Conference number: 2894
0. Agenda additions
1. Encouraging Compliance with ATAG, strategies and resources.
2. "Selecting and Using Software for Web Accessibility" as per Judy's message: (FYI this is part of a draft implementation planning resource.
3. Face to face joint meeting with IMS on February 25: logistics and agenda.
JT: Jutta Treviranus
JR: Jan Richards
HS: Heather Swayne
AG: Audrey Gorman
HaB: Harvey Bingham
HeB: Helle Bjarnø
LN: Liddy Neville
J-M: Jean-Marie D'Amour
CV: Carlos Velasco
KA: Kathleen Anderson
SaH: Sarah Horton
SH: Shaun Henry (Name Spelling?)
JB: Judy Brewer
NL: Natasha Lipkina
HS: Henk Snetselaar
Phill Jenkins: Unable to join call
LN: People interested in Dublin Core accessibility group at: dublincore.org
JB: Some trouble getting people added to call due to cap on # of participants
JT: Anything else to put in agenda.
LN: Australia govt. doesn't worry about tools, just content.
JB: Finds the same thing (in Madrid for EU). We need to drastically improve ATAG messaging. Reviews are a gap.
CV: We have put up a few recently.
HS: Microsoft has not yet scheduled when they will do a Word review.
JT: We don't have the ability to be a comprehensive tool review service.
JB: What is the purpose of evaluations??
JT: To help us come up with evaluation techniques and get ideas for exemplary techniques for guidelines.
HaB: UAAG is doing that.
JT: There are many more authoring tools than browsers.
JB: Just looking for top 4 or 5. There's more that EO could do but EO needs more to point to from AUWG.
LN: Maybe we can get an outside pro to do it.
JB: But do we have 4 or 5 up to date.
kA, JR,CMN, JT: Yes for Dreamweaver, Notes, Courseware, etc.
JT: We need to strategically talk to govts about tools once they have legislation for content.
JB: We do include ATAG in policy reference suite. We have not added any software policy placeholder in policy listing.
JT: It's a follow-up message - in order to implement content policy, software support needs to be in place.
AG: in EO we got beyond policy to people who have to implement policy.
JB: Document background: tried to come up with general guidance on tool use rather than recommending specific tools.
JR: Presents ideas - user feedback, checking/correcting tools, management of equivalent alternatives
CV: Bobby needs is no longer free so it might not be good to mention.
JB: Deliberate strategy to not mention commercial products.
kA: If there are free tools and plug-ins should they be reviewed?
JT: In conjunction with base tools?
CMN: ER spent a lot of effort tracking these kinds of tools. Maybe we should talk to them.
JB: EO already refs their existing page of tools.
JB: What do people think generally of this document?
LD: Will send comments.
CMN, JR, HS: Looks good.
JB: Will remove the will not reference (to CMN's comment).
JT: Reviews seem to be an outstanding issue.
JB: Could an external organization do a better job?
JT: They may have the time as well.
CV: Internationalization is a problem in the reviews.
HeB: Agree but small language areas would have to use what's out there.
JB: FP is often the tool people talk about for internationalization
SH: could ask in checklist: is internationalization an issue?
JB: Will go through changes:
JB: JR's user feedback idea.
JB: Internal reviewer may need reader feedback as leverage with content developers.
JT: Underlying misunderstanding about ATAG. Fully ATAG-compliant tool should produce accessible content, regardless of knowledge level of author.
SH: We should put it in.
JB: List of changes:
JT: Can we have a meeting on the 18th?