- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 15:08:31 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
11 October 2001 UAWG teleconference
Agenda announcement:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001OctDec/0017
Participants: Jon Gunderson (Chair), Ian Jacobs (Scribe),
Lee Bateman, Tim Lacy, David Poehlman, Harvey Bingham, Jim Allan,
Mickey Quenzer, Eric Hansen
Regrets: Jill Thomas
Absent: Gregory Rosmaita, Rich Schwerdtfeger, Denis Anson
Previous meeting: 4 October 2001
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001OctDec/0007
Next meeting: 18 October
Next face-to-face: 22-23 October
Reference document 12 September Candidate Recommendation:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-UAAG10-20010912/
====================================================================
------------------------
1. FTF meeting details
------------------------
Summary of connectivity:
Confirmed video bridges:
- Austin: Jim Allan
- Boise: Lee Bateman
- Unknown: Denis Anson
- No: MIT (Harvey to attend by phone)
Summary of ftf attendees: Tim, Jon, Ian, Wendy, Stephanie Potter,
David Poehlman, (RealNetworks 22nd), Mickey, plus whoever at
Microsoft.
------------------------
2. FTF agenda
------------------------
Refer to agenda:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/10/ftf-agenda
JG: Try to get Opera, Netscape to attend the "securing
developer commitment" slot.
Action IJ: contact Opera, Netscape.
Action JG: contact AT developers
JG: The implementation report will be a basis for discussion:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/implementation/report-cr2-checkpoint-summary
Refer to summary of checkpoints that need attention:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JulSep/0279
JG: Topics:
- How do we test accessibility features?
- How do we facilitate implementation?
-------------------------
3. How to evaluate a UA
-------------------------
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001OctDec/0006
IJ: I imagine a "high-level" document to set expectations about
pitfalls and a framework for evaluating software. The document will
include links to other resources (e.g., test suites).
JG: The how-to document might include:
a) Framework for doing an evaluation. What systematic approach
can be taken.
b) Hints on where to look for information (e.g., documentation,
developer claims, etc.)
c) How you can identify which checkpoints you're trying to
satisfy.
d) Examples based on real checkpoints.
e) How to report the results (using AERT?)
IJ: When this document is ripe, UAAG 1.0 should reference it. I don't
think the how-to document should be part of UAAG 1.0 (mostly so that
it can evolve on its own).
--------------------
4. Test suite update
--------------------
Action IJ: Invite Lofton Henderson to UAWG ftf re: test suites.
/* IJ summarizes test suite framework */
MQ: Can this be automated 100%?
IJ: No, comparisons with expected results probably not
automatable.
MQ: I'd like a mechanism that keeps track (persistence) of what I've
already evaluated.
JG: How much of this mechanism exists already?
IJ: I hope to reuse the xslt framework (not yet available, but close).
LB: A requirement may contain several requirements. For example, a car
should be red with a black interior and white roof. These need to be
identified as distinct requirements.
IJ: Yes, e.g., when a checkpoint mentions both audio and video, need
to have two tests.
LB: Need to be careful in reporting mechanism that the granularity is
sufficient: a UA may satisfy 4 of 5 bullets. Need people to be able to
see that a piece of a checkpoint has not been satisfied.
EH: This framework sounds like a good approach.
JG: Tim, will this help developers implement the guidelines?
/* LB leaves */
HB: Tim, do you have guidelines for preparing MS test suites?
TL: Nate would be able to discuss this.
IJ: Good to talk about tools, processes, frameworks at meeting.
IJ: I haven't even talked about processes for contributing test
cases. The XSLT framework includes this bit, but I've been more
interested in the encoding first, contributions second.
JG: It's time consuming to convert text email to a specific XML
format (such as the implementation report format).
-----------------
Closed action items
-----------------
1.ij: find out about availability of videoconf equipment availability at
w3c
source:
http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-wai-ua/2001julsep/0272
5.ja: find out if ja and rs can meet in the same place in austin
source:
http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-wai-ua/2001julsep/0272
-----------------
Open action items
-----------------
3.jg: talk about jg's tool and earl integration at wai cg.
source:
http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-wai-ua/2001julsep/0188
4.jg: review netscape version 6.x
source:
http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-wai-ua/2001julsep/0191
6.ja: work on a comparison document of uaag and section 508 and format
in uaag style.
Refer to
http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-wai-ua/2001janmar/0561)
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-wai-ua/2001julsep/0272
JA: Pending.
8.tl: review initial implementation report for ie and comment
source:
http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-wai-ua/2001julsep/0191
TL: Pending.
-------
Dropped
-------
7.gr: contact dolphin
source:
http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-wai-ua/2001julsep/0188
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2001 15:10:42 UTC