- From: Michael Cooper <mcooper@cast.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 17:50:28 -0400
- To: "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Overall structure looks ok to me. I think though that it's a little light on group planning time for the first day - just 1 hour. I'd like to see less discussion of the ERT, and closer to half a day (or at least a few hours) for planning/brainstorming. This is because I don't think the ERT work stands to benefit as much from the face to face format as the planning part would, and the parts of the face to face that would strengthen our work on ERT happen on Friday anyway - demos, talking with AU people, etc. I don't remember if the charter is expected to be complete by this time; if not, we could use some of the planning time to make really sure we agree about overall goals. If it is complete, we may only need 2 hours or so of planning since we'll have a defined scope, but I'd say we do need that much in order to raise issues, cogitate, and come to some degree of consensus. Michael Cooper mcooper@cast.org -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Wendy A Chisholm Sent: Friday, April 21, 2000 11:23 AM To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org; w3c-wai-au@w3.org Subject: Please review: proposed agenda for ER/AU f2f 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 /--
Received on Friday, 21 April 2000 17:54:36 UTC