- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 16:54:11 -0500 (EST)
- To: pjenkins@us.ibm.com
- cc: WAI AU Guidelines <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Was a short one - problems with the telephones.
Minutes below - will be added to the site shortly
Charles McCN
WAI AU Teleconference - 1 March 2000
Details
Chair: Jutta Treviranus
Date: Wednesday 1 March 2000
Time: 4:00pm - 5:30pm Boston time (1900Z - 2030Z)
Phone number: Tobin Bridge, +1 (617) 252 7000
_________________________________________________________________
Agenda
The Latest Draft is the Recommendation dated 3 February, available at
[4]http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203.
* Review of work progress since [5]last meeting.
_________________________________________________________________
Attendance
* Charles McCathieNevile
* Jutta Treviranus
* Gregory Rosmaita
* Jan Richards
* William Loughborough
* Dick Brown
* Kynn Bartlett
Regrets
* Ian Jacobs
_________________________________________________________________
Minutes
CMN I did some stuff for 3.1 and some 3.2 which I haven't sent. There
is a lot of redundancy in WCAG. Seems like a good approach, and we
will end up with lots of stuff
JT Redundancy in WCAG
CMN In the checkpoints themselves - meeting one checkpoint often
already meets several others need lots of cross-referencing
JR I tried to stay away from the WCAG techniques
CMN I have left in links ot WCAG techniques. Are people finding the
length impossible?
JR How many will we have? THere are 7 P-R checkpoints. Another
apporach - I broke mine into different types of alternate content.
* short descriptive
* short function
* longer description
* metadata
* alternate pages
* etc
For each of these I will leave references to WCAG, and some sample
information. I had a heading called prompting - think about what the
authoring tool needs to automate to get this done.
GR I really liked the short functional text approach and emphasis on
function rather than description.
JR The difference can mean different types of information needs to be
kept.
CMN How do you find using WCAG
JR I think it needs to be tightened up a lot, and that will mean
changes
CMN Yes. That will take time though - I think we will be able to keep
up.
JT The thing we want to get at is how to make sure you have done it in
a tool
JR There is a problem that you cannot use it as a step-by-step test -
you have to go back to WCAG at that point, but they are not totally
clear on everything that is needed.
CMN Please take issues with WCAG to that working group.
JR I think my text and Charles' can be complementary
CMN It sounds like it would work as complementary (but I haven't read
it yet.)
JR I still have a lot of work to keep doing this.
DB Heather Swayne is probably going to attend face to face, but no
further news.
WL First thing that came up is whether what Jan was talking about
deals with authoring tools rather than the act of authoring. As to
standing back one thing that comes up is whether the techniques
document should be more than examples from the real world
JT I think there need to be possible implementations as well.
WL I started writing something of a long view as to how this fits into
accessibility.
GR I sent out some other techniques stuff. I have some stuff i have
been working on - how do you want them?
CMN Attach them or include them as a message to the list.
JR What kind of templates
GR Frameset, etc.
JT I went over ERT document. It basicaly covers 4.1 and 4.2, and it
also provides some material for 4.4 and 4.5. There are nice
discussions about how to deal with author intervention. The question
is how to incorporate it
CMN Perhaps we just say this is the set of techniques, and link to it.
JR I would agree with that.
JT Yes, that would make sense.
WL I am leaning to deferring lots of techniques to ERT.
JT It can serve as pieces for 4.4 and 4.5, but for the rest we need
text.
CMN I think Bill's point about pointing to existing things is good - I
would like to have a lot of them
JT I think sample implementations are extremely important.
CMN I would like to produce a new draft of the techniques in the next
week, just so we can see if we are going in a sensible direction. So
please put stuff up as proposals for pieces of the techniques
document.
GR Don't think I can get stuff up by Friday
JR I will try to shape some stuff out but probably not friday
DB Not just days.
CMN How about Tuesday?
/* should be able to have some of them as examples */
JT We will have some examples from courseware tools - that should be
done by friday. We are going to need implementation test examples.
_________________________________________________________________
[6]Copyright © 2000 [7]W3C ([8]MIT, [9]INRIA, [10]Keio ), All Rights
Reserved. W3C [11]liability, [12]trademark, [13]document use and
[14]software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this site
are in accordance with our [15]public and [16]Member privacy
statements.
_________________________________________________________________
Last Modified $Date: 2000/03/01 21:44:25 $
References
1. http://www.w3.org/WAI/
2. http://www.w3.org/WAI/
3. http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU
4. http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/PR-WAI-AUTOOLS-19991210/
5. http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/meetings/23feb00
6. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice.html#Copyright
7. http://www.w3.org/
8. http://www.lcs.mit.edu/
9. http://www.inria.fr/
10. http://www.keio.ac.jp/
11. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice.html#Legal Disclaimer
12. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice.html#W3C Trademarks
13. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents.html
14. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software.html
15. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/privacy-statement.html#Public
16. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/privacy-statement.html#Members
Received on Wednesday, 1 March 2000 16:54:12 UTC