RE: AUWG Teleconference on Monday, 24 May 2004 - MINUTES

Minutes for AUWG Teleconference (24 May 2004)

Attendees:
JR: Jan Richards
BF: Barry Feigenbaum
KM: Karen Mardahl
MM: Matt May
TB: Tim Boland

Regrets:

Roberto Scano

Agenda:
1. Implementation Techniques for Guidelines 3 and 4.
2. F2F Planning

1. Discussed f2f planning first. Serious technical difficulties have
temporarily prevented details from getting posted to 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2004/07/12-meeting.html
KM: said there were hotel details coming up and local transportation info
would be made available to those registering. 
JR: mentioned inexpensive flights available when flying through London or
Amsterdam, but not when flying directly to Copenhagen.
There will be internet and thus IRC connections.
JR/MM: WCAG is holding a conference on the West Coast at the same time.
We'll probably have a joint call about Techniques on the first f2f day. 

KM asked about Wendy Chisholm's conf. call announcement on the 14th. Only MM
from ATAG participated, but it was mostly for brainstorming about her
presentation to the WWW conference.)

JR: Start thinking about where the next f2f should be held. We'll be back in
North America. Submit ideas!!


2. Techniques discussion on guidelines 3 & 4

http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca/public/auwg/tech3.html
http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca/public/auwg/tech4.html

Discussion on how to reach agreement on editing.
MM: Post changes; if no protests after a week, they're approved!
JR: last set of changes from e.g. BF and KM have been added as editor notes.
No structural changes for now, just adding content.

Discussion of TB's 3 questions and JT's replies from
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004AprJun/0038.html and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004AprJun/0039.html

TB Q1: How detailed should the techniques language be?
JT A1: Given that these are illustrative suggestions the more detail the
better as long as the detail does not constrain the approach taken and as
long as we make it clear that this is one possible approach and not the only
possible approach.

JR: We do want to stay non-normative and not have "you MUST do this".
TB: May be difficult to stay non-normative in future. QA has interpretation
of normative/non-normative. "QA Lite" says Techniques support Guidelines. Is
there then an implied claim that if you just do what the techniques advise,
you will be compliant? We almost need a disclaimer that this (techniques) is
just advice, but you are still on your own. If so, then we can approach the
techs as being more illustrative. 
JR: We're dealing with things so wide, impossible to deal with all techs
"properly". 
TB: Yes, just have to watch the "unwritten" stuff that can be
misinterpreted.
JR: Have been developing techs3 and techs4 at very low level.
MM: Have to watch prescriptive terms. Just say "this is what we (AUWG)
worked out and this solution might work for you."

TB: ACTION ITEM: Put together an explanatory text of how the guidelines
regard the issue of normative - a kind of disclaimer.
Note to TB: KM can help: can be sounding board in working out text. 

TB Q2: Suppose the user specifies a request for prompting and assistance
that the tool is not able to satisfy? Should there be some sort of
negotiation involved then?
JT Q3:  This is a good question we should discuss in the group. Several
members have felt that if we suggest ways to not do what is requested but to
compensate for the lack of compliance we may be giving developers an easy
way out.

TB: What I meant was: say I want notification every 2 seconds and tool just
can't do it - but it's what I need. Does the tool then fail? I thought user
configurability has very high priority for guidelines in general. (see
section just after 3.1 and before 3.1.1 in
http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca/public/auwg/tech3.html

JR: (after some discussion) Looks like you are talking about a kind of
natural language service as opposed to a tool that just has a few defined
options and permission to configure those options. Or perhaps a free-form
style sheet? Some negotiation would be great, but don't think things will be
at that level. Where we do have requirements that available features are as
configurable as possible?
KM: Can't be totally open to all possibilities, can we? Feel that
configurability is not necessarily wide open, but as JR says the features
that ARE available should be configurable.
TB: ACTION ITEM:  What text can be put in the techniques to allay fears from
developers about "over the top" requirements for their tool that may be
impossible to fulfill. TB will work out a text proposal.
 
TB: Q3: Should the user be given the option to "ignore" any assisting
messages and still claim conformance (since the idea is that prompts/assists
should promote a positive attitude towards accessibility in the user, but
the user already knows about accessibility and doesn't want any extraneous
messages?)?
JT: A3: We have agreed that the user has the last say. If they wish to turn
off any of the features there has to be a way to do it.

JR: Content may not conform to WCAG if user turns off all "checkers" - but
tool can still conform to ATAG in this scenario.

JR: TB's submitted text for 3.1.2(18) in that May 17th mail - still working
on incorporating it in guideline.

JR: We have lots of examples for the techniques doc, which is nice, but we
need more group comments as to whether they are appropriate and whether we
have areas that need more examples/work. Please provide suggestions,
everyone! 

JR/MM: Roberto's checklist is fine, although already out of date slightly -
we need to get it on AUWG pages - once server is OK.
KM: Now that checklist is started, should be easy to update.

TB: Roadmap for ATAG2.0?
JR: Hopefully more activity around f2f. Main focus there will be Techniques
doc. Minor changes to ATAG2.0. We must have techs to get guidelines
approved. Info in techs will be fed back to ATAG as well.

JR: To get moving faster - people can claim ownership for snippets of the
techniques to work on so we don't have everyone working on the same areas -
so call out what you want to work on and then post for discussion! Can also
submit stuff to MM or JR first, if preferable.

JR: TEST SUITE: can start work once the other stuff is out the door.

Next conference call JUNE 7th.

Received on Monday, 24 May 2004 17:58:23 UTC