- From: <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 05:27 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
- Message-Id: <200106190927.FAA25062@ns1.hicom.net>
aloha, y'all! 1. apologies for not posting this before the commencement of this morning's meeting, 2. since there is a chance that the web based email client i am using will cause the lines of this post not to wrap in some displays, so i'm also going to include the minutes as an attachment gregory. ------------------------- Authoring Tool Face2Face Meeting CWI Amsterdam 18 June 2001 ATENDEES Jutta, JT (chair) Charles McCathieNevile, CMN Gregory J. Rosmaita, GJR (scribe) Katie Haritos-Shea, HHS Marjolein Katsma, MK (invited expert) Chris Ridpath, CR Carlos Velasco, CV Giorgio Brajnik GB Jan Richards, JR William Loughborough, WL (by phone/IRC) Heather Swayne, HS (briefly by phone) Phill Jenkins, PJ (briefly by phone) (VERY) RAW MINUTES 1. INTRODUCTIONS // once around the room - names and affiliations 2. AGENDA REVIEW JT: put things in afternoon at the request of those joining us--evaluation topics, mainly // CMN tries to get the agenda from the web, but has to rely on his cache // JT: agenda review: 1. structure and minimum requirements for Wombat 2. sub-text and intro text 3. minimum requirements - post checkpoint text for each checkpoint - refer to MK's post of 18 June 2001 4. evaluation techniques 5. review of current evaluations CMN: Graham Oliver (GO) will be calling in at 1:30pm local time, as will Phill Jenkins (PJ) and William Loughborough (WL) JT: GO will be reviewing Lotus review he performed-is it available CMN: published it to the web over the weekend JT: additions to today's agenda? JR: discussion of 4.1 and 4.2 JT: on agenda--discussion will be based on JR's posts to au list AGENDA ITEM 1: Structure of Document JT: as move from ATAG 1.0 to Wombat, want to perfect structure of document so can move to 2.0 easily; opportunity to look at structure and come up with consistent structure // CMN displays Wombat version of ATAG on projector // CMN: go through issues one-by-one? JT: want to start by reviewing existing structure; have GL itself in as brief a form as possible (Support accessible authoring practices); introductory text that introduces set of checkpoints--intended as motivational and explanatory text to clarify what fits into this category of checkpoints--no real pattern to explanatory/intro text; within checkpoints, have checkpoint itself, minimum statement an advanced statement, and references to related checkpoints // CMN gets connected // GB: who will be using ATAG? JT: developers of authoring tools; will be used by policy makers, purchasers, and others, but primary audience is developer CMN: rough guide: these GLs with list of checkpoints that relate to WCAG plus the things that authoring tool must do in order to be accessible to PWDs JT: not sufficient for building a checker tool, but how an authoring tool can integrate checking into the look & feel of the tool // CMN shows current techniques document // JT: question this morning is, is this the structure we want to stick with? How do people feel about the abstract nature of the "at minimum" statements? Have we reached the right tone in regards the at minimum CV: in relation to what? CMN: the structure of the new document JT: added recently "at minimum" and "advanced implementation" statement along with related checkpoints/guidelines; previously, didn't have much--just some notes and explanatory text CMN: general principle of "at minimum" is fairly helpful; in discussion with developers, developerslike minimum; helpful to make minimum satisfaction explicit MK: also helps to be more specific; not just "good idea--now what do I do?" JT: that question should be answered by techniques CMN: diff between reading GL and implementing it; ATAG small enough--explanatory material mostly in techniques, to which developerswill have to look MK: access document with different views and in different details JT: responsible for growing the doc--had a very short GL document and a very large techs document; wanted to give reviewers of ATAG a bit more info so didn't need to keep referring to techniques JT: other objection -- with wide array of tools, there are so many diff implementations, shouldn't be too specific in GL, so as to allow developersto exercise judgment, creativity, etc. -- have we gone too far or not far enough? GB: are techs proscriptive? JT: no-GL is, with exception of "at minimum" which does set a proscriptive minimum; talk about functionalities author using tool would need; from author's perspective, this is functionality that should be there CMN: bottom line--no matter what type of tool, minimum requirements are "what is required to perform task X"; techniques are suggestions and further discussion/clarification JT: more complicated; don't have much to go by when doing complex evaluation CMN: new techniques structure // CMN illustrates // CMN: techniques marked as "required" or "suggested"--basic idea is, if you do some things, you will meet checkpoint, if do others, may be good things to do, but don't satisfy checkpoint; need to ascertain if we have drawn delineations correctly JT: required statements in Techniques make good candidates for further descriptions in GL itself GJR: requirements in Techniques bothers me JT: do we need an "at minimum with every checkpoint? JR: if don't then interpretation will be they don't know MK: helps structure JT: so need minimum & advanced JR: advanced not always necessary due to variations in tools we are addressing CMN: thought search checkpoint was very clear, but with at minimum and advanced implementation info, much much clearer; plus, as JR said, helps saleability of doc JT: put in advanced so that people wouldn't stop just at minimum JR: this checkpoint promotes/requires verbiage needs to be discussed; JT: describe JR: construct plays diff role in diff situation; what needs to be done; provides more context; GJR: is bothered CMN: in terms of requirements in techniques, idea isn't this is required in a normative sense, so need to sort between informative and normative; techniques informative--WG's opinion of what can meet checkpoint--if don't get to this level of functionality, haven't met checkpoint; point is to give guidance -- informative guide to what kind of techs need to be implemented GB: isn't GL a description of policy and techs a "hint" or suggestion of how should be implemented; GL should be concise and general and abstract so rarely change; techniques should change and be updated often to reflect emerging technologies GJR: I understand the point of reorganization, but am concerned about terminology CV: use term "minimum requirement" -- why? CMN: for specific example, 4.2 -- help author correct accessibility problems; one dev (MS) said, having info about how to correct in help section is enough; WG didn't think that was sufficient CV: be explicit in checkpoint, then JR: other GL documents rely on sub-text and requirements GJR: CMN: what happens--write things up reasonably briefly in 2 or 3 pieces with redundancy or write one long thing that says everything we are trying to say--better to have 2 or 3 statements that more or less say the same thing, than one monolithic thing CV: rationale between dividing GL 5 & 6 -- seem to be one GL to me; so close together--one GL with 2 sets of checkpoints CMN: most checkpoints are related to each other; most GLs closely related to one another; JT: GL 6 breaks GL5 to some extent -- one is concerned with integration, the other is specific sections that address accessibility JR: entire document could be summarized as "make sure that accessible content" GJR: should be "make sure anyone can create accessible content" MK: GL5 and GL6 fits different styles of working--better for end user of product JR: GL3 a special case of other, broader GLs MK: guidelines versus techniques -- ATAG is what product manager uses to evaluate where tool stands--basis for work orders; developers will use/rely on techniques JR: part of my thinking--very minimums out of techniques and into GL JT: one risk is that it binds the document temporarily--are we reaching the right abstractness GJR: no CMN: in some yes, in some, no--need to look at each minimum--how long do we want this to last? Five years? Six months? MK: max lifetime should be 2 years at most GB: what if tool doesn't do anything that the techniques say? GJR: wrong approach -- shouldn't stick specific verbiage into -- blah blah blah CMN: not entirely true--inherited structure from ATAG; need to throw stuff on wall to see how works; as for longevity, if rely on ATAG for 2 years, is that a significant risk--will we have broken things found? WG will be asked more specific questions; doing what we're doing if keep ATAG 1.0 intact; hasn't turned up a lot of howling errors--my goal is aim for document that lasts 5 years, which means that it probably won't live for more than 2 years; W3C process good at weeding out bad design; broad enough to cope with range of tools (illustrator, lotus notes, Amaya, video editors, online courseware, archival software, etc.) and durability of GL abstractions; functional requirements aren't such a problem--can point out in techniques how to satisfy for platform specific design; technique becomes--use OS conventions; if put in requirements about things tool has to do to a specific ML, then have problems; criterion for minimum--is this good in every case? If a case that this is a bad thing to do, this should be highlighted in techniques GJR: problem is access to walls -- who's throwing, who's washing? GJR: structure techniques descending order from this is best to this is ok, but watch out for, and this sucks but you can do it anyway? // discussion of axes in techniques // GJR: need better structure for techniques--hierarchy and headers CMN: critical for a checkpoint, easy to do, platform specific stuff JT: tentatively "at min" and "advanced" structure might work, so Wombat is a test of that structure; going back now to ascertain if worked and what further thoughts on structure we have GB: example of necessary techniques for 4.1 -- what would be necessary? JR: at minimum statement in Wombat [JR quotes proposal from AU list]; others don't agree that any automation is required; CMN: why I want to get into specifics after break; techniques capture assumptions and M.O.s; GL has to be short enough for a project manager to read--if too long, won't bother with it--has happened in the past; need a short enough version that it passes that hurdle; in techniques, need a lot of verbiage--not clear and concise like checkpoint text JT: GJR, do you have any thoughts on proposed structures of alternative ways of doing it GJR:: JT: could put at minimum in techniques as first statement in techniques document; JR: that does mean that you have to switch documents MK: product manager will just read GL JR: could say in top of checkpoint document that the subtext below checkpoint not part of document, but first technique provided for explanatory purposes only CMN: would like not to do that; have biggest possible division between what is required by checkpoint and what is explanatory material; in techs, these are things we think you need to do, but this isn't the only way; if do this way, we believe you have satisfied the checkpoint; minimums needs to be actual requirement GJR: suggesting a three tiered document CMN: concrete proposal: based on GJR's comments: 1. Checklist ordered by priority (for sake of argument) is GJR's top--level document -- just checkpoint text, no at minimums, no explanations -- very short and lean 2. current Wombat -- GLs, explanatory text per GL, checkpoints, for each CP at least checkpoint text, priority minimum requirement; all may/should have rational, and more advanced explanation; split Text Priority Minimum Requirement Rationale More Advanced (broad functionality suggestions, not just first technique--may be the same, but could be diff) 3. Techniques -- each technique has an idea as to whether a technique will satisfy a checkpoint, or whether it in combo with another will satisfy checkpoint or if it is very good thing to do GB: min requirement an interpretation of checkpoint -- what tool should do and what isn't sufficient JT: more advanced should be paired with at minimums CMN: suggesting that we break up narrative sub-text into point form chunks JT: larger overview--retain 3 documents; move checklist to executive summary? CMN: checklist should remain the checklist; Wombat checklist: listed by priority and includes sub-text JT: intended just as a checklist CMN: only has priority info and checkpoint text; propose that add ATAG introduction; page of narrative plus list of requirements JT: different document than had previously MK: not sure about that JT: different intent; worries me that taking checklist and repurposing it to do something else CMN: as I think about it, checklist is a thing that I look at a lot; read document 27,000 times, and I want to look up particular chapter and verse to find explanatory material; want to give people GL document--does that suffice? Is it the right level of document? MK: as former PM, the at minimum are really important JR: grab just GL text and GL intros and put those together as executive summary JT: need further explicit structure in GL document and techniques document; top-level document--repurposing checklist? Extraction from current ATAG? CMN: GL document and a techniques document enough to track; save CV: need a Schema for document, not just XSLT GB: if want to set priorities, write content first, build techniques, then think about implementation details // 10:30 break // FUNCTIONAL STRUCTURE OF GL and TECHNIQUES JT: worry about executive document later after GL and Techniques // Karl Dubost joins // KD: Quality Assurance activity--help people build better guidelines and specifications, test suites, conformance evaluations, etc.; JT: start with Guidelines document; in terms of structure of LG document, at the moment have: 1. Guideline 2. explanatory text (applies to most/all checkpoints) 3. concise statement of checkpoint 4. sub-text: minimum, advanced, explanatory text (this checkpoint requires...) 5. relationship to other checkpoints JR: restatement of checkpoint, background, context JT: do people agree with structure? Additions, subtractions, changes? CMN: projecting an illustration of what we currently have; changing checkpoint sub-text so that at minimum, more advanced, rationale, MK: start with rationale; GB: why CP is important? JT: rationale and/or context -- perhaps should be label for field MK: still rationale -- keep it // agreed -- keep rationale // CMN: "se also" -- techniques and other related checkpoints MK proposes: Checkpoint text, priority, rationale, at minimum, advanced, pointers JT: how should they be written: at minimum are functional CMN: at minimum and advanced should be functional and user orientated--what user will be able to do MK: what, rather than how JT: are each required or recommended for each checkpoint--in some checkpoints, rationale tends to be redundant CMN: require and at minimum in each checkpoint; rationale and more advanced are shoulds; seems likely that will have more advanced and rationale for most checkpoint; if put techniques link into "see also" will have "see also" for each CP GB: why "more advanced" CMN: better implementation JB : why not call it a suggestion? CMN: further set of functionality that you might add JT: purpose was to balance the "at minimum"--reason for more advanced was to encourage people to do more than minimum MK: if can do this, would be really cool GB: not addressed by techniques? JT: describe same thing CMN: at Project Manager level, may not read techniques MK: GL should only address what; Techs address how; separation should be absolute CMN: added to "at min" and "more advanced" parenthetical (required) and (suggested) JR: advanced s what would be a really well done implementation CV: if required, why not just say it explicitly and not parenthetically? CMN: required and suggested as names? CV: yes JT: could not do minimum but could do maximum GJR: why not "base functionality"--defining base functionality, not a minimum requirement CV: agree CMN: would like to keep both sets of words there for the moment, and reanalyze later MK: usability testing of verbiage important--we know what we mean CV: basic functionality clearer from implementation point-of- view KD: basic as minimum -- Ruby has basic conformance - really the minimum you can do to support Ruby; and the full implementation JR: at minimum have to do to barely pass; better implementation might be different GJR: why is it there, then if not normative? JR: advanced doesn't necessarily build on minimum GJR: JR: in 4.1 at minimum, prompt author to manually check; advanced technique is to automate all checking--no prompt for check; advanced is not minimum plus CMN: if the basic requirement isn't subsumed by advanced reeq, haven't correctly distilled basic req; in 4.1 case, basic requirement is each of these things are tested; basic is hassle user every time, advanced makes easier; KD talked about basic and full, but that breaks down with regard to accessibility; advanced is "here is one way to take this further"; at minimum should be normative--needs to be expressed in way that is normative; have to work out exactly what we want as functionality JT: does everyone agree that base should be subsumed by advanced? GJR: yes JR: not sure MK: might need to reword some checkpoints JT: not referencing what we have, but what we intend to have // RESOLVED: at minimum should be subsumed in "advanced" // CMN: should base functionality/minimums be normative JT: if stated in terms of user functionality, then, yes, normative JT: do we want to structure further explanatory text that follows each guideline? // NO // JT: should require what needs to be done and what is required for purposes of ATAG GB: should we cut "see also" up into sub-components? MK: 2 headings: one which links internally within GL and one that links to Techniques document CV: "at minimum" or "base functionality" JT: either label should work CMN: at least for first draft, would like to keep "at minimum (required)" and CV: developers need to know what the basic functionality is MK: like basic functionality or normative, rather than required CMN: for those things, they ARE required JR: put basic functionality in parenthesis following "at minimum" so that it is easier to trace history/evolution of document CMN: "at minimum (basic functionality)" and "advanced (suggested functionality) JR: things that wouldn't be acceptable as a minimum need to be addressed CMN: inclined to put in "insufficient" category GB: put statement of what isn't satisfactory in "at minimum" verbiage CMN: preference is to keep examples in techniques GJR: rather have negative examples in techniques JT: to review: 1. checkpoint text with priority level 2. checkpoint sub-text, includes: A. rationale -- OPTIONAL B. at minimum (base functionality) -- REQUIRED C. advanced/suggested functionality -- OPTIONAL D. see also (links to other checkpoints and to techniques) -- REQUIRED JT: does everyone agree? // YES // TECHNIQUES STRUCTURE // CMN displays a sample technique // CMN: current structure of Techniques list: Relative priority checkpoint 1. ATAG Checkpoint number; ATAG checkpoint text, ATAG priority, and link to checkpoint in ATAG 2. grab-bag of techniques identified iconically by kind of tool they apply to-4 diff types: markup editors, multimedia tools (sound, movies, video); content management systems (courseware? - new category? Cross category?); programming environments (build applets, scripts); other suggestions: conversion tools (transform static content from one form to web-ready form); courseware; 3. for relative priority, lists relevant WCAG checkpoints; identify types of tools they are relevant to, 4. require or suggest (organizational structure and inline declaration) JT: filter techniques by tool category, required or suggested; JR: removed AERT document from ATAG techniques GJR: moved to an appendix or dropped? JT: will be in Techniques CMN: stripped out a bunch of stuff and resent to WCAG to address GJR: is there a public list with a URI CMN: yes to first, no to latter JT: structural suggestions? CMN: if something is required or necessary, should have explanation of why; GJR: shouldn't that "why" be addressed in GL? CMN: if expressed as a why, then gets into peoples' heads quicker; grouped by "things to do" and "references" GJR: is there implied or explicit hierarchy CMN: things we think are necessary appear before things that are good ideas JT: used to have sample implementations JR: fake tool examples CMN: in some cases have examples from real tools, too, such as HomeSite GB: items marked as required are restatements of "at minimum" JR: no-things that we as WG thought you couldn't not do and not comply; provide long descriptive text for clip art collection GJR: organize by functionality GB: required to me sounds normative; required things belong in guidelines; not hard and fast requirements JR: agree as GJR pointed it, it is a bad label for a techniques document GB: if working with an AU tool, would go by tool category CMN: label "required" needs to be changed-suggestions are welcome-send to mailing list; going by category makes it easy to generate something that drops irrelevant categories // example Graham Oliver's evaluation of Lotus - said markup editor and content manager, and addressed only techniques labeled as such // JT: changes? suggestions? Change "required" if anything marked "required" consider moving to guidelines document GJR: modularize techniques a la WCAG? Realize that many tools cross categories CMN: attempting to modularize via technology (transformations); need more categories and more techniques; what we have now caters to overlap-some relevant to only 1, some to 3; development team chucking point of GJR, can't nor should we try to, split up GJR: blah blah blah CMN: strip out all the stuff that didn't fit, thro GB: organize the content of this document in XML format, and then transform using XSLT, and use that to organize modularization CMN: the document is in XML to provide that type of functionality; number 1 priority for techniques is to be able to produce different documents through transformations KD: document will be used by developers and evaluators, so is good idea to have different views depending on use; scenario filtering or separate document with checkpoints for each category CMN: what kind of tool are you working on? (checkboxes) leads to what is relevant to those types of tools; can't split out evaluation and developer stuff at this point GJR: needs to be WG control over filtering-if used for dev or eval, we need to filter out base functionalities that need to be addressed JT: evaluation techniques - part of this document or in separate document CMN: currently part of this document by sticking them on the end - expedient, but not ideal; evaluation techniques are much less mature than AU techniques; not very strongly identified, test cases that haven't yet been developed, open issues and questions GB: evolution guidelines not as important as techniques discussing now; need to have a tool before you can evaluate it MK: I agree-guidelines and techniques for implementation and techniques for evaluation JR: evaluation techniques could be used to bypass implementation techniques CMN: implementation techs in principle are reverse engineering-here's the end point, here's how you get there JT: evaluation document specific process used to evaluate authoring tools GJR: proposed: make evaluation section a different document with example of EARL assertion // ACTION GJR: talk with Sean Palmer about providing EARL assertions about an authoring tool based on ATAG // // ACTION CMN: NUMBER TECHNIQUES!!! // JT: present structure: Techniques - required and suggested References Samples/Examples/Sample Implementations JR: overlap between tools needs to be explicitly expressed JT: should be taken care of when sorted by rules JR: how are we going to signify strength of suggestion? CMN: should and may GB: why needed? CMN: sufficient and suggested - a technique or group of techniques is sufficient (WG says, if you do this, you have met the base requirement); JT: required things where you have to do X, Y, and Z, but you can choose what you do thereafter MK: collections of things that together form something sufficient; also have things that are dependent upon each other GB: if normative or required, should go into guidelines CMN: requirement is written in checkpoint; in technique, state it is sufficient; implementation techniques as a collection; combos of techniques that aren't sufficient MK: rather than required or sufficient in techs, this is one way of meeting the required checkpoint; tie back to what is a minimum GB: proposed: removed "required", when state "at minimum" say "to achieve this minimum, you have to satisfy Technique X, Y, etc." JR: too much bloat, too many mappings CMN: GB's suggestion is what we want to do, but should keep it in techniques until individuals can filter guidelines document themselves to get that sort of view GB: re-propose when have more content-need to see what you think is required CMN: what I hear GJR saying, is that we need to be thinking is there stuff in the techniques document that is an out-and- out req, because those should be in the GL, not the Techs; don't think that changes the discussion GJR: unminitued comments on baselines and responsibility-we are where the buck stops CMN: think that this WG has a responsibility to say these are the baseline requirements and what you have to do in order to meet the requirements-we just have to provide the whys on 4 or 5 different levels - if you don't, the tools will be crap-need to provide sufficient level of support; goal is to get implementation KD: if I'm a developer and go to techniques and don't see anything that helps me, what can I do - where do I turn? No info on feature I want to add, but no; techniques are not complete in a sense, because don't know the future and new developments; suggestions, not requirements; techniques can never be exhaustive JR: good point; can't ever say anything is sufficient GJR: what is sufficient is provision of functionality, implementation isn't our concern MK: an author of a tool can have a type of tool we haven't even considered, so in techniques should have explicit link to mailing list for questions, suggestions CMN: right up in what this document is about - read GL, read techniques, ask working group; if get this far, we think you have met this req-not the only way, but basic satisfaction of this requirement; for those who are trying to meet requirements, that stuff is really important; it does make a difference how clearly it is stated what needs to be done; GB: answer to that question has to be answered in document for checking conformance; if just developed best authoring tool, but no specific techniques-refer to conformance document GJR: last 2 items for each technique: link to list, I have satisfied this requirement in a way you didn't imagine, and here's the documentation of what I did, how, and why with requirement that info be posted to AU list CMN: in evaluation techniques, should have very strong introduction to proper usage of documents - when you use techniques, when you use checklist, when you use guidelines, etc. // BREAK FOR LUNCH (12:30pm to 1:30pm // JT: in terms of discussion regarding structure, within techniques the required/necessary statements - should they go into evaluation techniques? Should distinction be dropped? Further thoughts? Technology specific or sufficient or part of a group JR: like CMN's should be and may be implemented language JT: but where should they go? GB: guidelines - if normative, goes in GL JT: and if not normative JB/CMN: techniques JR: if applies to a sub-set of tools, even if normative, should be in techniques, so as not to overload GL // RESOLVED: only cross-categories // CV: why not "possible implementations" JT: techniques: non-normatives = should CV: feasible way to implement, but not the only one JR: ATAG 1.2 - first technique is close to wording of checkpoint; how could you not do this and not satisfy checkpoint; JT: so why in techniques JR: migrated from older versions of ATAG; more you water down a heading, from required to possible, the less weight they have CV: techniques should just be implementation hints GJR: expresses concern about muddying waters between guidelines document which says do X at an abstract level, JT not exclusive categories-arbitrary; view model works well for type of software we are discussion; not exclusive categories JR: main problem - how to deal with what appear to be normative statements, but which aren't general enough to be a checkpoint, but too specific to be a technique CV: example JR: [reads 4.1 ] CV: is there not a checkpoint that already covers this - 1.5 in Wombat JR: no Wombat techniques GB: I've learned that we have at least 3 axes 1. Normative or non-normative 2. Technology independent or dependent 3. Multi-media or editing tool and all are independent as I see them; thought that GL contained all normative info, but doesn't fit well with what JR was saying; perhaps need another discussion of what goes in GL, what in Techs, and what elsewhere; could be used to determine what goes where; better for filtering JT: so many classes of audience GB: but first order of business is a usable document JT: original understanding of techniques was: instructions for implementation, not normative versus non-normative; probably a lot of required things in Techs CV: going back to GJR's point about a three tiered document GJR unminituted explanation of WCAG2 evolution: executive summary, guidelines document, checkpoint solutions, technology specific view, and techniques document KD: certain WGs have started to build test suites to test implementation; Techniques are a kind of test suite - recommendation on how to implement a specific part of GL; DOM WG has a submission process that helps people submit new techniques-someone responsible for testing, test passed by the WG, put into test suite (dated and verified); think Techniques very similar-not just evaluation techniques; is it necessary to have a very frozen document, or could it evolve in the future? JT: Techniques document will evolve-GL has longevity, Techniques evolve CMN: 2 types of tech-evaluation techs along the lines of a test suite; implementation techs are not directly test suite material; ways of getting tool to achieve requirement; perhaps should redirect energies towards making the evaluation stuff as strong as possible, even for a given tool type KD: would it be difficult to manage so many separate documents to synchronize? CMN: more work, but possible JT: suggestion? CMN: shouldn't build another document on top; every new document is a substantial increase in the amount of work that doesn't get done; useful to have "if you meet this technique you will satisfy this checkpoint" in the Techs; need evaluation techniques-should raise priority as a deliverable; one way of satisfying this checkpoint is to implement techniques 1,4, and 5; another way is..." GB: identify users of document-who is intended audience JT: we've been through that MK: might be good to remind ourselves JT: intended for developers of tools CMN: implementation techniques relevant to developersof tools and people who have nothing better to do than read specs; evaluation techs are useful for developersto see if meet requirements; by QA people performing testing (individual evaluations)-not sufficient currently; main guidelines document for all of those groups plus product managers-must be shot enough to be readable-something from which you could derive the techniques document on your own GB: for evaluators, knowing suggested techniques are irrelevant CMN: not irrelevant, unnecessary JR: prose at top of checkpoint not going to work-too many permutations, too many strands; turn a lot into if then statements would be a better approach-that would inherently decide if applicable - yes, no, doesn't apply JT: stick into views JR: could, but harder; first part of the "if" statement is "if converting footnotes and endnotes..." CV: many ways to do that-what do you tell developer? Might also have to put "if", "then", and "go tos"! JR: a lot of techniques could be removed JT: thoughts? MK: profiling by use - project manager, evaluator, etc. JT: not support for adding layers to ATAG; will have evuation techniques and implementation technique documents; should statements that don't apply to all technologies still an open issue // OPEN ISSUE: What to do with the "should" statements that don't apply to all technologies still an open issue // CMN shows example of techniques organization // JT: only takes care of one class of shoulds JR: too difficult to write combinations out CMN: no more difficult than doing "required" and "suggested" properly-that info is very useful, and this is a proposal to address how to retain it and express it better JR: like should and may better - if your tool allows docs with footnotes to be coverted, you may include them as inline content or through 2-way linking" JT: "if/then statements with "should" or "may"? JR: yes CMN: useful functionality to keep is being able to say, "the WG thinks that if you implement this tech or this combo of techs, you will satisfy this checkpoint"; needed for cross- tool applicability-some techniques are easier to implement in one tool than another; dev looks at combo sets, and chooses that which works best for their product and UI; here are different combos we think will do the job JT: should that be in evaluation techs, as per KD's suggestion? JR: the WG thinks X and Y are sufficient, but you should also consider... CMN: as developer, need a clear dileneation of what needs to be done without learning irrelevant material/info JT: we should move on; should or may good constructs; don't want to lose combinations of techniques; makes document more extensible TOPIC: ACTUAL CONTENT FOR GUIDELINES JT: satisfying 2.4 thread/posts - CV: one question on 1.1 and GL3 - they are basically the same; CMN: GL3 is only a guideline, not a checkpoint; GL a broad principle; only a requirement when becomes a checkpoint CV: but 1.1 is covered by checkpoints in GL3 JR: important special case of GL3 CV: each GL should tackle a specific problem JR: GL1 could state that all areas excet eqiv alternatives which are covered in GL3 CMN: should special case notes into "see also" bit JT: not the same; if interpreted as same, then not written well enough; 1.1 is critical as are each piece of GL3 CV: developer feedback that 1.1 and GL3 are confusing JT: operative word is "support" - steer the author towards the creation of accessible content-not just that the author can create CMN: 1.1 is "make it possible" CV: for those whose mother tongue isn't english, it is quite confusing // ACTION CMN: email list with proposal about clarifying langague used in Checkpoint 1.1 and GL3 // JR: 3.5 (ATAG1)/3.4 (Wombat) - argument built on ATAG1 techniques MK: go along with argument, but only partly; a lot of management of snippets about which I asked; realize now that what triggered question was use of "database" in checkpoint; has to have functionality of database, but could be a text file that stores this information JR: I agree JT: don't have an "at minimum" for this JR: sent one to the list [reads proposal] JT: does JR & MK's tweaks close the issue? JR: this might involve a large number of multimedia objects; a semi-automated process, once a new object is used and an alternative defed for it, that binding is stored somewhere CMN: think this text is fine (2001AprJun/0401.html) JT: need change? JR: if causing misinterpretations within WG, then yes CMN: JR's text and arguments are sufficient for me JR: change word "database" in techniques to make less technologically specific // RESOLVED: Adopt text for 3.4 from JR's post and remove word "database" from techniques // CMN: 3 other checkpoints in thread source: 2001AprJun/thread.html#0142 JT: discussed in telecon-does it need to be reexamined? JR: Heather Swayne wrote something about use of "prompt" in 3.1 - // JT reads from HS' post // CMN: don't understand objection JT: objected to intrusive dialog boxes GJR: technology specific interpretation of the checkpoint JR: interpreting "ask for" as throwing up CV: use standard definition of "prompt" - many standard definitions of it; GJR: if international standard definition, then already been reviewed f // RESOLVED: change "ask for" to "prompt for" in sub-text of 3.1 // JT: minimum requirement for 3.2 from HS is implement CSS CMN: implementation technique and non sequitor JR: HS' issue about relative priority note CMN: list which apply, and which does not apply GJR: how will it be implemented? CMN: explain which relative priority checkpoints apply to a specific ATAG checkpoint GJR: point to WCAG 1 for Wombat only or in perpetuity? CMN: WCAG2 not stable enough to reference; if happens before Wombat finalized, we will switch to WCAG2 references; if we are in PR and they are only in LC, then we will stick to WCAG1; by working with WCAG1, we give ourselves more flexibility by doing the work now-use WCAG's checkpoint mapping to effect the change GJR: should coordinate with UAAG list of structured elements and other relative priority things-what have they identified as meeting the criteria, how did they develop the criteria, does it differ from ours, etc. Checkpoint 3.2 MK: idea for a minimum is that tool should either label or classify attributes as being structural or presentational CV: not helpful-technologically dependent JT: have a few techniques CMN: hard one GJR: PROPOSED: where a markup language supports presentation by styling, use styling by default; if author chooses a deprecated element or attribute, prompt him/her to use its replacement in the ML defined for the page/section/fragment, etc. only much more clearly, cleanly and well-stated // ACTION GJR/CMN: post GJR's proposal to list and incorporate // CMN: proposed for a minimum "tool asks author each time" JR: once for each or, for each thing, prompt - one prompt for all or many for one CMN: if tool pops up prompt and says "check all 68 WCAG checkpoints" JR: when does that pop up CMN: 2 questions: if pops up one dialog and says check all of this (Bobby model) - while not useful, it is the bare minimum; when it happens? Tool must do it CV: author should choose when; goes back to previous point about prompting CMN: one way of choosing when is buying the right tool -- everytime you save or everytime you are in mode X; if author needs to ask for it, it changes what we meant; Macromedia extension works, because it it integrated into menu and happens when initiated by user GB: tool must be useable; need to base minimums on reality and what is useable; reword text so that signaling mechanism is independent; tool has to make author aware that problems exist JR: user pulls down menu item and says check the doc? GB: irrelevant - for things that need human intervention, need to be very general JR: break down into who initiates: author or user; second: is there any automation required for things checked off once by author? JR: tool should ask MK: have had this discussion before; some people will not accept a tool that does this and will only use a configurable or at-your-own-initiative tyep tool; had to do a lot of explaning to people why HomeSite always produced ALT when an IMG was defined; first answer is: it is a requirement of the markup language, but still received complaints from users CMN: 4.2 much less contentious to me with JR's proposal; HS said that having things in help is a minimum for 4.2; don't agree // 15 MINUTE BREAK COMMENCING AT 3:10pm // JT: at minumum for prompting at the tool's initiative or the author's initiative JR: how is user given choice? MK: something happens for the first time with a box that says "don't warn me again"; if want to change, could go into options and do so JR: suggestion at save - "There may be some errors in this page, would you like to check?" JT: want to avoid a burried menu item or sub-menu item, so has to happen by default MK: automatic, but over-rulable GJR: red herring - tools over-prompt by default JR: want something difficultg to turn off, but unintrusive GB: should be very easy to disable if interferes with normal work flow of author JT: rather than binary choice, can have "check later" // WL joins by phone // CMN: important that we allow a mechanism where user says do this as way check happens, critical that those functions are right up-front and center; GL5 says "make sure they are clear" - perhaps need a checkpoint about putting 3.1 3.2.4.1 if are user intiated, P1 requirement that initiation of those is front-and-center part of UI - proposing a new checkpoing under GL5; must be omnipresent and obvious as a P1 requirement MK: easy to do, easy to find; JT: when user has initiated is the new bit? CMN: for checking/prompting functions that are user- initiated, they must be front-and-center - P1 and refers to mechanisms for 3.1, 3.2, and 4.1 JT: looking at minimum statements for 4.1 and 4.2 - discussing who should initiate checking KD: if prompt too annoying for user, what about a spell check underlining; if image is called several times on a page, don't reask each time GJR: redundancy is the key-offer many ways to accomplish a task JR: at least once per session (defined as opening a document and closing it), user must, at least once, be queried as to whether or not they want to perform a check - could be part of a dialog, its own dialog, a status line message GB: a menu called "accessibility" JT: authoring-tool initiated MK: one mode that the user might choose-batch processing JT: author have a number of choices, but one is on by default JR: if just see question, is that ok? MK: yes GB: tool should make the user aware that there are accessiblity problems so that user can see them in context; mnore than one way that can be initiated by users; JT: part of at minimum is that the checking mechanism be there! 2 aspects: who initiates and what functionality the tool requires CV: once a session too much JR: change checkpoint to say "Assist the author..." at minimum, say what GB said, in new checkpoint 5.x go into details (multiple places, easiliy initiated) JT: what about 4.2 CMN: may be initiated by tool or by author JT: what functionality should the tool have at a minumum? CMN: at minimum ok to put onus on author; JT: link in an external checking tool MK: make people aware that these tools exist GJR: on a user defined schedule, and in a user-configurable manner, allow the user to check a file for accessiblity - functionality is: control over when, control over how, control over what is checked (granularity of check) JR: what about NotePad - GJR's definition would allow it to pass 4.1/4.2 GJR: to say that NotePad and WCAG constitute an authoring tool is akin to saying that access to document source and a good imagination constitute a user agent JT: 2 points: what is functionality and who performs it; who performs it? JR: check might be a sentence on screen or WCAG CMN: tool must ask the author to chcck each WCAG requirement; minimal satisfaction is go into accessibiloity check and spits out a list of things to check JT: has to be encompassed by more advanced tool CMN: more advanced tool has a check for each WCAG checkpoint which can be automatically checked and then asks for help with those which can't be automated JR: at minimum, tool must distill a number of checks from WCAG - not sufficient to put all WCAG checkpoints on screen asking user to check CMN: sufficient to hand up WCAG's checklist, please check these boxes JR: that's inform; tool must automate answers CMN: to pass 4.2 JR: no, 4.1 GB: as minimum requirement tool should be able to show the WCAG checkpoints that are applicable le to the document being edited; irrelevant checkpoints should be filtgered out by tool; ask user to check manually MK: don't need to ask for LONGDESC if no images JR: large amount of automation required MK: not too difficult to count tags - if IMG = 0, nothing; if 1 applicable, if none then not applicable CMN: WCAG checkpoint listed by priority; says "in general" (has to have a test for this); "and if you use..." all can be tested for very trivially; those that turn up null, leave off list; very small requirement; acceptable minimum; more advacned than ask every question PROPOSED (CMN) At minimum, the author must be prompted to answer questoins leading to an assesement against WCAG at relevant priority level for those parts of the WCAG checklist for the document being tested RESOLVED 4.1 addresses functionality of tool - at minimum, tool must provide a list of questions relevant to the content being developed by the author." MK: in general easy and less annoying GB: always false positives; should be able to filter out questions about content guidelines MK: if don't have IMG, easy to filter out GB: a tool that would be able to avoid asking if the image has an alt when there is no ALT would satisfy the minimum requirement GJR: all contained in the "in general" section of WCAG checklist JR: WCAG 1.1 contains at least 10 questions; who's going to distill the manual questions? Provide manual questions, filter GJR: organization by priority then by general (everyone needs to address) and then "if you use..." JR: least acceptable is one question per WCAG checkpoint GJR: at minimum is, if can be automatically checked, then must check using AERT techniques GB: state of AERT and detail CR: still being modified; great deal of detail; fairly complex algorithm GB: don't agree in taking AERT as being normative CR: can't have an "at minimum" - algorithm always going to be limited; going to end up displaying large chuncks of WCAG; don't think there is an acceptable "at minumum" MK: other extreme is reliance on automation CR: some placeholder text is ok JR: currently have AERT as a technique; at minimum, let author know that there is a manual check; ideally, should automate to gtreatest extent possible; better the checker, the better the user experience CR: choose top 5 accessibility errors as a minimum GJR: would have to ensure that those 5 affect ALL users CMN: WCAG - 7 Priority 1 items; 9 conditional items (includes if all else fails) = 16 items; one important thing is that the final part of any useful check is always manual JT: check for all P1 WCAG checkpoints according to AERT? CMN: never get developersto say yes to that JR: top 2 or 3 things - get them to implement some sort of checking functionality into the tool CMN: first automation is strip out WCAG questions that don't apply is: 1) easy; 2) better user experience; 3) leads to manual checking gracefully; that piece of automation is as unconctoversial as we can get, is low-cost, and provides good buy in; provides a platfrom from which to start JR: how to filter out? CMN: "in general" can't be filtered out; the rest according to the WCAG checklist secondary line of organization ("in general" and "if you use...") MK: count number of image tags, if number is 0, don't ask; count IMG, TABLE, etc. GJR: use UAAG as basis - list of structural elements that must be traversable JT: filtering out WCAG checkpoints that don't apply as an "at minimum" CR: going to end up displaying all of WCAG that way CMN: right, but better tools will do it in a better, more sophistiacted manner, and will be bought and actually used CR: have to specify all the things you're looking for CMN: basic and trivial if use WCAG checklist // CV leaves // // PJ makes his presence known on the phone, but cannot be understood; he will join at 1:30pm Amsterdam time // TOPIC: TOMORROW'S AGENDA JT: tackle new checkpoint and then continue with agenda? // RESOLVED: start with new checkpoint for GL5, at minimum for 4.2, and then continue with pre-set agenda // // ADJOURNED 5pm LOCAL TIME // // NOTE: PRELIMINARIES FOR THE 19 JUNE F2F SESSION WILL COMMENCE AT 9am NOT 8:30am //
Attachments
- application/octet-stream attachment: stored
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2001 05:27:53 UTC