W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2003

[Minutes] 3 July 2003 UAWG teleconf

From: Colin Koteles <koteles@illinoisalumni.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:25:02 -0700
To: <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-ID: <190bd01c341a1$2eea8f50$0a0c010a@mail2world.com>
Minutes of 3 July 2003 UAWG teleconf

Roll call:

Jon Gunderson (Chair)
Dave Poehlman
Cathy Laws
Ian Jacobs
Sean Stapleford
Colin Koteles (Scribe)

Topics:
* User Agent charter
* Face-to-face plans
* Implementation report and test suite

New action items generated:

CK: Remove EMBED tests
JG and/or CL: Look into finding someone at IBM to invite for pervasive
computing discussions
JG: check on invited expert status of current WG participants


// Open action items:
* Remove blink and marquee tests
CK: Completed
CK: Should we remove tests for EMBED?
JG: OK. 
*** New Action: CK remove tests that include EMBED
* Contact GW Micro about review
JG: GW micro has submitted review, will look at this this afternoon
* Add author stylesheet to individual evaluations
JG: haven't added author style sheets
* Create implementation report for IBM Home Page reader using HTML 4.01
test suites
CL: have not heard from Jim Allen
* Update XHTML 2.0 comments
JG: IJ has updated XHTML 2.0 comments
JG: Judy will review charter today 
DP: had telephone conversation with Eric, need to find somebody on the
outside b/c of perceived need for more resources
JG: will ping them
// end of open action

// Charter discussion
JG: Draft charter - most W3C groups are out of charter. Technically not
a working group w/o charter.
JG: Next stage is for WG to approve charter and return to Judy, then to
WAI, W3C, AC...long process
JG: charter is an opportunity to recruit new members b/c charter is sent
to W3C mailing list.
JG: (review draft charter)

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/charter-2003-05-draft.html

JG: Mission has changed and not changed. Still chartered to produce
guidelines and help people use guidelines and produce new
recommendations based on need of web community
JG: Scope has changed to encompass pervasive computing
*** New Action: JG and/or CL will look into finding someone at IBM to
invite for pervasive computing discussions
CL: Are you looking more for someone who is general pervasive computing
expert?
JG: yes (they don't need to join group, just get ideas how we can help
make pervasive computing technologies more accessible)
JG: goal at FTF is to discuss future directions for UAAG -- also
wireless technologies
JG: (Scope cont.): evaluate user agents, develop test suites, promote
UAAG, review and comment on other WGs 
IJ: I will not be editing techniques document and I don't know if MM
will
JG: Deliverables: are we going to be publishing a new techniques
document? 
IJ: Depends on future need for revisions, but won't need to actively
work on techniques
JG: Deliverables: HTML, CSS, audio, visual, SVG test suites. Collect
information on user scenarios for new guidelines, produce minutes
IJ: interesting discussion with (Dan Connelly?) - good to have
requirements document for start on UAAG 2.0. Use requirements documents
to tell stories about usage scenarios. Derive requirements from these
scenarios. Evaluate new UAAG CPs against requirements document. Also,
diff between 'desirable' requirements and 'must' requirements.
JG: Dependencies: unchanged.
JG: Duration: change from June 2004 to September or October 2004
JG: Success: if we complete deliverables
IJ: New process document in effect July 1. WG members must go through
expert invite process. This doc has clearer outline of WG participation
and joining process. Want as many participants as possible, but W3C
world like members whose organization is not W3C member to have
organization join.
IJ: four classes of participants in WG: chair (JG), team reps (IJ & MM),
W3C member reps, expert reps invited by the chair 
*** New Action Item: JG check on invited expert status of current
participants 

(discussion of separation of WG work and proprietary work ? W3C does not
hold patents)

JG: Is there consensus among members present? If so, I will forward
draft charter to mail list for comments. If comments in next 2 weeks
will address then, otherwise I will forward to Judy in two weeks.
(No objections)
// end charter discussion

// FTF meeting plans
JG: Will go ahead and make plans for FTF assuming charter will be
approved. Want to make sure we have a charter in place before meeting.
Will push meeting to October or November.
CL: Can still come then.
DP: May or may not be able to make it.
Sean: I or another rep from my company can come.
// end of FTF discussion

// discussion of future UAAG concerns
JG: Do not want to wait for last call, etc. for feedback from
developers. Want to have a defined niche for pervasive computing and
other emerging technologies. Need to see where we fit into puzzle. Get
buy-in from developers at an early stage. Section 508 may help this.
// end of discussion

// Implementation report and test suite discussion work 
JG: New implementation report from GWMicro: Windows Eyes with IE -
having some problems but will be up soon
JG: Haven't identified bug with IR ? test suites weren't in report ?
couldn't replicate problem 
IJ: Diff between raw report and loaded report?
JG: My students are using it, and they're not having a problem.
JG: Said for provision level, they felt they passed all tests. If true,
UAAG can work with GWMicro for conformance claim. Can announce that
someone else (GWMicro) made claim.
CK: (Test suite) Have fixed broken links, frame tests, missing image
files, etc..., have started working on new tests.
JG, IJ, CK will discuss technical aspects of adding new tests
post-telecon
// end of IR and TS discussion

JG: next meeting 31 july 2003

// end of telecon

IJ, JG, CK: worked on IR and TS overview.html bugs
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2003 16:28:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:51:16 GMT