Joint AU/ER Conference Call (August 1, 2000)

Attendees:

Len Kasday
Jutta Treviranus
Jan Richards
Harvey Bingham
Mathaus
Chris Ridpath
Brian Methini
Heather Swayne
Charles McCathieNevile
Michael Cooper
William Loughborough
Fred Barnett
Wendy Chisholm

Minutes:

LK: Agenda Items?

HB: Important for glossary to be standard. Heard from NCIS who would like to cooperate on this.
Will send a URL.

JT: Need to finalize F2F meeting place.

LK: Wants to talk about machine readable accessiblity notation on page to remember user answers, etc. (ex. user says they have made a manual check).

WL: Wants to talk more about RDF.

CMN: Wants to talk about tying AERT into ATAG (cp 3.1 and 3.2).

BM: The tool would sometimes know the answer (ex. table for layout).

*** F2F **********************************************************************

CMN: Bristol (Oct. 6,7) - would give good look at WCAG2.0?

HS: Dick Brown could go.

FB: Can't travel.

WL: Can go.

JR: Need to go to Bristol anyway.

CMN: Looks like a winner. U. of Bristol would be host (Dan Brickly) for Saturday.

LK: Can people teleconference into f2f.

CMN: Talking about doing it for WCAG. Maybe ok for Saturday.

*** Machinable information *******************************************************

LK: RDF info for documents and tools.

BM: helps automation

JR: helps sustain people's interest

WL: RDF would allow Help sharing (?)

CMN: most authoring tools are now extensible. So out of box tool does meet cp x.y but with script running on top does meet it. RDF is an XML data format. Makes assertions. So a collection of things conforms.

LK: analogy in ER. Web page inaccessible because no alt but external site has alt text. So collectively conform.

JR: Cop out to say that a web site conforms as soon as someone else writes alt.

CMN: Boils down to people can can use it. But maybe things should come out of box accessible. But maybe everything that can be changed to work is good.

WL: Non-issue. Just need to be able to get it.

JR: Inaccessibility to mass markets.

CMN: May be a marketing issue - how obscure it is. Real solution is whether people can get it or not.

WL: Won't be packaging much longer.

CMN: Personal packaging. Things getting more modularized.

JR: People like to pick and choose rather than look around the web.

KL: Lets get real example.

CMN: Accessible documentation (ex. go live).  Imagine no doc.  Will fail GL6. Then somebody else writes passable docs. So go-live does conforms to 1-5, 7 but website does meet 6.

KL: Must be a reference from the tool.

JR: What about stuff that people don't know they need.

CMN: Say Tool does not meet guidelines but collection does. It would be false advertising to claim conformance.

LK: What about collecting evaluations from other organizations (AFB, etc). Is there a RDF procedure to combine these in an automated way.

CMN: RDF can record who made assertions.

CMN: Amaya does not do accessibility checking so fails a bunch of checkpoints.   But with certain patch it does.  If we can build a collection our colection will meet requirement. ex. service packs

LK: What kinds of standards do we need to make this happen?

CMN: Will go to RDF world to see if these RDF predicates are out there.

LK: Will CMN be doing this?

CMN: Yes. Other people must contribute.

WL: We should all read RDF page.

LK: Which list should we post to.

CMN: ER

JR: No. ER data is in page. AU data is about accessibility of tools.

CMN: Hold on. Schema will be used to recoding information about or pages and page elements.

CMN: Silly to have a bunch of different schemas for conformance to checkpoints.

LK: but they are different kinds of statements.

CMN: should not be a problem

WL: everyone should read RDF to get ideas. Very significant development.

LK: OK we'll all read it and write some statements.

CMN: Can we break down questions into yes/no?

LK: we talk about possibility of doing things with a tool. There are some ease of use questions as well.

CMN: Should not be too bad. There are some multi-choice RDF statements already.

*** GLOSSARY*******************************************************

HB: Take a look at different defs for the same turn. Can they be integrated.

WL:Can the W3C make a gigantic glossary.

WC: Ian concerned that some def are specific to individual docs. Are there some general use terms.

CMN: CG issue

JT: Will take to CG.  What questions?

WL: Do we want one glossary?

HB: Lots change in UA.

WL: One glossary solves that

CMN: one glossary can slow down ability to customize terms

WL: If one group changes a def, all other groups have to ok it.

HB: ER concernd that they are using floating terms