- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 15:21:16 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Sorry, I was talking a lot so they're pretty rough. Jan Richards William Loughborough Jutta Treviranus Fred Barnett Lou Gerard (MS) Gregory Rosmita JT: We need to decide on tasks and find gaps. JR: Jan explains his message sent just before meeting. JT: Questions? WL: It is a good idea to break out the core stuff and then have the techniques for different languages, etc. THere would actually be 2 docs. JT: That's new. We used to just talk about different views. WL: Look at WL's checker (explains it's use). Propose the same for toole evaluation project. So labels are "if your are designing a table editor" instead of "are you using tables". WL: In tool evaluation version we would put different kinds of tools for each row. JT: Will make the document more readable. JR: Might be a problem if one doc is required. GR: Not a problem if its just a search tool. WL: It's just a big time saver. JT: We do have to set out usable document structure. JT: OK what face to face tasks are there. JT: 1. Identify redundant techniques? WL: Positive comments JT: 2. Clean up classifications for each checkpoint. JT: 3. Cleaning up the examples so they are really examples. WL: We need examples from other companies. JR: What about MS's blue underline. LG: We do some stuff. Already sent examples. JT: OK, we also need to determine the views. JR: So that's basically asking what types of tools there are. JT: Yep. JR: Maybe we should do it as authoring components that can be built up into different type of tools. WL: That fits in with my tool. JT: Other issues? JT: What about the evaluation document? WL: We need a big table that specifies who needs to look at what areas. So the user only needs to look at the things applicable to the tools being tested or evaluated. JR: that's done for image. JT: Would also like to extend evaluation structure to the other content types that we are evaluating for. JR: Some of the tests in the structure are based on relative P checkpoints so they should extend across all contnet types. JT: We need to ensure that we have all content types agreed upon. JT: anything else to do? WL: We only have a day and a half. JT: OK that's it. We have lots to do. -- Jan Richards Access Software Designer Adaptive Technology Resource Centre University of Toronto Phone: (416) 946-7060 Fax: (416) 971-2896 Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
Received on Tuesday, 26 September 2000 15:21:43 UTC