Chair: Jutta Treviranus
Date: Tuesday 14 November 2000
Time: 2:30pm - 4:00pm Boston time (1930Z - 2100Z)
Phone number: Tobin Bridge, +1 (617) 252 7000
The Latest Draft is the Recommendation dated 3 February, available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203. The latest techniques draft is dated 18 September, available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WD-ATAG10-TECHS-20000918.
JT: Plenary Meeting logistics: There will be 3 days. 2 days meeting with AERT. Then there will be a plenary day (Wednesday). Does this meet our needs?
MK: Can't we decide before hand who we can meet. DB joins.
PJ: Can we submit an "requests for presentations" to each group we're meeting so they tell us what they want to know.
JT: Good idea, se could suggest for the plenary day every group submits expectations to others.
/* GR joins.
JT: Will send on the idea.
GR: will go to RDF and ???
/* WL joins.
JT: Propose that we send request for presentations to groups that are conflicting with our meetings.
PJ: Question about UA. For their documentation they say its P1 to meet WCAG P1 and P2.
GR: He had proposed that UA documentation should be P1 to all WCAG P1, P2 and P3. There are lots of reasons when installing software, etc.
PJ: In what cases should the WCAG priorities be raised. For UAs you believe that the prioriteis should be raised. Should they be raised for AU as well.
GR: When documentation is inaccessible. Some applications need to be held to a higher standard.
GR: Documentation is so important. Prevents people from upgrading. Also concern that manufactures could send out PDF and link to Adobe PDF access - not a good solution.
PJ: Doesn't WCAG cover this.
WL: No.
PJ: Sometime content is different mouse vs. screen reader use. Maybe UA needs to require supplementary documentation for using access devices.
GR: That's the users responsibility. They know how to use their tech. They need to know how to use all the UA access features.
PJ: Accessibility of accessibility features in the doc? GR: No its the accessibility of the documentation. [Back and forth]
PJ: Are there WCAG checkpoints you can point to. GR: We did not go through WCAG point by point.
JT: Could also interpret checkpoint as saying that documemtation is very important and should meet both P1 and P2.
PJ: GR is saying that minimum is higher than P1 when WCAG says P1 is the minimum for accessibility.
GR: P1 eliminate impossible, P2 eliminate difficulty, documentation needs to meet a higher standard.
PJ: What other case need to meet this higher standard? AU? How do we decide this?
GR: What about platforms that don't have accessibility standards.
WL: The thing about documentation is that WCAG deals with docs that don't have documentation. UA and AU deal with software and the documentation is very important.
MK: A web page could be an application that does have documentation.
WL: WCAG doesn't deal with that.
PJ: If it's just a web page, documentation is not a problem.
GR: A criticism of WCAG 1.0 is that it doesn't cover Web page apps very well.
PJ: Right, it talks about turning scripts off.
GR: Talked to Ian about submitting this as errata to WCAG and Ian thought it would be a good idea.
JT: Not for this group to decide. But we can look at our own guideline 7.
Action JT will discuss this at CG.
JT: Should AU follow the UA example?
JR: Reports
PJ: Lots of tools doing evaluation now. New IBM product does some accessibility evaluation.
JT: Can you pass on the new techniques to ER?
PJ: Some of new new tools check for unimportant things. Can be confusing.
GR: Some of this was implemented when the ER document was at an earlier state.
Discussion of new Dreamweaver product screenshot.
JT: I have trial copy and a request for conformance evaluation.
JR: Will look at the Macromedia 4 trial version.
JT: Can we move Checkpoint 4.1 Techniques to ERT?
All: YES
JT: Any other issues?
WL: RESPONSIBLE AUTHORING INCLUDES INDEXING
WL: New authoring tools guidelines need checkpoints concerning metadata and conformance claims.
JT: Relies on WCAG.
GR: Reliance on UA as well?
JR: Can't do that now. Would be good for ATAG 2.0.
Last Modified $Date: 2000/12/07 20:10:15 $