JT: Jutta Treviranus
JR: Jan Richards
KM: Karen Mardahl
KH: Kip Harris
GP: Greg Pisocky
TB: Tim Boland
LN: Liddy Nevile
ACTION: JT: Poll AUWG members for preferred venue for Jan/Feb face to
face meeting.
ACTION: JT: Draft a two criteria version of success criteria checkpoint 4.3.
ACTION: MM: follow-up and clarify fee requirements for access to ISO 16071
document.
ACTION: JT: follow-up with Matt on how to best organize Techniques document in
light of legacy "icon" approach.
JT: Two options.
Option 1.) Conduct meeting adjacent to ATIA in Orlando, Jan 17/18 Saturday and Sunday. Disadvantages: same time as ATIA conference, will need to rent room separately from ATIA; also (second disadvantage) scheduling is getting close given requirement for 8 weeks lead time.
Option 2.) IBM can host in Austin, Texas lab facility. Would schedule for February, precise date to be determined, would not be first week of February and would also avoid conflict with President's day (2/16/04).
Which option would participants prefer?
TB: Either option OK, February schedule must avoid President's Day.
KM: Travel expense is an issue. No preference aside from funding.
KH: Either option is OK, no preference between options.
ACTION: JT: Poll AUWG members for preferred venue for Jan/Feb face to face meeting.
TB: Reviews proposed phrasing for success criteria for checkpoint 4.x (now 4.3); (KH note: refer to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2003OctDec/0038.html)
JT: Would be better if it was worded to promote a more proactive experience; authors should be guided to do it right in the first place.
LN: Trying to pickup live what people do wrong is huge overhead.
TB: Already have prompting.
??: DreamWeaver, drag-drop image, all assisting, does this satisfy the need?
??: Looking at complete sentence, want to keep the 2nd part. First part is maybe problematic with waiting until saving before corrective actions / guidance starts to happen.
KM: Maybe wording like "in any editing session, prior to save, the tool must ...". A truly integrated tool would not have gotten into trouble in the first place.
TB: Suppose user always makes correct choices. Should he then get prompts?
JR: Do we need to talk about user configurability?
??: Is there an issue with one criteria versus two?
JT: Jutta will take a crack at it. Liddy's idea about simplifying the first part is a good one.
ACTION: JT: Draft a two criteria version of this checkpoint.
(reference http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2003OctDec/0032.html)
Looks like we have all tasks covered as follows:
??: Want to simply. Currently we have too many references.
??: Work item #1, ISO 16071 vs. IBM guidelines on accessible application software, issue of fee on ISO documents. MM was to followup and clarify.
ACTION: MM: follow-up and clarify fee requirements for access to ISO 16071 document.
??: For item 2, what needs to be done? Style, this is what techniques need to look like. Style guide for how to write techniques?
KM: Some redundancy now.
JT: Redundancy is a legacy of trying to provide multiple views of document, where each view is targeted toward particular audience. Icons indicate target audience.
JR: Most icons are present on most techniques. The "view" approach filters out only about 10 to 20% of total document. Take action to followup with Matt on how to order the contents of the techniques document.
ACTION: JT: follow-up with Matt on how to best organize Techniques document in light of legacy "icon" approach.
JT: Dependency on WCAG.