Re: minutes from last week published

aloha, phil!

as scribe for the last telecon, i recorded the "cool-o-matic" response to 
what charles was minuted as having stated immediately prior to the general 
agreement voiced on the call, to wit:

quote
CMN: yeah; running threads -- ATAG 4.2 WCAG 1.1, ATAG 4.2 WCAG 1.2; etc;
unquote

recently, charles has begun to post quote thinking points unquote for 
discussion at tomorrow's telecon on the AU list, which are being threaded 
using the following syntax:

         Technique X.Y (technique subject)

rather than using the cool-o-matic approach

         ATAG X.Y WCAG Z.Q

but before i ascribe this inconsistency to the age-old gap between theory 
and practice rearing its ugly head, charles should have his say...  i think 
he is merely trying to collate in one place all of the WCAG checkpoints 
that apply to specific ATAG checkpoints, as a basis for moving forward on 
specific techniques, which will then be threaded using the cool-o-matic 
subject line syntax, viz:

         ATAG 3.2 WCAG 1.1

at least, that's what _i_ think charles is doing...  charles, what say you?

gregory.

At 11:27 AM 2/21/00 -0600, Phil J wrote:

>Sorry I wasn't on the phone call.  I also forgot to send regrets.  For my
>repentance I read the minutes.  Now I need to clarify a point or two about
>the new IBM guidelines, the scope of the techniques document, and the
>approach to comments on the techniques.
>
>IBM guidelines:  For those of you who haven't read them, there are 5 sets
>of guidelines, one for hardware, Lotus Notes, Java applications, Software
>applications, and Web sites.  The only set that applies to the ATAG are the
>ones on Software and Java applications.  IBM has no specific guidelines for
>tool developers other than the ones on software and Java.  Only these two
>would apply to ATAG 7.1 and actually were "filled out" by several tool
>developers as they assessed themselves against the ATAG.
>
>The IBM guidelines were written by myself, James Thatcher, Richard
>Schwerdtfeger, Shannon Rapuano, Kim Stephens, Andi Snow-Weaver, and John
>Steger.  They are not "pie-in-the-sky" because they actually have been used
>by IBM developers, updated by us experts, re-used by developers, and again
>updated by us experts.  We're getting it right and we're on version 2.1 of
>the checklists.  Since we [IBM] don't have specifics guidelines on tools,
>we don't have any ready made content for the ATAG Techniques Note. other
>than 7.1.
>
>Comments regarding "import from ERT" and "conformance evals":  The
>relationship between the ERT, the "conformance evals", and the ATAG
>Techniques Note need to be clarified.  I would not support importing from
>the ERT anymore than importing from the IBM Java guidelines for ATAG 7.1.
>Having a lot of links from the techniques to the ERT would be helpful.
>Having a lot of links from the techniques to the "conformance evals" would
>be helpful, and the same with Windows and Java applications guidelines.  So
>that brings us to the unique purpose of the ATAG Techniques Note document.
>In my mind it is unique in that it maps from the ATAG to the ERT and other
>documents.  It's value is in the mapping.  If either the ERT, or the
>Windows, or Java documents need help, those document should be helped and
>not added to the techniques uniquely.  If there is an implementation
>revealed in the "conformance evals" that we as a working group agree is
>invalid or undesirable, and hopefully not in the ERT, then it could be
>within the purpose of the techniques document to list what NOT to do.
>These "DO NOT's" could be explained without specifically pointing to the
>vendor(s) implementing them.  We would never know ALL the vendors doing the
>bad or good things, so none of them should be listed in the techniques
>document.
>
>Comment regarding "subject lines" being "cool-o-matic": I'm confused.  Is
>the latest two threads with the subject line "Techniques for 3.1 (get
>alternative content)" and "techniques for 3.2 (separate structure/content
>and presentation" the first two examples of the cool-o-matic approach?  And
>when I want to talk about a specific technique that connects between ATAG
>and the WCAG I would use the subject title "ATAG 3.2 WCAG 1.1" ?
>
>Regards,
>Phill Jenkins

[clip clipped]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNTABILITY, n.  The mother of caution.
                         -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory J. Rosmaita      <unagi69@concentric.net>
Camera Obscura           <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html>
VICUG NYC                <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/>
Read 'Em & Speak         <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/books/>
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2000 15:37:42 UTC