- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:49:53 -0500
- To: "List (WAI-AUWG)" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Participants: KM: Karen JT: Jutta JR: Jan BF: Barry GP: Greg ============================ F2F JT: Shall meet in the lobby of the hotel Kip picked out at 8:15am on Thursday? OPEN ISSUES JR: "Authoring tool interface" JT: Proposes "The display and control mechanism available to an author to communicate with and operate the authoring tool software." All: AGREED JR: "APPLICABLE WCAG REQUIREMENTS " GP: "If the authoring tool is capable of producing the Web content in question. APPLICABLE WCAG REQUIREMENTS: "A WCAG checkpoint is applicable if the authoring tool is capable of producing the type(s) of Web content referenced in the checkpoint." All: AGREED. JR: What should we use for "Equivalent Alternative" GP: "Equivalent Alternative" ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION Any information that is necessary for an *accessible authoring practice* including, but not limited to, *equivalent alternatives*. All: AGREED. EQUIVALENT ALTERNATIVES Content is "equivalent" to other content when both fulfill essentially the same function or purpose upon presentation to the user. Equivalent alternatives play an important role in accessible authoring practices since certain types of content may not be accessible to all users (e.g., video, images, audio, etc.). Authors are encouraged to provide text equivalents for non-text content since text may be rendered as synthesized speech for individuals who have visual or learning disabilities, as Braille for individuals who are blind, or as graphical text for individuals who are deaf or do not have a disability. For more information about equivalent alternatives, please refer to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). All: AGREED. JT: User testing over-ride... JT: Started last week but didn't finish. Issues 2,3,4 are related. JT: We can encompass the pretext for the override in guideline 4. This stuff is not totally under the control of the tool. Authoring tools can choose the usability test route if they can prove that it meets the same outcomes. JT: Previous idea about tackling all of 4 in one usability test. Too much for right now. Action: JT and JR: To work on the wording for this Action: KM: Can make a start on the wording with links to ISO9241. Can send something on Feb 17 to help JR and JT get started. We resolve Item #4 as a functional spec with some possible usability extensions to guideline 4 only. Action : JR follow up with CMN about Geoff #4 resolved #5 - More discussion at F2F
Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 17:48:31 UTC