Action items discussion notes (10 Feb 2003)

Here are the notes I took during Monday's discussion of the work items
(the attendees were Jan Richards, Jutta Treviranus, Matt May and Phill
Jenkins):

Phill Jenkins volunteered to examine and suggest changes to the Success
Criteria for all ATAG 2.0 checkpoints. This also involves examining the
techniques and determining if their are gaps in the success criteria or
gaps in the techniques.

Jan Richards volunteered to propose a complete definition of "Authoring
Tool" and propose a complete scheme for sorting the techniques by
authoring tool functionality.

Jan Richards also volunteered to review the Glossary. The group
suggested that Katie Haritos-Shea could help with this.

Jutta Treviranus volunteered (and Janina Sajka was suggested by the
group) to examine and suggest changes to the Rationale sections for each
of the checkpoints. The purpose is to ensure high-quality rationales
stated in a uniform voice.

Matt May volunteered to review the References section.

The group suggested that Bob Regan and Lou Nell Gerrard could continue
to look through the techniques (for all the guidelines - Bob has already
sent his comments for Guideline 1) to identify areas that they believe
are unclear or require modification from a developer perspective.

It is assumed that Tim Boland will continue work on Test Suite ideas
although his input on other aspects of the document are, of course,
welcomed.

The working group intends these work items to be completed in time for
the upcoming AUWG F2F at CSUN (Sunday, 23 March 2003).

Cheers,
Jan

Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 12:19:33 UTC