minutes of meeting

Are at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/telecon-5may99

lynx  output follows...

Charles

   
Attendance

     * William Loughborough
     * Jutta Treviranus
     * Jan Richards
     * Charles McCathieNevile
     * Kynn Bartlett
     * Jim Allan
     * Bruce Roberts
       
  Regrets
  
     * Greogry Rosmaita
     ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   
Action Items and Resolutions

     * Resolved: Checkpoints 2.7.1 and 2.7.2 are not merged.
     * Resolved: CMN's wording, with P1 as "authors using the tool will create web content that is not accessible"
     * Resoved: 2.7.2 to P1 and goes first. techniques to explain how these can be done and address the question of possible overlaps.
     * Resolved: Move 3.4.1 to 3.2, move 3.4 intro to a technique
     * Resolved: Charter definition of scope to be incorporated as section 1.x
     * Resolved: Editors should note that definition of the word "content" is an issue, but we need good definitions before we change it in the document.
     ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   
Minutes

  Checkpoints 2.7.2 and 2.7.1
  
   JT This needs the priority discussion for resolution. BR is a critical resource.
   
   CMN So far as I can gather the question is really the priorities of the checkpoints, rather than suggesting they be merged
   
   JT That's the status
   
   Resolved: Checkpoints not merged. Further discussion comes under priority deifinition
   
  Priority definitions
  
   KB Withdraws proposal
   
   JT: Proposed changes from mailing list - Charles' proposal is to talk about accessible content in guidelines definition. Any comments
   
   WL: fine
   
   JR Yes, because we talk about accessibility implying conformance elsewhere
   
   JT Word content vs document
   
   JT We could add a definition of document to specify the two.
   
   BR A document is a series of elements defined by a language - example HTML 4 or an XML application
   
   CMN Suggest we should leave this issue aside and deal with Gregory's proposal.
   
   JT P1 definition saying "will not be able to". The author is probably always able to get into the code and make the changes
   
   WL That's not using the authoring tool
   
   JR The difinitions don't deal with promotion - doesn't say not knowing about
   
   KB Not all tools will allow editing of HTML - for example saving from an office tool
   
   BR says "using the authoring tool"
   
   JT The way it is phrased talks about the tool preventing
   
   CMN I suggest reword of P1 deifinition
   
   JT My wording says "authors will create web content using the tool, that is not accessible"
   
   CMN "authors using the tool..."
   
   Resolved: CMN's wording, with P1 as "authors using the tool will create web content that is not accessible"
   
   JA When we say will, do we mean highly likely?
   
   CMN My reservations about this was based on how you check it. I am not sure if this allows it to be so clear, but I don't think we need to worry about it.
   
   JT We can generally decide based on these definitions.
   
  Reordering 2.7.1 and 2.7.2 - Gregory's proposal
  
   CMN I think is a very good test of our definition of priorites...
   
   BR Priority changes - 2.7.1 goes to 2, 2.7.2 goes to 2.
   
   WL Explanation of how to isn't as crtical as integration of help
   
   CMN I think 2.7.1 should remain P1. The question is should 2.7.2 be P1 or P2
   
   KB 2.7.1 says should we have a section labelled "accessible authoring practices", 2.7.2 deals with integration
   
   CMN Right. All I think 2.7.1 says is that it is important to explain (somehow) how to do it
   
   JR 2.7.1 was written as CMN says. 2.7.2 is as KB has explained it.
   
   WL Isn't it possible that if you do 2.7.2 propoerly you don't need 2.7.1
   
   KB Possibly, but there is a benefit to having the accessibilty section
   
   CMN can we promote 2.7.2 from p2 to p1
   
   KB Yes, otherwise naive users will never find out how to do it if it isn't integrated.
   
   WL If you were single-A conformant you wouldn't have to include practices in general help
   
   JT Another though on priority definitions - if we put "the average author" into P1.
   
   CMN I think we can assume that already
   
   BR I can agree that it is a P1 based on our definitions.
   
   JR I'm not sure what 2.7.2 would look like without 2.7.1
   
   WL The implication of 2.7.1 is that there is an explanation somewhere.
   
   CMN If we have 2.7.2 as P1 then 2.7.1 is redundant
   
   JT Do we have a proposal to merge them again?
   
   BR Yes
   
   WL What if we said "Integrate all accessibility practices..."
   
   JA That doesn't cover the case where a topic is not applicable
   
   JR proposed wording "Integrate and explain all accesible authoring practices"
   
   KB I'm happy to keep them as two, putting 2.7.2 first
   
   CMN I agree
   
   JA Me too - 2.7.1 should be first
   
   JT So what do we do with 2.7.1
   
   KB Leave it as it is reordered
   
   BR If I satisfy 2.7.2 haven't I satisfied 2.7.1?
   
   KB Not necessarily - I want to find the accessibility practices
   
   BR So we make it clear that 2.7.1 is about grouping accessibility
   
   JR What if you put alt into everything - integrating it - but never explain it
   
   KB I'm fine with 2.7.1 not changing at all in wording
   
   BR Nobody else thinks the overlap is troubling?
   
   JT We could clarify this in the techniques
   
   WL Isn't it possible that 2.7.2 satisfies 2.7.1
   
   CMN Yes, but it isn't automatically true
   
   BR yes - that's what has to be made clear.
   
   JR For example you could do something which satisfies a number of checkpoints
   
   Resoved: 2.7.2 to P1 and goes first. techniques to explain how these can be done and address the question of possible overlaps.
   
   BR Is there meaning in the ordering?
   
   CMN Not explicitly, but we can take advantage of it to improve readability etc.
   
   BR as a tool builder I might like to see them in priority order
   
   WL They will be
   
   JT We decided 2.1 (P2) begins for readability
   
  Merger of 3.2 and 3.4
  
   CMN It seems that the guidelines cover the same idea in slightly diffferent words - seemed more sensible to make the merger
   
   WL We wouldn't even have to change the wording of 3.2
   
   JA recommend we renumber 3.4.1 to 3.2.3
   
   WL could be part of 3.4.1
   
   JA no, these are explicitly different
   
   JR Would lose mention of graphic tags unless moved intro text
   
   Proposed: Move 3.4.1 to 3.2, move 3.4 intro to a technique
   
   So Resolved
   
  Other business
  
   WL Problem of using decimal section - in WCAG the guideline numbering is simplified because there is only one guidelines section
   
   JT But we have two different sections
   
   CMN I am still a fan of Ian's proposal I think this is a good issue for face to face.
   
   CMN Propose a subsection excplaining scope of guidelines - ie more than just HTML editors. Propose we adopt wording for draft and deal with it at face to face.
   
   Resolved: Charter definition of scope to be incorporated as section 1.x
   
   WL Use of word 'document'?
   
   JT We need to go through and find a word which means structure and content.
   
   general discussion of ambigiuty of terms.
   
   Resolved: Editors should Note that definition of word content is an issue, but we need good definitions before we change it in the document.

Received on Wednesday, 5 May 1999 17:30:51 UTC