minutes of joint meeting

at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/meetings/17oct00 and in text below:

Note action items for JT and LK (And me, but I have done them)

Charles


   [1]W3C logo  [2] Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo 
   
                 WAI AU / ER Teleconference - 17 October 2000
                                       
Details

   Chair: Jutta treviranus
   
   Date: Tuesday 17 October 2000
   
   Time: 2:30pm - 4:00pm Boston time (1830Z - 2000Z)
   
   Phone number: Tobin Bridge, +1 (617) 252 7000
     _________________________________________________________________
   
Agenda

   The Latest Draft is the Recommendation dated 3 February, available at
   [3]http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203. The latest
   techniques draft is dated 4 May March, available at
   [4]http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WD-ATAG10-TECHS-20000504. The latest draft
   of the Accessibiltiy Evaluation and Repair Techniques is dated 15
   March at [5]http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert-20000315
    1. Plenary
    2. AERT moving to AU group
    3. Action request from WCAG
     _________________________________________________________________
   
Attendance

     * Len Kasday
     * Jutta Treviranus
     * William Loughborough
     * Matthias Müller-Prove
     * Charles McCathieNevile
     * Chris Ridpath
     * Dick Brown
     * Jan Richards
     * Tim Springer
     * Marjolein Katsma
     * Lou Gerard
       
  Regrets
  
     * Gregory Rosmaita
     * Phill Jenkins
     _________________________________________________________________
   
Action Items and Resolutions

     * Resolved: We want that one day together and one day seperately at
       the Plenary
     * Action CMN: Follow up.
     * Resolved: We want to jointly (AU and ER) meet with as many as
       possible of: XHTML, XML, Style, Mobile, MathML, SMIL, SVG, Device
       Independence, CC/PP.
     * Action CMN: Follow up with Susan
     * Action LK, JT: Coordinate with each other, chairs of those groups
     * Resolved: Use AU list for the discussion of issues for plenary
     * Resolved: AERT to be incoroporated into AU work, with proviso that
       we want to keep the existing format and features indentifiable.
     * Action JT: Coordinate with WCAG to get clarification of the
       request for checking of checkpoints
     _________________________________________________________________
   
Minutes

W3C Plenary

   JT We need to say what we want and who we want to meet with.
   
   MK wasn' sure what the intention was so I gave my personal preferences
   
   CMN We should grab a space before they all go. AU Could have a 1 day
   meeting - do we want a joint meeting with ER - maybe one day on our
   own and one with ER
   
   WL Does that leave hallway time?
   
   CMN Yes. Dates are about 26th Feb for a week, with plenary Wednesday
   
   JT I can make it, and probably Jan and Chris
   
   MK Probably - I have to move to Boston early next year so I don't know
   when but I will try.
   
   DB probably
   
   LG - Lisa will probably be there
   
   WL probably not.
   
   CMN Should we ask for two days, one together and one in our own
   groups?
   
   Resolved: We want that
   
   Action CMN: Follow up.
   
   CMN What groups would we like to meet?
   
   JT How is that planned?
   
   CMN As I understand it we make a request to Susan, and we should also
   tell the groups themselves
   
   JT Suggested: XHTML, XML, SMIL, MathML
   
   MK That was my personal preference
   
   CMN I would like to add SVG and Voice group
   
   MK We cannot meet with all of them
   
   LK We can split into subgroups
   
   JT Or we can send a representative to each group
   
   CMN The XSL group is planning on being there
   
   MK I intended to include them.
   
   WL Is there still a CSS group?
   
   JT It would be ideal if some groups were jointly meeting and we can
   get several at the same time.
   
   CMN I have on my list XHTML, XML, Voice, Style, MathML, SMIL, SVG
   
   WL CC/PP?
   
   MK Anything on the wireless front?
   
   CMN There may be a Device Independence Activity there by then
   
   MK I would be interested in that.
   
   CMN Do we want to do it as two groups, together?
   
   JT I think it would be better together
   
   LK Especially since we are getting more closely connected
   
   Resolved: We want to jointly (AU and ER) meet with as many as possible
   of: XHTML, XML, Style, Mobile, MathML, SMIL, SVG, Device Independence,
   CC/PP.
   
   Action CMN: Follow up with Susan
   
   LK We should be giving a sense of priority
   
   Action LK, JT: Coordinate with each other, chairs of those groups
   
   JT We should create a list of issues to discuss with the groups and
   how much we want to talk to them
   
   LK Is it possible that there will be a big arena where all the groups
   are together presenting what they each do?
   
   CMN I believe that is what is planned for the wednesday
   
   JT What is Len and I start a ruinning list of issues for each group
   and people add via mailing lists
   
   LK Which list?
   
   JT Why not cross-post?
   
   CMN becuase I get twice as much mail then
   
   LK Four times if you are on the distribution list.
   
   JT How many people in ER are not on Au list?
   
   Just LK
   
   Resolved: Use AU list for the discussion of issues for plenary
   
AERT moving to AU

   JT It was proposed at the face to face to move the AERT work into the
   AU group. Wendy's message lists advantages and some concerns. Does
   everyone have that list?
   
   TS No.
   
   LK My concern was that right now this is all considered informative,
   not normative - these are not requirements but ways of doing things.
   Given that so much is heuristic and User Interface, I would like to
   see it stay like that
   
   JT That is the assumption with the Techniques document
   
   JR Some techniques take the form of a normative statement, but otheres
   are suggestions
   
   JT We have a way of classifying whether a technique is just an idea or
   clarification, or whether it is a way to meet the checkpoint. We have
   the facility to make sure that everything is listed as a suggestion
   
   JR One thing I was thinking is that some techniques belong in WCAG. I
   think it is a good idea that this come over to ATAG but some of those
   things belong in WCAG.
   
   JT Example?
   
   JR Not in front of me. But for example alt text - they are really WCAG
   things, not based on an authoring tool.
   
   LK In the process of creating the AERT we wound up giving additional
   definition to WCAG - like in the ATAG techniques, some of it is
   clarifying stuff in WCAG. I want to withdraw what I said about it
   being it purely informative - with some stuff being an efective
   requirement is good.
   
   JT Regarding Jan's comment, it doesn't mean that it can't be done in
   an authoring tool. Should it be in ATAG and WCAG, or just one?
   
   JR These things are really requirements - for example a word limit on
   the text of an alt attribute. If they are requirements for stuff in
   the page they should be in WCAG.
   
   JT It can be both
   
   JR Right. All the WCAG stuff comes across, but it would be strange to
   have things in ATAG that are not there in WCAG.
   
   CMN It sounds like we should pass on techniques to WCAG as we
   integrate them.
   
   LK As a matter of fact sometimes in ER we had discussions that we
   wound up having to pass over to another group.
   
   JT This isn't an objection, but a point that we also want to send some
   stuff into WCAG?
   
   JR There will be some division of stuff that goes to WCAG.
   
   CR Is there someone in AU who is interested in editing the document?
   Does someone have to go to AU with it to work on it?
   
   JT I think so
   
   CR I think it would not be good for me to move over.
   
   CMN Wendy volunteered to help integrate the document.
   
   JT Do you think it is sufficient for Wendy to help?
   
   CR we have it close to complete.
   
   CR What is the strong argument for moving it?
   
   CMN The document forms a large part of HTML techniques for AU and that
   it would free ER to spend more time on tools.
   
   WL How does that argue in favour of AU instead of WCAG?
   
   JT Checking and repairing is more a responsibility of the tool than
   just an author. Are the bulk of AERT tings checking and repairing, or
   WCAG requiremetns
   
   LK IT depends how you look at it. For example, when you have a form
   that goes to a CGI check the mime type that is returned. From a tool
   point of view, check it, from a WCAG point of view you just make it
   something. It is really a question about point of view.
   
   CMN I think that there will be a bunch of stuff passed to WCAG that we
   will keep duplicated - expressing them in our documents as tool
   methods, and WCAG will do it as how to hand code
   
   TS We based a lot of our work on the AERT and I think it is much more
   useful for tool development than hand coding.
   
   LK An example that is an operational process - it is inferred that the
   tool does such and such.
   
   CMN I propose that we take this into AU, accept Wendy's offer, and
   take an action to look at the techniques and pass them to WCAG as
   appropriate.
   
   JT Any objections?
   
   LK Practically, no objection. Philosophically you could express this
   as WCAG methods. But there is a home open and waiting. Given that
   Wendy has offered to edit this, and is one of the editors on WCAG, I
   think this is OK
   
   TS Will the AERT be mapped into the AU structure
   
   CMN yes, but there are clear checkpoints for checking and repairing -
   I don' think there will be a loss of identity
   
   JT we are working on seperate views, so there will be a view for
   evaluation/repair tools
   
   TS The current format was very good for us to use, so I would like to
   keep it like that
   
   LK What exactly was helpful?
   
   TS In particular the fact that it mapped easily to the WCAG guidelines
   
   LK For example it has requirements for each element
   
   TS Right. The downside is that you can lose some of the higher level
   concepts
   
   LK Kind of like lint.
   
   TS Yes
   
   CMN The AU techniques that are likely to be relevant are already
   mapped. I think it would be good to have the lists of things to do by
   element. I guess we should take away that we want to keep the format
   of this pretty much as is.
   
   JT Any more comments?
   
   Rersolved: AERT to be incoroporated into AU work, with proviso that we
   want to keep the existing format and features indentifiable.
   
other business

   CMN Mapping techniques of WCAG 20 to see how they can be done. Do we
   want to do this on list?
   
   LK If we can get consensus on the overall philosophy that will save a
   bunch od list hacking. With very few exceptions it is impoassible to
   do a 100% automatic check. So a simple yes/no answer to "can it be
   checked automatically" isn't a good question.
   
   CMN It seems clear to me too that we can't automatically check to 100%
   certainty
   
   JT Anyone disagree?
   
   No disagreement...
   
   JT You prposed some calssifactions of checkability.
   
   LK They are just a better way of thinking about them - I don't have a
   good idea about how to do this. You could do it statistically, but we
   don't havea statistcial base. But it is obvious that some things you
   can do a pretty good test for, and other things it is awfully
   difficult. I don't have goos scales for that
   
   TS The way we guage it is what kind of interaction and comprehension
   the user needs to be able to use the test. I don't know if that makes
   sense for a scale, but it goes from completely automatic to completely
   user-run and requiring the user to learn/know something specific.
   
   CMN I thin ka first approach would be to take AERT, work it through
   the mapping supplied, and we will be able to say "we have pretty good
   tests for X, and pretty much nothing for Y"
   
   LK OK. I can imagine there being a new style of doing web pages that
   changes what we have to test.
   
   JT Charles are you volunteering.
   
   CMN Well, I am not sure that I want to - does anyone want to volunteer
   for a section?
   
   JT There are people who own chunks already
   
   JR I sent a big chunk
   
   Moved to agenda for AU next week
   
   JT What is the goal of the WCAG request?
   
   CMN I think they want qualitative information on what can be done, to
   set up some expectations.
   
   JT I think we should have a dialogue with WCAG before we go further
   with this.
   
   CMN Should we do the ampping of AERT and then ask, or should we ask
   first
   
   JT I think we should ask first.
   
   Action JT: Coordinate with WCAG to get clarification of the request
   
   /* MK leaves
   
Next meetings:

   AU Tuesday, ER Monday, normal times
   
   Next Joint meeting 7 November 2:30 pm Boston time - adjust for
   localisation(Melbourne Cup day - Charles will not be there)
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   [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: 2000/10/18 15:11:35 $

References

   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/WAI
   3. http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/PR-WAI-AUTOOLS-19991210/
   4. http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WD-ATAG10-TECHS-20000308
   5. http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert
   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, 18 October 2000 11:14:43 UTC