/* wendy picks up minuting from gregory */
Jutta reads proposal from Jan re: minima for 5.1 and 5.2 (see archives)
CMN put these in
JT for more advanced for 5.2, put warning instead of impede?
Resolved: put warning instead of impede, accept jan's 5.1 and 5.2
JT skipping 6, moving to 7.
GR part of checkpoint
resolved: 7.1 no minimum
WL Don't prevent someone from using notepad?
CMN You can edit anything you like.
resolved: 7.2 accepted.
resolved: 7.3 accepted
Marolein - move this to techniques?
PJ is that with or without a technology? some way for the alt to be displayed?
JT To the author
CMN w/out assistive tech
PJ At min, author must get to alt text and image file name.
CMN applies primarily to WYSIWYG. if have tag or picture, can get text rep.
PJ Talking about source. Author interested in source not rendering.
CMN Kind of.
JT Author also wants info about how displayed, but they can't themselves see it displayed that way.
PJ yes displayed is a confusing word to use there. Authoring purposes.
Issue: use other word than display.
Issue: move to techniques, but don't use functional statements.
GR If I get different display modes, I want to know the whole alt-text string. Also as it will be rendered using a particular browser.
PJ I disagree with Bill, we don't want to assume use of Assistive Technology. Should be functional requirement of authoring tool. Just have problem with "display."
GR Makes available to...
PJ Whether author or assistive tech doesn't matter.
CMN Goal is to publish this draft on Friday.
PJ When it says element to element, are there tools that do that?
CMN Dreamweaver, homesite, amaya
PJ I don't know that all tools do that. Can it be a minimum. Access to all, but navigate through?
JT Easier to navigate through doc.
PJ What if not element to element, but chunk to chunk, and within chunk. What if don't do minimum, but hierarchical?
CMN Meets it, you can navigate to each element.
PJ Sounds like sequentially.
CMN In XML there is no one sequence, can do breadth or depth. We don't say either way, just that you have to get to each one.
GR Minimum, go to element to element, not very efficient. Moving by chunk, is far superior.
PJ The phrase "to element to element" perhaps instead say "navigate to each element."
GR worried about situations where multiple people working on a document. Cases where you do need to go element to element. Gives me context.
Issue: phrase "element to element" should possibly be replaced by "navigate to each element."
GR Basic search may not turn up what you need as author. e.g.,can you search alt?
MK Add skipping or including tags.
GR Like a spell checker that says "ignore mailto: and ..." or "include attriutes or exclude."
JR Minimum?
CMN Should text search of renderable content.
GR alt is renderable.
JT then don't distinguish between renderable and not. basic text search should include tags and markup. probably simpler.
JR Like comments.
CMN problem with basic search source is when you have a propritary, binary format. is that a problem?
GR If don't have text transcript, no way to search.
JT Leave as basic text search, with "chocie to either include or ignore markup."
GR Search w/in markup.
Resolved: Leave as basic text search, with "chocie to either include or ignore markup."
MK Advanced include regular expressions?
JT Note issue: come up with other examples?
JR Techniques.
Resolved: put more in techniques.
/* break */
JT We have officially been rechartered. Everyone needs to rejoin. In terms of timeline, heading towards WCAG 2.0 with techniques document.
WL Hold out ATAG 2.0 until WCAG 2.0.
JT Right.
CMN Documents in play:
timeline for wombat: put this draft out. put a public first draft out soon (here's where we're at, we're going to do something with this in the future). Constraint: review. Next step: last call. Hard to set hard and fast dates. Like to get public draft out in about 3 weeks. Then send to process of first draft. Once we get to CR, see where WCAG 2.0 is at. If close to CR, wait for them. If not, go forward based on WCAG 1.0. More time we can spend in CR to look for implementations, the better.
With regards to techniques. Put out as two: evaluation techniques and implementation techniques. Put out as internal drafts. Update the note.
JT Implications of moving from WCAG 1.0 to 2.0, if go to last call, CR, etc. referencing WCAG 1.0. Go through whole process again?
CMN Rewrite references to WCAG, identify in 3.1 and 3.2 specifically identify which checkpoints are relevant. beyond last call, it may be that the changes to wcag 2.0 might mean that we have to go back. we're independent enough of the content of wcag that shifting the content won't cause us too many changes. the point we would include WCAG 2.0 is at CR. That require edit job on techniques, have to reshuffle.
WC Issue I'm concerned about is checkpoint solutions. Ask HTML WG how going between versions has been for their implementations.
GR Doesn't make sense to me to move ATAG to 2.0, until WCAG is also to 2.0.
MK Since we are building views, one referencing WCAG 1.0 another referencing WCAG 2.0.
CMN My impression is that it is not stable.
WC WCAG Techniques also doing that, since have work to do still for WCAG 1.0.
CMN Wombat could become 1.x, refer to WCAG 1.0. We haven't done a detailed analysis, not much difference, hopefully just clearer. If you conform to 1.0 you'll conform to 1.x. To go public, have to go through IG review, another couple of months before out. In that time, we should work on techniques.
JT Yes, techniques.
DD Plan to release wombat as a recommendation?
CMN No plan, but a possibility. If in 6 months it has settled down, we have CR exit criteria, and WCAG 2.0 is going around in circles, then it might be worth putting out 1.1.
DD It is something W3C can do fairly easily. Ok to put out recommendation to replace a recommendation.
JT If we have to choose where to put our energies, if we have the draft out there, ... if we are simply working on techniques it is a lot of group energy. It would be great to have a mechanism to move forward or energy to put into it. How do we get that work done by more than one or two people?
DD If have a public working draft, shouldn't be too costly to move to Recommendation.
GR One thing we are doing with wombat, is addressing issues brought to us by developers.
CMN Should not put a lot of work into wombat for more than a couple of weeks. Playing with it for a few weeks, makes us think about techniques again. When we run out of steam with techniques, perhaps go back to the guidelines.
MK Yes, let it rest for a while.
CMN We are now rechartered. Later today I will change the charter link and people will have to read the charter and sign up for the group again. One requirement: as a participant you will do an authoring tool review each year.
GR Collaborative?
CMN that would be .5 each.
JT Good to have multiple reviews of tools to see differences between reviewers.
GR Consider list of existing tools, list of tools as reported by HTML writers group, then list of other tools. Hit those tools that are used.
CMN Basically, just review the tool you are familiar with.
MK Aolpress is a great tool for new learners, but not accessible. How do you deal with that? Tell how to get around it?
GR Get the evaluation, build test pages using it, then run them through tidy, a-prompt, etc. Show HTML Tidy before and after report.
CMN Tell them the accessible authoring process.
MK A toolbox consisting of x, y, z can get you there.
PJ Do we need to do these evaluations before or after CR?
CMN During the year.
PJ Does it have to document that a checkpoint has been implemented?
CMN separate piece of work. for CR must show implementation report. copy and paste from reviews.
PJ Make sure we have evaluation of some tool that implements the checkpoint.
CMN Evaluation is not a small commitment. Large part of work.
GR Graham used more about the tool by doing evaluation.
MK Good sanity check to do the reviews.
JT Two views: one for consumers, one for developers. comparison shopping for consumers.
CMN Major value is reality check and implementation experience.
MK Also important to make an effort to evaluate simple tools that beginning authors get started with.
JT WebCT could host in September in Vancouver.
CMN Perhaps MS host in September in Seattle.
JT One reason to not be in the states, is the cost.
DD Berlin in September
JT Back to november then?
CMN February: tech plenary in sophia, france.
Resolved: yes, take part in tech plenary.
CMN inclined to have next meeting in N. America. How does september work for folks?
JT Vancouver is much cheaper.
CMN November or September? After Thanksgiving (In N. America). Working on techniques.
GR If after thanksgiving, need time to travel after the weekend.
MK Can not say (september or november). First week of December is off.
Resolved: shoot for week of 10 September in Northwest America.
WC Trying for Australia?
CMN Many people won't make it, but expect to get sausage software. Expect talk about authoring and eval tools. Other WAI groups (WCAG, ER, PF, etc.). Expect techniques work, or how does it work. Who expect to go?
/* DD, CMN, WC raise hands */
CMN Not expecting serious AU tool meeting, but discussion of tools.
/* moment of silence for Len */
DD changes something?
JT How applies to ATAG. How ATAG deals with EARL Reports. Write evals in EARL.
MK Web page that produces EARL assertions.
DD Can be used to represent Web content, input or output to an authoring tool, could be used to represent eal of authoring tool
JT Put that as a technique (to process earl)?
CMN Don't recommend until stablizes, also covered by "use W3C techs" (if becomes a recommendation). Using to produce eval reports. Hack WART to produce.
GB How easy to generate human readable EARL output.
WC Can generate checklist or implementation report, once have results in EARL.
GB Show a more real-live example of EARL rather than simple?
CMN Ralph Swick presented about it yesterday. I will put that result out. Another one would be the WART tool.
Action WC: to add EARL-let to the EARL overview.
Resolved: EARL as technique for checking and repair, hack WART to use for ATAG and generate EARL.
Action and resolved GR editor for evaluation techniques for testing conformance (he volunteered! we all saw and heard it!)
JT Since not using ATAG to structure this, we are using WCAG. This document needs to come before the tool. It would be good to create structure of the tool and fill this in. Also avoid 1.0 vs 2.0.
GR Exactly, those are the design principles I want to follow.