Minutes from AUWG telecon, 22 Sep 03


jt Jutta Treviranus
ln Liddy Nevile
jr Jan Richards
mm Matt May
pj Phill Jenkins


Software guidelines

pj: Still talking with ITI and ITAA, and internally, about this.

Face-to-face agenda

jt: Finalizing success criteria and action items that have been floating around since last f2f.
jt: First day was on action items. Need to schedule in joint call with WCAG on Friday. Awaiting a time for that. They want to call on the afternoon. Charles wants to talk about Semantic Web accessibility and Authoring tools.
pj: Is the Semantic Web thing informational?
jt: Suggesting techniques for supporting accessible SW development.
pj: Jon Gunderson's workshop idea?
jt: Jon proposed a UA-centric idea. CG thought that because it is a forward-thinking workshop, we should discuss it.
pj: Might fit better on a Saturday. Future discussion.
jr: Test suites, should schedule for Friday and get Tim to join in.
jr: We're receiving a lot of XHTML test materials from WCAG techniques task force.
ACTION : mm fill out agenda and post it based on this information

Action items

jt: 8 May action items?
jr: First action: remove "likely" from 4.1 success criteria. I rewrote the 3 points in 4.1 as 4 points. Also the idea of "usability override", using a usability study to satisfy.
pj: Suggest "at any time" instead of "at all times". Or take out entirely ("...during the authoring process"). There may be times when something isn't interruptible.
jr: Is there a user interface term to describe this?
pj: We could define "at all times," too. "At any time" may be easier. As long as we don't define literally all times, because you can't interrupt everything.
pj: Confused about what is a "level" in this guideline.
jr: We still have to work that out.
pj: In 4.1 override statement, we have to define "able to", or state that usability study needs to check prompting with other, non-accessibility features.
pj: Should consider time, satisfaction, steps required for comparable function.
jr: May need to define "comparable".
jr: Should we say that when given a choice between accessible and non-accessible methods for doing the same thing, the user should be seen to choose the accessible method over 50% of the time?
pj: Yes.
jr: Defining third party in 4.3.
pj: Do a usability study to analyze the design of the accessibility-related processing tools, and evaluate how well they integrate with the rest of the tool. You have to compare it to a benchmark or another function.
jr: Phill, question about scope and legal information for ATAG conformance (and third-party software)?
pj: From my legal dept.: if it's on the box, then the box would have to comply. If it's on the CD, the contents of the CD would have to comply. If it's in an application, the app would have to comply. If a download site is a part of the software license, then that would have to be accessible.