Nov. 14 Minutes (fwd)

Thanks Jan...

Charles
-- 
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, Australia
September - November 2000:
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:37:22 -0500
From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Subject: Nov. 14 Minutes

Minutes:
PJ: Phil Jenkins
JT: Jutta Treviranus
MK: Marjolein Katsma
JR: Jan Richards
M: Mathais
DB: Dick Brown
GR: Gregory Rosmita
WL: William Loughborough
PLENARY SESSION:
JT: Plenary Meeting logistics:
There will be 3 days. 2 days meeting with AERT.
Then there will be a plenary day (Wednesday).
Does this meet our needs?
MK: Can't we decide before hand who we can meet.
DB joins.
PJ: Can we submit an "requests for presentations" to each group we're
meeting so they tell us what they want to know.
JT: Good idea, se could suggest for the plenary day every group submits
expectations to others.
GR joins.
JT: Will send on the idea.
GR: will go to RDF and ???
WL joins.
JT: Propose that we send request for presentations to groups that are
conflicting with our meetings.
UA ISSUES:
PJ: Question about UA. For their documentation they say its P1 to meet
WCAG P1 and P2.
GR: He had proposed that UA documentation should be P1 to all WCAG P1,
P2 and P3. There are lots of reasons when installing software, etc.
PJ: In what cases should the WCAG priorities be raised. For UAs you
believe that the prioriteis should be raised.  Should they be raised for
AU as well.
GR: When documentation is inaccessible. Some applications need to be
held to a higher standard.
GR: Documentation is so important.  Prevents people from upgrading. Also
concern that manufactures could send out PDF and link to Adobe PDF
access - not a good solution.
PJ: Doesn't WCAG cover this.
WL: No.
PJ: Sometime content is different mouse vs. screen reader use. Maybe UA
needs to require supplementary documentation for using access devices.
GR: That's the users responsibility.  They know how to use their tech.
They need to know how to use all the UA access features.
PJ: Accessibility of accessibility features in the doc?
GR: No its the accessibility of the documentation.
[Back and forth]
PJ: Are there WCAG checkpoints you can point to.
GR: We did not go through WCAG point by point.
JT: Could also interpret checkpoint as saying that documemtation is very
important and should meet both P1 and P2.
PJ: GR is saying that minimum is higher than P1 when WCAG says P1 is the
minimum for accessibility.
GR: P1 eliminate impossible, P2 eliminate difficulty, documentation
needs to meet a higher standard.
PJ: What other case need to meet this higher standard? AU? How do we
decide this?
GR: What about platforms that don't have accessibility standards.
WL: The thing about documentation is that WCAG deals with docs that
don't have documentation. UA and AU deal with software and the
documentation is very important.
MK: A web page could be an application that does have documentation.
WL: WCAG doesn't deal with that.
PJ: If it's just a web page, documentation is not a problem.
GR: A criticism of WCAG 1.0 is that it doesn't cover Web page apps very
well.
PJ: Right, it talks about turning scripts off.
GR: Talked to Ian about submitting this as errata to WCAG and Ian
thought it would be a good idea.
JT: Not for this group to decide.  But we can look at our own guideline
7.
Action Item: JT will discuss this at CG.
JT: Should AU follow the UA example?
INTEGRATION OF AERT:
JR: Reports
PJ: Lots of tools doing evaluation now. New IBM product does some
accessibility evaluation.
JT: Can you pass on the new techniques to ER?
PJ: Some of new new tools check for unimportant things. Can be
confusing.
GR: Some of this was implemented when the ER document was at an earlier
state.
Discussion of new Dreamweaver product screenshot.
JT: I have trial copy and a request for conformance evaluation.
JR: Will look at the Macromedia 4 trial version.
JT: Can we move Checkpoint 4.1 Techniques to ERT?
All: YES
JT: Any other issues?
WL: RESPONSIBLE AUTHORING INCLUDES INDEXING
WL: New authoring tools guidelines need checkpoints concerning metadata
and conformance claims.
JT: Relies on WCAG.
GR: Reliance on UA as well?
JR: Can't do that now.  Would be good for ATAG 2.0.
-- 
Jan Richards
Software Designer
jan.richards@utoronto.ca
Tel: (416) 946-7060
Fax: (416) 971-2896
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre
University of Toronto

Received on Tuesday, 14 November 2000 15:48:12 UTC