Minutes from AUWG telecon, 21 Oct 2002
Attendance
JT: Jutta Treviranus, ATRC, UToronto, chair
JR: Jan Richards, ATRC, UToronto
MM: Matt May, W3C, scribe
LNG: Lou Nell Gerard, Microsoft
PJ: Phill Jenkins, IBM
Minutes
Success criteria discussions
JT: Seems to have created more questions than it answers. Is this going to be an objective feature description, or a statement of what the author is able to do, etc.? (In the case of 4, what the user can do.) One possible solution is to put it into the rationale. In G3, we don't want to prescribe a feature because we want that to be specific to the tool. We should say that we're not requiring user testing, but it is helpful.
JR: We can't go too specific, because it'd be too much.
PJ: I believe we should have user testing within success criteria.
JR: Criteria that say, "the author will be prompted to...", and the evaluation technique says "designers have some experience", or "do user testing"?
JT: That's the checkpoint you're describing.
PJ: In creating structured content, we should evaluate which elements are structural.
JT: We want the document to be non-technology-specific.
PJ: But this isn't WCAG, it's HTML. I want to be specific when I say "structure". We can write a non-specific version and then have specific information for XHTML.
JT: Does that belong in success criteria?
PJ: It should say "you must support tabular data, input fields, etc." The question is whether or not the tool supports it. Focusing on the functionality of the tool.
JT: We're asking the developer to show salesmanship of accessibility techniques in G3.
PJ: When it says "prompt the author", is the presence of a box for alt text sufficient?
JR: Yes.
PJ: We can say as a success criterion that "the tool provides equivalent alternative information for a certain set of objects." That all seems to be in WCAG 1.1.
JT: Before the author has completed authoring the content, the author is reminded to add alt text. Do we want to keep statements about the typical author?
PJ: Yes, and I think it should go in the eval techniques.
JT: The aim is to have the typical author do x. There's no further guidance we can give than to say you've done your job if the typical author will do x. I would rather that AT authors disregard the prescriptive info if they do it in some way that's correct.
JR: Seems to negate the checkpoint. If someone had a tool that didn't do any prompting, but only allowed you to use clip art that was included, they may claim nonapplicability.
JT: In essence, they did it if it's not possible to fail.
JR: If you still tended to get alt text, you can then exclude prompting?
PJ: The definition of prompting is getting into success criteria.
JR: So, if the author can add images, it has to prompt?
JT: Yes.
JT: I think there's some value in stating the ultimate goal.
PJ: Criteria 2 sounds like it's prescribing a user test. We should inform that we feel prompting is one way to satisfy that.
PJ: The prompting is not the checking. It could be asking, but it could be leaving the information in the property sheet. Appending alt="" after a user begins an <img> element should succeed.
ACTION PJ, JR, JT: Work on Phill's comments on prompting.
ATAG 2.0 draft and publication
JT: When should we publish?
PJ: I suggest we take the Wombat reqs and move them to 2.0.
JT: Use the current success criteria?
JR: We don't have them for 1.
PJ: I can add some for 1.
ACTION PJ: Add success criteria for Guideline 1
MM: Since success criteria are not complete, I think we should release an internal WD, before we go to TR.
JT: Should we say we want to go public after success criteria are added?
MM: Yes.
Agreed: Separate 3.2 into three checkpoints (provide structure, separate from content, device independence)
Face to Face planning
JT: Agreed we're not meeting in March in Boston at W3C Technical Plenary?
MM: Moot point, since space has been decided.
JT: So we're going to try Adobe in the same timeframe? January or February, earlier is better.
ACTION MM: Contact Doug Grude about meeting arrangements
PJ: Meeting in Toronto?
JT: During IMS meeting second week of December?
PJ: Propose a f2f then? That's 7 weeks from today.
JT: Liddy will also be at IMS. Let's pursue this.
ACTION JT, JR, MM: Discuss arranging meeting on 9 December in Toronto