Minutes from AUWG telecon, 8 Sep 2003

Attendance

jt Jutta Treviranus
pj Phill Jenkins
jr Jan Richards
tb Tim Boland

Minutes

PARTICIPATION


jt: How do we increase participation?

pj: PJ is talking with someone else at IBM about coming into the group.

tb: IT access board is part of US Gov't. Are other WAI groups having this problem?

jt: WCAG is not, but UA is.

tb: What about pooling resources?

pj: WCAG has added some more industry members.

jt: We are trying to down the same path.

pj: ITAA and ITI are two groups we can canvas for members. There is a European version. Phill has a colleague who can bring this to these groups. They have a weekly call.

jt: Would a "current challenges (What's hot)" document help?

pj: Yes.

ACTION : PJ Talking to another person in IBM about becoming a member.

ACTION : PJ Bring up ATAG with ITAA and ITI.

pj: There is a European group as well (maybe someone else (Judy?) could make the request)

ACTION : JT Ask Judy to bring up ATAG with European group.

jt: What about consumer participants.

jr: What about Janina?

ACTION : JT follow up with Janina.

ACTION : JR follow up with Bob.

REVIEW PROPOSED SUCCESS CRITERIA WORK


jt: Phill have you had a chance to look at it?

pj: Add explanation of the goals of the Success Criterisa text.

jt: How should we get PJ's feedback.

ACTION : PJ Send review of success criteria changes (???)

SOFTWARE GUIDELINES


pj: Everyone is positive, but there is still an internal IBM process to go through.

pj: Still considering submitting it as a joint proposal with other companies.

jt: Is there timeline?

pj: Hoping to have a more definite progress report by F2F in Seattle.

ACTION ITEM REVIEW


pj: When criteria prescribes user testing, we may be on more shaky ground.

jt: Macromedia and MS thought that for companies that already have a usabiity process, it would be helpful to get some guidance on how accessibility could be integrated into testing.

jr: "Typical User" only occurs once -> in 4.1. Could be tested by user testing or "Expert Witness" of developer.

pj: Maybe we can define by the number of interface steps, etc.

pj: Key word is "likely". We need to define it. ex. "No more or fewer steps than other configuration managers"

ACTION : JR Look into that (removing "likley")

pj: Then we could add a general ability to meet checkpoints with usability testing (only makes sense in 3 and 4).

ACTION : JR Look into this too ("usability over-ride")

Ê

F2F


jr: What if WCAG people called into our call.