Minutes from 17 Oct 2002 UAWG teleconf

UAWG teleconference, 17 Oct 2002

Agenda announcement:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JulSep/0166

Participants: Jon Gunderson (Chair), Ian Jacobs (Scribe), Harvey
Bingham, Matt May, David Poehlman, Jim Allan, Rich Schwerdtfeger

Regrets: Eric Hansen, Tim Lacy

Previous meeting: 26 Sep 2002
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JulSep/0173

Next meeting: 7 Nov, 2pm ET

Reference document 16 Oct 2002 PR draft
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/PR-UAAG10-20021016/

==========
Discussion
==========

-------------------------------------------
1. Update on Proposed Recommendation status
-------------------------------------------

Congratulations! UAAG 1.0 advance to Propose Rec today!
There is now a 4-week period during which Members express
endorsement for the document.

/* IJ talks about PR review period */

IJ: Now we need to get review! The UAWG will work on a FAQ.

HB, DP: What about endorsement from other organizations?

IJ: This will be useful for testimonials. Endorsement from orgs
for users with disabilities a very good thing.  Send them to me.

------------------
2. FAQ development
------------------

Suggestions:

  * How do I find out if my favorite browser conforms?
  * How do I find out what UAAG 1.0 features my browser
    implements?
      - Check out the implementation report (qualified).

RS: I think that browser developers should update the
     implementation report with each major release.

The UAWG look at EO comments for FAQ:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2002OctDec/0005

DP: Difference between "utilization" and "use"?

Summarizing:

  - Keep sending FAQ ideas to the list.
  - IJ will work with W3C Team + Jon + EO on FAQ.

Action IJ: Find out from communications Team how to work in
public UAWG space on the FAQ. How can I get UAWG review of
questions and answers?

-----------------------------
3. Meeting schedule during PR
-----------------------------

JG: We should organize meetings to continue developments of the
test suites. Current implementation report will remain stable
through PR review process. We need to think now about where the
UAWG will go next: continuing implementations, test suites;
getting new participation.

JG: Unless there are substantive issues raised, we may not need
to meeting during PR.

IJ: I suggest we plan to meet next 7 November.

Resolved: Next meeting 7 Nov. Between now and then, send
FAQ suggestions, lobby AC representatives, and solicit
endorsements from other organizations.

----------------
4. Next steps?
----------------

RS: Where does the UAWG go next?

JG: I think deployment of 1.0 important first.

RS: UAAG 2.0 could address other devices.

IJ:
  0) UAWG deserves a rest. We will also need fresh
     participants; more developers; more work on test suites.
  1) Work on deployment, promotion, test suites
  2) Reqs doc for next UAAG version

IJ: Next ftf meeting will be our time to celebrate together.
    And sit down and brainstorm about next steps.

JG: Yes, we will also be able to meet with other W3C groups
     at that time. Get new participant expertise.

HB: How much more work on test suites?

JG: We should be getting more of Colin Koteles' time. We need
some more work on HTML and multimedia. I think there's a lot of
interest in the HTML test suites.


-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Received on Thursday, 17 October 2002 15:03:44 UTC