Re: Minutes June 20

Thanks Jan.

These will go up shortly

Charles

On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Jan Richards wrote:

  Jutta Treviranus
  Jan Richards
  Dick Brown
  Fred
  Heather Swayne:
  GR
  CMN
  Colin Birge
  
  JT: First business is to go through techniques to see if there are
  inconsistencies with the definition.
  JT: Did anyone do them?
  Most: No (some misunderstandings since minutes of last meeting not up)
  JT: Did this. No glaring problems. But would like others to review.
  Largely the appendix that JR did.
  ACTION ITEM (ALL): Review techniques against prompt definition.
  *CMN joins*
  JT: Updates CMN. Asks CMN about access to the amendment doc space.
  JT: Let’s talk about conformance evals.
  GR: Conformance evals. Difficult for guideline 7.
  JT: for ATRC course tools study access was more objectively tested.
  Dedicated workstations equipped with representative assistive
  technologies. What do others do.
  HS: MS trying to refine process. Can be dependent on who tests and how.
  CMN: Consistency process is to do the same things across products.
  JT: We listed a set of tasks and tested across a set of technologies.
  Needed a balance between being to prescriptive and to open. When too
  prescriptive it was hard to get a good idea of access. Better to focus
  on tasks.
  HS: More scenario based.
  CMN: did partial review of dream weaver. Tried to write down how things
  were tested. Would like to post how this was done.
  CMN, JT: short discussion on Mac mouse keys
  JT: Asks about MS logo program
  HS: Methods are proprietary to outside testing companies.
  CMN: We need to develop a matrix type method. For each checkpoint there
  are a bunch of things to test for for different kinds of tools.
  JT: Do we want to do pass or fail or scoring?
  CMN: Scoring is A, AA, AAA
  JT: Other stuff?
  CMN: His conformance database tool will allow partial tests to suit
  individual needs. People will build their own scoring mechanisms.
  HS: Scoring will add validity to "why" product didn’t pass
  *GR rejoins*
  JT: ATRC used scoring such as how many steps to alt-text. But still
  included comparative tables.
  GR: people ask him how the guidelines will help them make judgements.
  Must be more than A,AA
  CMN: database approach will allow simple A, AA as well as custom queries
  GR: it is also helpful to put in tips for users
  CMN: that is just writing help docs
  GR: it is just providing work arounds
  CMN/GR: Back and forth…
  GR: Disability community wants results. Very bad to ignore work arounds.
  DB: What are we arguing about?
  JT: Ratings…
  JR: Work arounds
  JR: Can we agree to general ratings as well as specific details
  CMN: 
  JT: More granularity – ex. does something easily or with more steps
  GR: Granularity has to include how it satisfies relative checkpoints
  etc. A, AA is meaningless out of context. 
  DB: Concerned whether WG should be doing this at this level of
  granularity.
  GR: as evidenced by how many we have been completed.
  JT: Task of WG will not be to pile up lots of evals. But should we come
  up with process.
  GR, CMN: Agree
  JT: We need to develop objective tests. Many steps for relative
  priorities.
  GR: My method is not yet ready. Used boilerplate text…
  CMN: Mailing list should be the feedback mechanism.
  JT: When will GR’s work be ready?
  GR: Still needs work.
  JT: Do you need volunteers?
  GR: Give me a week.
   JT: Action item report for the techniques and evaluation database.
  CMN: Not yet
  JT: Reason?
  CMN: Time.  Hope to work on it this week.  Techniques database is a long
  term project.
  JT: We have a huge task ahead of us.  We are making little progress. 
  Ideas?
  GR: Sense of urgency has dissipitated. We need to get moving again. 
  First we need to reping all present and past AU members.
  JT: OK.  We are re-chartering. Maybe we need new staff. Will talk to CG
  group.
  CMN: Spent 40 hours on dream weaver.  Takes a long time to learn new
  products to the proper extent.
  GR: AFB has resources for testing.  Maybe we can get these resources for
  evaluations.  These people are professional testers.
  JT: Should we pursue other testers?
  DB: Then WG is still undertaking large effort.  Concerned about doing
  everything we talk about.
  JT: Agree that our main task should be to great a process. Should we
  make pieces that can be funded, staffed externally.
  GR: Talked to someone at AFB about blind low vision evaluation of five
  main market tools etc.
  CMN: Balance betwen collecting evals and support and setting up a
  software testing service.
  GR: Same problem holding up WAI review process.
  CMN: Hoping QA person would sart sooner.
  JT: Should I go to CG with idea of separate externally funded project.
  CMN: Still concerned. But we should talk to the CG about it.  It is WG
  work. But we have limited resources.
  GR: Should use pre-existing expert resources.
  CMN: Need vendor neutrality.
  Action Item: JT will ask CG what they think
  CMN: Long range question.  How does documententation apply to
  accessibility of the tool itself?  Does it fit in 6 or 7?
  GR: Both
  JR: 7 only
  
  ACTION ITEMS
  1. ALL check techniques against new prompt definition
  2. GR should put up method
  3. HS Will look into logo program.
  4. JT will talk to CG about evaluations and method
  

--
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia

Received on Tuesday, 20 June 2000 15:45:06 UTC