minutes from 6 july telecon

Available at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/meetings/20000706.html

06 July 2000 WCAG WG Telecon

Summary of action items and resolutions
·       Action WC and KHS work on overview/site map of Techniques document.
·       Action WC: retake screen shots to resize to make clearer picture.
·       Action WC: With CSS example include more information in the 
descriptions of the screen shots.
·       Action WC: Check with IJ re: pseudo element test page that GR and 
Jim Allan created for UA group.
·       Resolved: If no major issues raised over the next week, we will 
take into account the minor comments, publish another working draft next 
week, and send that to IG for a 2 week review. If they do not have any 
major issues, we will incorporate any further minor comments and publish it 
as a Note.

Participants
·       Katie Haritos-Shea
·       Charles McCathieNevile
·       Jason White
·       Gregory Rosmaita
·       Gregg Vanderheiden
·       Dick Bank
·       Wendy Chisholm
·       Andi Snow-Weaver
·       Cynthia Shelley
·       Marshall Jansen
Regrets
·       Marti McCuller

Agenda
The revised text of the Techniques document: preparation for release as a 
public working draft.
Progress in connection with the three-layered structure proposed for the 
guidelines.
Any other issues raised by working group members.

Techniques
JW Hoping to publish soon as public working draft.
CMN Need to public something publicly so people see where we are.
JW Techniques can definitely be published relatively shortly as a public 
working draft, the drafts of new work will take some time.
ASW Not had a chance to look at.
GR Been off-line, no chance to look at.
JW Need to give people some time to look at it.
KHS I have looked at it, but don't feel ready to make any statements about 
it. Reluctant to speak because lack of historical content. It makes sense 
but it could look better.
GR Several of us are deeply immersed and need a fresh perspective.
KHS The usability and organization of the W3C site in general is very 
difficult. I know this is not meant for the general public, but I have 
found it confusing.
WC Suggestions for this document?
KHS All of this info has to be here, a site map of each area. An 
explanation that is more elementary of what each document is.
JW The way in is through the WAI home page that tries to explain each 
document that the WAI publishes. Have you found that to be any better? The 
working group home page is different than the WAI home page. Did you find 
that to be a problem or is it mostly the working group page or all of them?
KHS All of them. It's the general look. If you were on the WAI home page, 
the resources make sense. More of an explanation of what it is doing here 
and what is the difference between techniques and guidelines. Maybe use of 
acronyms is overused.
GR Are you looking for a "how to use this document" appendix?
KHS Yes. A bit prettier.
GR I have heard similar things. People have said it is like running into 
the "grey wall of information."
JW We have to distinguish between the site as a whole and what this group 
has control over. It's interesting because splitting the techniques into 
modules was to make it possible for people with interest in a particular 
technology to find info related specifically to that topic. Do you find 
this structure helpful?
KHS The Table of Contents is good. It's really an overall site issue rather 
than this particular page.
Action WC and KHS work on overview/site map of Techniques document.
KHS I'm a 508 coordinator for a government agency in the U.S. I will be 
giving them these documents. Sometimes you want to have something more user 
friendly.
WC Aware of quicktips?
KHS yes.
JW Checklist? these are associated with the guidelines. Most of our work 
from here on out is generalizing the principles, and developing the 
specifics further as well as a lot of information management.
JW reasonable timeline for those who have not reviewed.
CS Not a lot of time to review. It is much easier to read and find info and 
how it is related. Would like to spend more time could send more info by 
tomorrow.
JW Sometime next week.
WC Only released yesterday, we need to give people at least a week to 
review. Concerned about use of screen shots and link to live images.
Action WC: With CSS example include more information in the descriptions of 
the screen shots.
WC Other concerns: link to a test file. People think keep the CSS and HTML 
modules separate.
CS What about using CSS and XML?
CMN Point out in a markup language where the appropriate technique is a 
style language then point to the style language techniques. Be clear that 
CSS is as applicable to XML as HTML.
JW Include some HTML examples. Use XSL as well in the examples.
CS One might be combining CSS and XSL. Never use CSS by itself, therefore 
linking to it from a variety of places. Resize image to screen size that 
you want. Fewer bytes.
Action WC: retake screen shots to resize to make clearer picture.
GR Jim Allan and I did a test page for pseudo elements. IJ has a copy. We 
were doing this theoretically since no implementations at the time. Doing 
for UA.
Action WC: Check with IJ re: pseudo element test page that GR and Jim Allan 
created for UA group.
JW Unless any other issues we should move to take it to public working 
draft next week. WC release another version next week that includes these 
actions.
CMN minimum one week review by IG. Should give them 2. Let us take into 
consideration any comments they may have, then go public.
JW After they have been published as public working draft, then publish 
them as a Note. Any one want to suggest a timeline for when to take it to a 
Note?
CMN AU Group updated our Techniques doc which is also a Note. We initially 
planned on putting it out as a working draft. W3C process is to replace old 
Note with new Note. You can produce an updated version easily. A Note is 
"an interesting bit of info" if you have a more interesting bit of info you 
can replace it.
Resolved: If no major issues raised over the next week, we will take into 
account the minor comments, publish another working draft next week, and 
send that to IG for a 2 week review. If they do not have any major issues, 
we will incorporate any further minor comments and publish it as a Note.

New guideline structure
JW When the draft comes out we can use it as starting point for further 
proposals. It will be on the agenda for the next meeting. Further comments?
/* none */
JW Use it as the starting point for open issues for the next draft.

$Date: 2000/07/06 21:45:13 $ Wendy Chisholm

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--

Received on Thursday, 6 July 2000 17:46:55 UTC