- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 17:22:06 -0400
- To: WAI-AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
- CC: Bob Regan <bregan@macromedia.com>
MINUTES for AUWG Teleconference (Oct. 7, 2002) JR: Jan Richards JT: Jutta Treviranus LNG: Lou-Nell Gerrard BR: Bob Regan (Macromedia) PJ: Phill Jenkins Agenda 1. success criteria for checkpoints 2. publication update. 3. other JR: What do people think of the success criteria submissions so far. One thing that jumped out at me was the use of the term "average author". BR: Would like more concrete success criteria. BR: Instead of leaving "Average User" to developers it might be best to define it on the standards end. JR: Should we require user testing. BR: The term "average author" almost requires user testing. [JT joins] JR: Some of the requirements are "output oriented" - depend on the resulting markup rather than any particular tool functionality. LNG: Who would be responsible for this user testing? developers? W3C?, etc. JR: I suppose, whoever wants a conformance statement for a tool has to pay. BR: Writing policy that requires user testing is problematic. JT: We are not writing policy. BR: He always views W3C standards as policy - since they tend to be pointed to by governments and other organizations. BR: user testing raises issue of (1) what happens to smaller developers (could they afford it), (2) what constitutes a valid test. - would we need to write verification standards. [PJ joins] JT: We have evaluation techniques to handle testing conformance. JR: We need to put normative statements conformance statements in the guidelines, while non-normative conformance stuff can go in the eval techniques. PJ: SMIL actually has a test suite. JR: SMIL can do they because that standard is machine readable - unlike ATAG. JT: Prompting is so varied - it is difficult to come up criteria for all the different types of prompting for different types of tools. What do we want - certain outcomes. PJ: Does not like the term "average author" - what about just "author" PJ: Some statements can be negative "Having a code view is not enough..." --- Homework (due for the next conformance call - Oct 21): PJ: Will take over Guideline 3 Success Criteria from JT. JT: Will take over Guideline 2 Success Criteria from JR. JR: Will take over Guideline 4 Success Criteria from LN. BR Will take a look at Guideline 3 Success Criteria and forward comments to the list by Oct. 15.
Received on Monday, 7 October 2002 17:22:41 UTC