Minutes from AUWG, 15 December 2003
Attendance
jt Jutta Treviranus
jr Jan Richards
kh Kip Harris
ln Liddy Nevile
mm Matt May
Regrets: Tim Boland, Karen Mardahl
Minutes
Timeline for f2f
jt: 19-20 Feb is best? Any objections to that date in Austin?
mm: We should be planning for the next meeting outside of North America.
jt: Agree.
jt: Should have task forces for new work. Could have a task force meeting in Europe. There's an accessibility summit in Zurich on February 9 that could be a good opportunity.
mm: Okay with me.
jr: Agree.
jt: I'll forward that information to the list.
Changes to ATAG references to WCAG
jr: Karen was working from an older version of the document. Her suggestions were related to that document, which was out of date.
ISO vs. IBM guidelines as techniques document
kh: Still an open question whether we can reference the ISO document given the document fees?
mm: Yes. Will consult with comm and management. I don't think that will be an issue, but have to check.
jr: Tim Boland added an analysis of the differences between ISO and IBM documents.
kh: My impression was that his response was kind of a shrug.
jr: ISO breaks things down into finer pieces, but otherwise similar documents.
kh: In either case, we'd be pointing?
jt: Yes, but if we use IBM, we'd take it as a submission.
kh: Also significantly broadens the charter. Dangerous road to go down.
jr: Agree.
ACTION : mm Get answer on referencing ISO doc
jt: Question remains whether ISO doc is complete enough. Is the ISO standard an adequate replacement for our requirements?
jr: For Web-based apps, we'd obviously reference WCAG, but for software, ISO appears sufficient.
kh: I was reasonably comfortable with this.
mm: Agree.
AGREED: If no issues with referencing, will use ISO as document.
jr: Work is ongoing on making ISO guidelines a full standard in 2006.
Work items
jt: Many people with work items not here.
ln: Did what I could with my action items.
jr: Tried to work that into my form. Will submit to Liddy for review.
jt: Any additions or changes we should review?
ln: No, just aligning the thing. There was this thing about metadata that Charles put in. I think WCAG should take a more constructive stand with metadata that would flow through to us. Can't be done by us alone.
jt: Agree, should be in WCAG.
jr: Techniques for Guideline 3 coming along. Should get worked on at the f2f.
jt: Some feedback from Karen.
jt: Greg was to update the references. No update.
mm: Karen said to list that she would have some work to display this week on glossary.
New draft publication
mm: Pub moratorium is on the 18th. Jan and I suggest January 12th for new draft date.
jt: How much more work until we can do a new draft?
jr: Not much critical work. Can address editor comments.
jt: Have editors go through it?
jt: Some editor comments are about addressing certain points better. May need more input than just from editors.
jt: Next meeting 12 January 2004.