to do a more
formal set of techniques.

Test suite - members of the QA Working Group joined and we discussed the
process for making test suites, the definition (and threshold) for
testability. 

IRC logs of discussion at [] and [].
[] http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/issuereports/gateway_issues.php
[]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JanMar/att-0404/draft_tes
t_matrix.html
[] http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/EO-Deliverables.html
[] http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/issuereports/xhtml_issues.php
[] http://www.w3.org/2004/03/04-wai-wcag-irc.html
[] http://www.w3.org/2004/03/05-wai-wcag-irc.html


ACTION ITEMS

ACTION: tom create the script that will update category based on technology
[1] 
ACTION: ben populate the category with appropriate info once get script from
tom [2] 
ACTION: ben to add a disclaimer "submissions are subject to WG approval and
do not guarantee inclusion in a techniques working draft" [3] 
ACTION: ben to fix subject line to match "short name" for submitted
technique [4] 
ACTION: tom put ids on everything (to paragraph level, begun needs to
finish) [5] 
ACTION: wendy talk to judy about linking to issue lists [6] 
ACTION: wendy and ben talk about "dead" link created by linking to issue
summaries for guidelines that disappear. [7] 
ACTION: tom (and michael) figure out which part needs to be in gateway which
part in html [8] 
ACTION: wendy and ben look at exit scheme and think about how to emulate in
bugzilla. [9] 
ACTION: ben and tom draft intros to principles (to include in wcag 2.0
document as well as gateway) [10] 
ACTION: jenae remove all currently listed ATs from linux table? [11] 
ACTION: tom figure out good list of browsers for linux. [12] 
ACTION: jenae to check on availability of assistive technologies for macs
[13] 
ACTION: tom to check on apple screen reader [14] 
ACTION: jenae proposal for versions of assistive technologies (for windows)
[15] 
ACTION: jenae does netscape 4.7 work on xp? [16] 
ACTION: tom check if can use access logs from company has worked with [17] 
ACTION: wac w3c logs [18] 
ACTION: ben w3c logs [19] 
ACTION: wac check with offices to get differences in browser use around the
world [20] 
ACTION: jenae and wendy to consider further, make initial proposal [21] 
ACTION: shawn and judy coord w/wcag every x meetings [1] 
ACTION: shawn talk to judy about discussing WCAG 1.0 errata & revised
version in EOWG [2] 
ACTION: shawn take to wai site task force: 1. tasks about transition 1.0 to
2.0, 2. about user agent clause (from errata table "user agent support for
accessibility") [3] 
ACTION: andrew, allistair, eric?, (recruit others?) impact assessment,
community discussion, and proposals for wcag 1.0 revised edition, present at
15 April WCAG WG telecon [4] 
ACTION: tom and michael send a proposal to the mailing list contains:
proposed statement, where in the doc it would appear, pros and cons (re:
normative requirement for a process to evaluate techniques used) [5] 
ACTION: wendy (and coerce john, andi, gregg, jason, and other austinites) to
write impact assessment of conformance levels for discussion at f2f (send to
list by 12 march) [6] 
ACTION: wendy propose [7] 
ACTION: wendy ping martin on language [8] 
ACTION: janina and katie - finish work on report of voicexml and wcag 2.0,
look at next public draft success criteria. present 
Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2004 17:30:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:55 UTC