Mar. 22 AUWG Teleconference Minutes

AWUG Conference Call
March 22, 2004
4:00 pm Eastern Time

Attendees:
Tim Boland (TB)
Karen Mardahl (KM)
Greg Pisocky (GP)
Jan Richardson (JR)
Jutta Treviranus (JT)

Regrets:
Roberto Scano

==================================================

Agenda:

1. Face to face meeting planning
2. QA framework (Tim Boland)
3. Web based authoring (Geoff Deering)
4. Techniques document
5. Other

Jutta Treviranus opened the meeting with a discussion of the agenda.

The meeting began with a discussion of the QA framework with the discussion
of face to face meeting planning deferred in the event more members
participated in the conference call.

1. Face to face meeting planning (discussion deferred until later)

2. QA framework (Tim Boland)

JT: Tim?

TB: I was tasked at the March 1 teleconference to come up with a list of
issues for the AU group so I went to some of the documents on the QA 
website which as it turns out… My action items, let me refer, starting 
with AI 2 for the QA references there is a QA operational and test 
guidelines now it turns out as a result of the recent tech plenary there 
will bee a light version. By the way the document I submitted is 
referenced on the AU website. Those are things Best practices for what 
each working group does. Meant to be a starting point of discussion

Operational guidelines how the resources and plan for QA. If you look at 
the reference the priority 1 items are designed to be taken most 
seriously. The priority 2 items and 3 are scheduled to change.

Committing to quality assurances, define a QA process and test material
development, transformation

The priority 1 items are the base for a discussion. Priority 2 or 3 
should not be taken.

The specification guidelines show how to write specs that can be more 
easily tested, scope statement these are priority one items. We can 
probably go through this and see how the draft.  It’s important to keep 
these in minds.

Use of profiles, deprecated features, discretionary items also with
difference between implementations, defines the scope. Some of these may 
not really be applicable to the authoring tools.

Identify (apparently reading an outline from the QA specs)

I think we can meaningfully at some point determine how our working 
draft can meet this specification for the testing guidelines. How to 
write effective tests, (more reading from the spec)

All these can be considered Priority 1 items some sort of QA issues the
group should consider.

Another of my AI I was asked to work on a (link to develop 2.0 
techniques) HTML techniques is most mature, CSS and some others. Again 
if we wanted to synchronize with that or adopt that. I just defined some 
operation issues, specification issues, and testing issues which I 
basically restated. Template…Again starting point for an authoring tools 
process document.

These are things to think about, there is no requirement, the working 
group may [decide upon various actions]. There will be a lighter process 
coming out. Expertise from the various workgroups

These are just meant as a starting point of discussion. Start of the 
process document and a set of issues.  It’s up for comment, how do you 
want me to proceed?

JT What is the timeline for these guidelines, the framework

TB the QA docs will go back to working draft for the lighter version in
terms of timeline

JT will the framework be applied when going to candidate recommendation

TB Likely the requirements at that time should be lighter. Organized in
terms of Priority 1 2 3 in (Op test spec [more reading from the guidelines]
Yes there will be an evaluation made

JT Will the lighter framework be available at the time we go to 
candidate recommendation?

TB When?

JT We have said third quarter of this year

TB I assume, I can’t speak for the WG it will be an evolving process. So 
if the Authoring tools will be expected to feed it back to the framework 
as well. Evaluation for the QA metrics. Easier to get into CR than it is 
to get out.

JT In terms of the next steps for you, it would be good to look at the
requirements this has for the test and evaluation pieces.

TB for the spec pieces our latest draft could be meaningfully evaluated
against the spec

JR Do these apply to non normative documents or just the normative one?

TB The non normative documents are not directly used, but they support 
let me check on that and get back to you. I can take an AI and look at 
these with just my own opinion

JR Great

JT Okay

JT I guess the document applies to 3 areas, evaluation, specification,
meeting logistics we have kept an eye regarding the operational QA,
framework,

TB I will take an action at least the priority 1 2 and 3 not meant to

JT Given that we have the guideline document do a quick sweep to see if
there is any priority 1 we are not incorporating

TB Also don’t forget to alert us to things that should be in there

JT I thought we would start a discussion about the document itself and then

KM Input into a kind of summary. Where do we start?

[Discussion of Next Face to Face occurred at this point 1. Face to face
meeting planning]

JT Let’s move on to discussion of next F to F. We are required to have 
one meeting a quarter and we have not met in Europe for awhile. We 
shouldn’t repeat in the same continents again and again. Not fair to 
those in outside the frequently visited continent.

Suggestion in Copenhagen. Karen?

KM – Where we could hold it, the center for vision disability. Outside 
of Copenhagen. She said we would be more than welcome. Spain conference 
29 June 2nd July, July ICCHP computers helping people with special needs.

JT and JR – participating in ICCHP

KM – She was not sure about the connection logistics.

JT I do not think we want to overlap with the other conferences

KM – I think it would be nice to have her there

JT – Other discussion for an earlier time. May in conjunction with
Euroaccessiblity meetings. Various euro meeting s happening in a cluster 
30 April to 9 May. Most in and around Brussels. Suggestion for further 
European participation developers and vendors barrier free guidelines 
developed and

JR – we need to give 8 weeks

JT – My next comment that this would not be a realistic timeframe

JR – That would be only 5 and a half weeks

JT – The other offer was from Roberto in Venice

JT – What are people’s preference, availability July 2 and July 5?

JR – Paris

JT – Copenhagen

TB – US is July 4 holiday

JT – What about after ichp meeting. Matt

KM – The conf. ends on the 9th

JT – Propose for the list the 10th onward

JT – May thing is probably totally out

JR – Same time these things are hard to figure out. Last meeting was 
almost a month ago. It’s like 5 months. Go to CR in 3rd quarter.

JT – Having it in June

JR – That time in July is fine. We wouldn’t be having other F2F after 
that. Start planning before

JT – We should be planning for the next two meetings is what you’re saying

JR – If we want to go CR in q3 that would be between July and September 
it is not going to happen unless we have a face to face

JT – Other option is to have another task force meeting end of Apr 
beginning of May.

JT – Why don’t I find out more about all the other meetings? [AI] I will
send something to the list describing that. Consensus sometime after July 9.


JR July 9 is a Friday

KM Let me find out from Helle Bjarnø if we can have it on a weekend

JT People coming from Paris will need a day of travel

JT Why don’t we then propose Monday the 12th?

JR Trouble with before the conference is July 4th is on a Sunday.

JT Probably a lot of people not want to be there for the July 4th weekend

3. Web based authoring (Geoff Deering)

JT – Has anyone read Geoff’s comments and the responses. A large part of 
the root of issue seems to be WCAG 1 and its provisions for scripting 
and its impossible to create a web based authoring tool while adhering 
to WCAG 1 I don’t see a substantive problem that is rooted in ATAG. 
Concern seems to stem that it is unrealistic to expect developers to 
create web based authoring tools while adhering to WCAG

[There apparently has been no opportunity for followup discussion with
Geoff]

JR – I guess we leave this as a half open issue. When he comes back….

KM – ???????????

JR – Ask Roberto to elaborate on his last statement

JT – The other thing he points to is our categories of authoring tools 
that has been clarified Jan?

JR – Yep

JT – I will write a followup eMail reiterating

(I was interrupted momentarily)

4. Techniques document

JT - Question is does anyone have progress to report from action items?

JT – Tim?

TB – I had concerns on infringing on ISO copyright but Jan sent me 
something that looked reasonable to me

JR – At some point we will have to buy it. No one here has a copy of the
final document, right?

JT – I am going to be on one of these ISO committees next week so I can 
find out what the process is and how ISO can be quoted

TB – Even if you paraphrase as some sort of normative

JT – List of action items that I had were from the minutes of the F2F. 
My quick link on our homepage [doesn’t seem to be working]

JR – Minutes February 9 4 open issues that we need to add to. I 
suggested to Tim that it might be good to go through 1 tire of 
Implementation techniques every two weeks.

JT – ?????????

JR – 4 issues: What form of document presentation will work best for 
listing the techniques? Proposal (table listing scheme)

TB – Did you consider the way WCAG techniques are formulated

JR – They don’ have the icon scheme we had

KM – the icons have e changed

JT – we have an additional dimension

KM – we add a layer to the WCAG techniques

TB – If someone does one stop shopping, mapping WCAG adding a layer may 
get confusing, the web techniques is not used to do the authoring. IF 
you are presented with two different formats they turn people off, we 
want to turn people on.

JT – Jan the suggestion that you had was the old icons and sub
categorization of the guidelines

JR – In guidelines we had one categorization and in the techniques a
different

JT – groupings subheadings

JR – Those are gone.

JR – The next unresolved issue: It is how does the techniques document 
work with the old icon based approach.

Checkpoint 4.x still lacking techniques

JR – New checkpoints lacking techniques
   Final unresolved thing new editorial additions require group approval

JT – What’s left new techniques and new presentation formats?

JT/JR – Next calls homework techniques and presentation formats and also
comments on the framework.

KM – Next Monday to return to 14 days

JT – Okay with everyone next week

TB – we are looking at techniques document for guideline 4


5. Other


Meeting adjourned by Jutta at 5:00

Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2004 10:57:08 UTC