- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:55:42 -0500
- To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org, w3c-wai-au@w3.org
At 12:42 PM 2000-04-21 -0400, Wendy A Chisholm wrote: >Charles, > >we may want to have some discussion on the ERT with the AU group, however >if you look at the list of issues we wish to cover these are addressing >basic holes in the ERT. The list of issues are checkpoints for which we >have *no* techniques at this time. > Yes. And the AU troops maybe could help some with that. Diversifying your knowledge base is good for brainstorming. Al >--wendy > >At 12:08 PM 4/21/00 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >>Hello, >> >>it would seem to make more sense to do the brainstorming on ERT in >>conjunction with the AU group. I am not sure how many AU people are coming >>for one day and how many for both days. >> >>cheers >> >>Charles >> >>On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, Wendy A Chisholm wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> Based on last week's ER WG discussion the rough agenda is: >> Thursday: work through open issues with ERT (brainstorm), set goals, >> create >> plan. >> Friday: joint meeting with AU WG. Strategize, demonstrate tools, plan. >> >> I've tried to fill in more detail. Please comment. >> >> Thursday >> 9-9:15 intro's >> >> 9:15-10:30 ERT >> -Checkpoint 12.3 - Divide large blocks of information into more manageable >> groups where natural and appropriate >> -Checkpoint 13.3 - Provide information about the general layout of a site >> -Checkpoint 13.4 - Use navigation mechanisms in a consistent manner >> >> 10:30-10:45 break >> >> 10:45-12:00 ERT >> -Checkpoint 13.5 - Provide navigation bars to highlight and give access to >> the navigation mechanism >> -Checkpoint 13.8 - Place distinguishing information at the beginning of >> headings, paragraphs, lists, etc >> -Checkpoint 14.1 - Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate >> for a >> site's content >> >> 12:00-1:00 lunch >> >> 1:00-2:30 ERT >> -Checkpoint 14.2 - Supplement text with graphic or auditory presentations >> where they will facilitate comprehension of the page >> -General scripting discussion: when is it used? when can you replace >> scripts with HTML on the page itself? when is it possible to push the >> functionality it to the server? >> -Technique 1.1.11 [priority 1] Check A elements for valid text content >> @@handled by technique 13.1.1 - verify that targets are clearly >> identified? >> What else do we need to check for? >> -Technique 2.2.1 [priority 3] Test the color attributes of the following >> elements for visibility. ... Requirement: Determine color >> visibility.@@needs work? >> >> 2:30-2:45 break >> >> 2:45-3:45 ERT >> -Technique 3.7.1 [priority 2] Verify instances where quote markup >> should be >> used. ... Lots of emphasized text (greater than x words??@@) >> -Technique 5.5.2 [priority 2] Check TABLE elements for valid CAPTION >> element. ... Requirement: @@ >> -Technique 6.2.1 [priority 1] Check the source of FRAME and IFRAME >> elements >> for valid markup files. ... @Adjust Javascript to point inside the wrapper? >> -Technique 6.2.2 [priority 1] Verify that equivalents of dynamic content >> are updated and available as often as the dynamic content. ... >> Requirements: any actions that change the display must change the >> equivalent @@Is this computable in a practical time (cf. NP complete) . >> Computer science help needed here. Of course, as in other parts of >> document, the fact that the equivalent changes is no guarantee that >> equivalent is correct than it is guaranteed that "alt" text for an >> image is >> correct. >> >> 3:45 -4:00 break >> >> 4:00-5:00 planning >> What needs to be done? Who is going to do it? Assign action items. >> >> >> Friday (with AU) >> 9-9:30 intros, overview of yesterday, getting people on the same page. >> >> 9:30-10:30 >> Techniques discussion. >> Reviewing commonalities between AU Techniques and ERT Techniques. Sharing >> information about open issues and common problems. How should these two >> documents relate to each other? >> Refer to the ATAG1.0 Techniques: http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WD-ATAG10-TECHS >> and the ERT Techniques: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/ >> >> 10:30-10:45 break >> >> 10:45-12:00 >> Tool discussion. >> Review commonalities between AU and ERT tools. Share information about >> implementations, implementors, needs. Has AU identified techniques >> that ER >> has found implmentations of? Who works with the implementor to see that >> techniques are included? >> >> 12:00-1:00 lunch >> >> 1:00-2:30 Demos and discussion >> A-prompt >> Allaire HomeSite >> Bobby >> W3C HTML Validator >> Schematron >> Tablin >> WAVE >> others? >> >> 2:30-2:45 break >> >> 2:45-3:45 Strategizing >> What is the most efficient way for out two groups to work together? >> We've both been realizing overlap in goals and resources. How should we >> handle this? >> >> (proposed draft) ER WG >> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/erwg-charter.html >> The mission of the Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ER WG) is: >> to document techniques for creating Evaluation and Repair Tools; >> to find tools that implement the techniques and where there are none, >> prototype or participate in the development of an implementation; >> to assess the implementation of these techniques in evaluation and repair >> tools; >> to provide a discussion forum to review and collaborate on tool >> development. >> >> AU WG >> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/charter3 >> To complete the development of accessibility guidelines for authoring >> tools, and to perform initial assessment of implementation of these >> guidelines by authoring tool manufacturers. These guidelines should >> address >> how authoring tools can: >> provide author support for creating accessible Web documents; >> ensure an accessible user interface for authors with disabilities. >> Assessment of implementation is expected to allow improvement to the >> supporting documents produced by the group, and if necessary to begin >> revision of the guidelines themselves. >> >> 3:45 -4:00 break >> >> 4:00-5:00 Planning >> What needs to be done? Assign action items. Resolve outstanding >> coordination issues. >> >> ---Other open issues that could be discussed on Thursday >> >> - Technique 6.4.1 [priority 2] Check for device independent event >> handlers. >> ... Requirements: Objects must not contain device dependent event >> handlers. >> @@Does this mean checking Java, Flash, etc? Can we only do this for >> scripting? Or prompt the author to check? >> - Technique 6.5.2 [priority 2] @@Need something for scripts and >> programmatic objects? >> @@ is this covered by 6.3.1 (Verify that the page is usable when >> programmatic objects are disabled)? >> - Technique 7.3.2 [priority 1] Verify that programmatic objects do not >> create moving content. ... @@ what about OBJECT, EMBED, and APPLET? >> - Technique 9.3.1 [priority 2] Check scripts for logical event handlers >> ... >> "onMouseMove" remove or replace with ??@@ >> - Technique 10.3.1 [priority 3] Verify that a linearized version of tables >> used for layout is provided. ... Suggested repair: >> If it has been determined that the table is used for layout (see Technique >> 5.1.1) then create a linear version of the table by: [@@insert heuristics >> from table linearizer - basically replace TABLE markup with text >> structural >> markup]. The author will then need to check that it is readable. >> If it has been determined that the table is used for data (see Technique >> 5.1.1) then create a linear version of the table by: [@@table linearizer >> heuristics? basically, for each cell repeat the column and row headers >> associated with it]. The author will then need to check that it is >> readable. >> - Technique 11.1.1 [priority 2] Verify that W3C technologies are used, >> where possible and appropriate. ... Element: ?@@ >> Requirements: >> Check for uses of non-W3C technologies such as: PDF, Flash, GIF images, >> JPG >> images, proprietary HTML elements (@@other major ones??). >> @@link See 1.1.1 for images used for mathematical equations. >> Note. I left out JavaScript because there is not a W3C equivalent >> technology yet. >> - Technique 11.3.1 [priority 3] Check that documents are served per user >> preferences. ... Element: ?@@ >> Requirement: ?@@ >> - Checkpoint 12.2 - Describe the purpose of frames and how frames >> relate to >> each other if it is not obvious by frame titles alone >> @@ covered by 1.1.8? >> @@Suggest that if the FRAME "title" does not describe the frame that a >> "longdesc" is needed? >> - Technique 13.9.1 [priority 3] Verify that information about document >> collections is provided. ... Elements: @@? LINK, A >> - Technique 14.3.1 [priority 3] Verify that a consistent style of >> presentation is used across pages. ... @@This requires looking at pages >> throughout the site. Need two levels of checking: page vs site? >> -- >> wendy a chisholm >> world wide web consortium >> web accessibility initiative >> madison, wi usa >> tel: +1 608 663 6346 >> /-- >> >> >>-- >>Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 >>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI >>Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053 >>Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001, Australia > >-- >wendy a chisholm >world wide web consortium >web accessibility initiative >madison, wi usa >tel: +1 608 663 6346 >/-- >
Received on Friday, 21 April 2000 12:51:27 UTC