31 July minutes

Minutes from UAWG telecon, 31 July 2003


    hb Harvey Bingham
    dp David Poehlman
    ss Sean Stapleford
    ck Colin Koteles
    tl Tim Lacy
    jb Judy Brewer
    jg Jon Gunderson
    mm Matt May
    Regrets: Ian Jacobs, Jim Allan


   Action items

    jg: Window-Eyes has submitted a report. We will be formatting that
    mm: No news on Safari.
    mm: Form upload in eval form: still need to work on that.


    mm: AUWG meeting before Dublin Core in Seattle late September.
    hb: Any attempt in DC to address accessibility metadata?
    mm: Wendy and/or I should be present.
    hb: Good. That was raised in the EO meeting.


    jg: We have some comments on [1]charter.
    tl: General comments: It went to legal, they asked how long they 
    have to review it. I don't have authority to speak for the company.
    Legal wants to look at IPR.
    tl: On 3.5, there's really no limit to the scope. It needs to be
    jg: You don't think we should develop test suites?
    tl: The way that's worded, you can never say you're done.
    jb: Test suites related to UAAG?
    tl: Yes.
    tl: 2.5: A colleague felt this was out of the scope of the mission
    jg: We've already been working on reviewing other WG output, such as
    jb: I presume this is also in the framework of UAAG. These seem to be
    questions of specificity, and those can be resolved.
    tl: On the other hand, he felt that 2.3 (develop test suites
    supporting evaluation) should belong in deliverables. It's too
    tl: MS Legal wants 2 weeks.
    jb: They should have already reviewed and approved this through the
    patent policy. It should be exactly the same IPR. The purpose was to
    not have to go through legal in each case, which was a request made 
    tl: I'll give them a heads-up.
    jg: Any other comments?
    tl: I may have them after this week.
    ss: Would it be good to have an outline of how the charter is
    jb: You're welcome to look at the W3C Process Document. That should
    answer most of your questions. Tim's comments are helpful because if
    they aren't specific enough, they can leave outside people confused.
    jb: For certain working groups, the team contact moves process into
    that working group list. Would that be helpful?
    ss: Yes.
    mm: I will do that.
    jg: Ian made some comments, as well as Todd Glassey.
    jg: Ian commented on the same things as Tim. 3.5 should be deleted,
    and 2.5 is too broad. Should we limit the scope to user agent
    accessibility issues?
    hb: Yes.
    tl: Yes.
    jg: Ian has a problem with the scope of 3.7.
    mm: I'm not sure we'll get to things like mobile and kiosk
    jg: We may want to take that off as a deliverable.
    hb: Can we state what we're not going to do?
    mm: What we're going to not do is everything that's not in the
    jg: I propose removing items 5 and 7.
    mm: I propose changing 7 to "Requirement documents and user scenarios
    for additional deliverables."
    hb: I assume the SVG group already has a test suite. Do we want to
    jg: We're trying to take their tests and put it into our framework.
    hb: I would rather they own it than we.
    jg: It'd be good to get them to integrate our test cases, but we 
    have a guarantee of that.
    hb: 3.3 is open-ended: audio, video, and animations
    jg: We do have test suites for several formats. Our test suites will
    be format-specific, rather than user agent-specific. We don't have a
    test for IE, but we have a test for HTML. We don't have a test for
    RealPlayer, but we have a test for user agents that support RealText,
    SMIL, etc.
    jg: Ian says we should be referencing WCAG 2.0.
    mm: WCAG 2.0 won't be out before June 2004.
    dp: If the document doesn't exist, we can't reference it.
    mm: We're not going to put out anything that directly references WCAG
    2 between now and June, so I don't think we need to worry about it.
    jg: Ian says that the term "multimedia" is too vague, could be 
    video and animation."
    jg: Ian has a comment on the success criteria.
    mm: I don't know whether failing these criteria comes with an 
    process penalty. I will check on this.
    ss: Is it possible for a UA to do all of this and fail to achieve a
    jg: The document has some flexibility with relation to conformance. 
    you don't support audio or video, you have exemptions. The WG doesn't
    vote on whether the tool supports the claim. We cannot say "yes,
    you've done it" as an official statement. We can state that we think 
    claim is false, but we won't issue a press release on it. We haven't
    gotten to that point. People making claims would be an indicator of
    dp: I would state "valid claims", not just "claims".
    jg: No objections to that.
    jg: Todd Glassey says that "shoulds" should be "musts".
    dp: I think that if we're talking about actionable items, it should 
    mm: I think we can use "will" in the Dependencies section.
    jg: We'll update the charter when we get Judy's feedback. We can put
    in today's changes as well.

   Test suite

    ck: The frame tests are fixed. I'm having trouble with the makefile.
    I'll have more time in August and September to get things up and
    jg: Always looking for more assistance.

   Next meeting

    jg: Next meeting 14 August
    ck: Regrets.
    jg: Face-to-face: Propose 1st week of December.
    mm: I will talk with Marney Beard about this.


    1. http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/charter-2003-05-draft.html

Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2003 18:35:28 UTC