Re: minutes from last week published

I agree...

chaals

On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:

  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/>
  -------------------------------------------------------------------
  

--
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 Thursday, 24 February 2000 01:48:35 UTC