Re: Minutes from AUWG Teleconference on Monday March 14, 2005

Correction:

On the call I spoke about Matt having compared UAAG 1.0 and the ISO16071 
document. Actually, he compared UAAG 1.0 and Section 508. So, I have begun a 
comparison of UAAG 1.0 and ISO16071. I hope to have it for next week.

For those not on the call, the idea is that we may be able to use a subset of 
UAAG 1.0 plus a few key ATAG requirements in the authoring software area as a 
W3C approved proxy for the requirements that make up the ISO document. This 
has the added benefit of allowing AUWG to fine-tune our own accessible 
authoring interface requirements (which we would not have if we off-loaded it 
to ISO).

Cheers,
Jan



-- 
Jan Richards, User Interface Design Specialist 
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC), University of Toronto 

  Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca 
  Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
  Phone: 416-946-7060 
  Fax:   416-971-2896


Quoting Karen Mardahl <karen@mardahl.dk>:

> 
> MINUTES from AUWG Teleconference on Monday, March 14, 2005
> 
> Attendees
> 
> BF: Barry Feigenbaum
> KM: Karen Mardahl
> TB: Tim Boland
> JR: Jan Richards
> GP: Greg Pisocky
> 
> Regrets
> JT: Jutta Treviranus
> 
> -------
> Agenda:
> -------
> >1. F2F date setting.
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2005JanMar/0066.html
> 
> Everyone present (and Jutta) seem to be fine with April 28-29 as mentioned:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2005JanMar/0066.html
> and
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2005JanMar/0067.html
> KM will phone in. Other participants are from "Desire to Learn" and
> Canadian
> government.
> 
> JT will need to request exception re: 8 wks notice for meetings.
> 
> Will be held in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada. Travel and hotel info will
> follow later.
> 
> >2. Discussion and assignment of work items from the last call:
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2005JanMar/0063.html
> 
> Item (1) To get a proposed rewording of the bundling clause...
> 
> TB has commented on list.
> JR: Just because a tool only covers some steps in a workflow, shouldn't
> prevent it from being ATAG-conformant.
> TB: A tool could seek conformance on its own, or be included in a process
> (with other tools) and the process could be conformant. These details would
> need to be worked out.
> JR: Tool requirements vs. process requirements? With bundling, you need to
> specify which checkpoints are covered by which tool. Could identify process
> and then tools in process. This would be identified as "the bundle" that
> would be aiming for conformance. This leads to 
> 
> Item (4) To get a proposal for looks at how the priorities might be
> reorganized 
> around a single tool vs. whole process standpoint.
> 
> JR: Had action to to examine more closely, and in response to TB, tried to
> include this.
> 
> BF: Leads to question, how do we give tools partial credit? Don't want to
> ignore it. Manual options seem to be an escape clause.
> TB: Do we encourage tool developers to aim for higher standards, or do we
> reflect current market conditions?
> 
> JR: Combination, just like UAAG and WCAG. We have relatively low entry
> point.
> 
> TB: Factors that drive bundling? Market?
> JR: E.g. 2 tools working on their own. One discovers that bundled with
> other
> tool, can make a conformant process that is ATAG compliant - and without
> the
> other even knowing about it. This is not necessarily an attempt to make
> developers make business with others.
> 
> JR: RE. manual methods of checking, etc. Wouldn't those looking for
> bundling
> partners want someone who can do things automated, rather than manual?
> 
> BF: Partial credit could be granular. At the level of the four guideline.
> 
> Item (3) To get a proposal to bring in UAAG and WCAG (for Web based tools)
> as a 
> stand-in for ISO16071...
> 
> We looked at Matt's work
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2005JanMar/0059.html) and
> it
> looks like good potential in this idea.
> 
> 
> Item (5) BR and GP to undertake to provide the group with assessments of
> how
> their 
> primary tools (DreamWeaver, GoLive or Acrobat) do against ATAG. Due Mar.
> 21.
> => Jan to ask BF if he would like to join this effort.
> BF: Yes.
> 
> BF: Note, too, a new free web project being developed:
> http://www.eclipse.org/webtools/index.html
> Might be nice to get this assessed but it would be huge task.
> 
> Most important action items that need to be covered.
> 1) Can we get UAAG/WCAG to replace ISO16071?
> 2) Bundling - what are the different requirements, ideas about partial
> credits (BF), testing.
> 
> 
> JR: We need people to take on action items. Good if two people can take up
> an item and discuss on list as JR and TB did with bundling. Opens up
> discussion.
> 
> KM: Losing overview due to all ideas coming in from all directions. Will
> try
> to set up guidelines that include the many ideas to try to put things in
> perspective.
> 
> JR: Don't forget bugzilla. Find a bug that you can work on!
> 
> 
> >3. Including the new bundling proposal:
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2005JanMar/0064.html
> 
> Discussed in Agenda 2.
> 
> Next phone call March 21st.)
> 
> <end of minutes>
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2005 04:21:53 UTC