- From: Karen Mardahl <karen@mardahl.dk>
- Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 23:59:51 +0100
- To: "'List \(WAI-AUWG\)'" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
MINUTES from AUWG Teleconference on Monday, 1 November 2004 Attendees BF: Barry Feigenbaum JR: Jan Richards JT: Jutta Treviranus KM: Karen Mardahl MM: Matt May GP: Greg Pisocky TB: Tim Boland Regrets: RS: will try connecting from home ------- Agenda: ------- >>1. Review of Last Call plan including process discussion: >>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004OctDec/0031.html >>http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#last-call JT: Discussed briefly at last F2F. MM: This tells everyone in the other WGs that we're ready for comments, because we're about to implement our document. Ours isn't a new format, instead it's something worked into other applications. Shows consensus of WG that we've done our due diligence and we think it's ready to be a standard. Other groups job to review/comment/possibly meet. Our job to respond either to accomodate changes or debate reactions. (JT had ? about UAAG): UAAG went through the old process. Only thing missing was Candidate Rec. UAAG went through CR - comes after Last Call. There you can advance, or go back to doing a Working draft. Part of our work is finding implementations of everything we've talked about - or invent them. Need min. 2 for each checkpoint. UAAG had as many as 7. Or - need proof that something is possible. (BF had ?): No limit to number of products. There were however a few items with difficulties in finding examples of implementations. JT: Need to be in established products??? MM: Reflects well upon us if they're in shipping products. Need to state that item is in product X. There can be open source products in various stages of development. We could always get things into such products very quickly if we could get developers to react. Some make builds weekly so that could go quickly. Could use a product about to ship, but just couldn't use it in conformance papers. JR: I've prepared a comparison (substances change log) of ATAG 1.0 and 2.0 - including deprecated items. JT: After Last Call, we go to CR, find 2 items per checkpoint, then what. MM: Beyond that, we go to Proposed Recommendation. In PR: first have a vote of membership who review doc (in 3 weeks). All have to vote Yes or No (may allow conditions to yes or no vote). Then, if no one stands in way, the chair, staff contact, and Judy meet with director who reviews everything, incl. comments, ensuring they're addressed properly. If OK, can recommend. If not, can send back to Working Draft. This happened to UAAG. Due mostly to it being completely dependent on other standards. Their CR stage was not fully established, and some other things happening that threw things off for them. TB: what can we do to avoid these problems? MM: Have a good test suite and good test data! That's a win key! We have no major issues really. Should pave the way for a good CR. JT: Timeline? JR: Nov. 1: deal with chk. 4.3 and glossary. Nov. 8: Ask for WG last call. Nov. 15: WG vote for going to last call. >>2. Review of TB's proposed scope text: >>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004OctDec/0029.html TB: Looked at WCAG and AUWG website for inspiration. Relates to QA. Important to reflect sense of what's covered and not covered. Placement in introduction is OK. JR: Checked in (after a round of approval) >>3. Review of JR's proposed changes since F2F: >>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004OctDec/0033.html JR: Some changes are editorial. Important one is (3) moving the look and feel checkpoint into a "Note to Implementors" at the end of Guideline 4. This is not normative (too difficult to test) so it is easier to list as informative. TB: Why isn't it normative? Because it's not a way to satisfy success criteria? Couldn't it be used in combination with other items? JT: Technique of a guideline as opposed to checkpoint of technique. None of the checkpoints address this directly. ??: Could have reference in section discussing prompt/repair that referes back to this note? JT: Rather than a technique for Guideline 4? JT: Should it be integrated or Technique of Guideline 4? BF: Don't like "demoting" to Techniques. JT: Should we try for success criteria again? JR: Would have to re-do scope of it again - difficult in short time span. JR: Could integrate part of it into text just after Guideline 4 and move specifics to Techniques for guideline 4? TB: That's OK. JT: Guideline is summary and checkpoint begins to spell out matters. Put "less objective pieces" after the Guidline and then integrate rest into techniques. JR: Put back as checkpoint but with much smaller scope. JT: Didn't we talk about UI conventions at F2F? TB: Often tools tier together. It's difficult to say "all font sizes must be the same". GP: Shouldn't attempt to integrate 3rd party tools into Authoring Tools - imposes undue burden on manufacturer. Marketplace does look at this however. Does tool do what it should - and in an efficient manner? Bit much to try to specify look and feel. JT: Text should tell the reason we're doing this (aiming for look and feel) is so author doesn't find a jarring difference between 2 tools. JR: Noted - and will propose wording in a day or two. Will move a statement into intro for guideline 4 text. Rest goes to techniques (4.5?) on look and feel. GP: Which area carries most weight? Guideline, checkpoints, what? KM: Some manufacturers might be quite negative about having an guideline that is nearly impossible to meet. TB: Guidelines should be achievable. If not achievable, shouldn't be there (in guidelines). JR: Will send proposed changes out later. (Moving on in this agenda item) JR: Further highlights for this agenda item: Added Sample Conformance Profile under 3.2.3. Also added some text in 1.4.2 explaining that newer versions of ISO16071 can be used as they come along. (Like the section with conformance to different versions of WCAG.) BF: should provide synopsis of what ISO16071 requires? JR: Would be useful to get abstract to use for such a text. BF: Was thinking of something akin to table of contents. So people could get a feel for the document. JR: Will follow up with Roberto for a copy to look at. (Moving on) JR: Take a look at glossary - lots of changes. Need feedback - especially words in red. KM: we should all submit to the list and discuss there. >>4. Review of JT's proposed changes to 3.1 and 4.3. JT: Prompting is one of the major tenets. Not discussing repair (after the work is done), but encourage to do the right thing from the beginning. This checkpoint covered that, but has gotten gotten sparse. Want to warn authors they're about to go "down an inaccessible path". It's a service to inform in advance. But - how do we make something subjectively measurable without constraints?! GP: Give them lower priorities? JT: Still not quite adequate. Author will say: Why didn't I know this at the beginning? Putting at end of list of choices doesn't mean it won't get chosen. GP: Cautionary flag would be sufficient. JT: Even icon. GP: Perhaps this could be test itself - presence of cautionary icons? JT: No, must be stated as success criteria. JR: Could be done. Compare choice that is accessible or inaccessible. JR: Is this more like what is in techniques 4.1? JT: No, this is prompting: you have a set of menu choices, toolbars, etc. with various choices. (Discussion that 3.3 be moved to 4.1.) JR: Under Guideline 3, it was relative priority, which was "more demanding". In 4.1, it is "only" AA. JT/JR: We'll be having weekly meetings in the weeks ahead. >>5. The group will be asked to do a "working group last call" with >>comments sent in before Nov. 8. (This agenda item was covered in first agenda item where JR discussed timeline.) <end of minutes>
Received on Monday, 1 November 2004 22:59:32 UTC