W3C logo Web  Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo

WAI AU / ER Teleconference - 17 October 2000


Chair: Jutta treviranus

Date: Tuesday 17 October 2000

Time: 2:30pm - 4:00pm Boston time (1830Z - 2000Z)

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 4 May March, available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WD-ATAG10-TECHS-20000504. The latest draft of the Accessibiltiy Evaluation and Repair Techniques is dated 15 March at http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert-20000315

  1. Plenary
  2. AERT moving to AU group
  3. Action request from WCAG



Action Items and Resolutions


W3C Plenary

JT We need to say what we want and who we want to meet with.

MK wasn' sure what the intention was so I gave my personal preferences

CMN We should grab a space before they all go. AU Could have a 1 day meeting - do we want a joint meeting with ER - maybe one day on our own and one with ER

WL Does that leave hallway time?

CMN Yes. Dates are about 26th Feb for a week, with plenary Wednesday

JT I can make it, and probably Jan and Chris

MK Probably - I have to move to Boston early next year so I don't know when but I will try.

DB probably

LG - Lisa will probably be there

WL probably not.

CMN Should we ask for two days, one together and one in our own groups?

Resolved: We want that

Action CMN: Follow up.

CMN What groups would we like to meet?

JT How is that planned?

CMN As I understand it we make a request to Susan, and we should also tell the groups themselves

JT Suggested: XHTML, XML, SMIL, MathML

MK That was my personal preference

CMN I would like to add SVG and Voice group

MK We cannot meet with all of them

LK We can split into subgroups

JT Or we can send a representative to each group

CMN The XSL group is planning on being there

MK I intended to include them.

WL Is there still a CSS group?

JT It would be ideal if some groups were jointly meeting and we can get several at the same time.

CMN I have on my list XHTML, XML, Voice, Style, MathML, SMIL, SVG


MK Anything on the wireless front?

CMN There may be a Device Independence Activity there by then

MK I would be interested in that.

CMN Do we want to do it as two groups, together?

JT I think it would be better together

LK Especially since we are getting more closely connected

Resolved: We want to jointly (AU and ER) meet with as many as possible of: XHTML, XML, Style, Mobile, MathML, SMIL, SVG, Device Independence, CC/PP.

Action CMN: Follow up with Susan

LK We should be giving a sense of priority

Action LK, JT: Coordinate with each other, chairs of those groups

JT We should create a list of issues to discuss with the groups and how much we want to talk to them

LK Is it possible that there will be a big arena where all the groups are together presenting what they each do?

CMN I believe that is what is planned for the wednesday

JT What is Len and I start a ruinning list of issues for each group and people add via mailing lists

LK Which list?

JT Why not cross-post?

CMN becuase I get twice as much mail then

LK Four times if you are on the distribution list.

JT How many people in ER are not on Au list?

Just LK

Resolved: Use AU list for the discussion of issues for plenary

AERT moving to AU

JT It was proposed at the face to face to move the AERT work into the AU group. Wendy's message lists advantages and some concerns. Does everyone have that list?

TS No.

LK My concern was that right now this is all considered informative, not normative - these are not requirements but ways of doing things. Given that so much is heuristic and User Interface, I would like to see it stay like that

JT That is the assumption with the Techniques document

JR Some techniques take the form of a normative statement, but otheres are suggestions

JT We have a way of classifying whether a technique is just an idea or clarification, or whether it is a way to meet the checkpoint. We have the facility to make sure that everything is listed as a suggestion

JR One thing I was thinking is that some techniques belong in WCAG. I think it is a good idea that this come over to ATAG but some of those things belong in WCAG.

JT Example?

JR Not in front of me. But for example alt text - they are really WCAG things, not based on an authoring tool.

LK In the process of creating the AERT we wound up giving additional definition to WCAG - like in the ATAG techniques, some of it is clarifying stuff in WCAG. I want to withdraw what I said about it being it purely informative - with some stuff being an efective requirement is good.

JT Regarding Jan's comment, it doesn't mean that it can't be done in an authoring tool. Should it be in ATAG and WCAG, or just one?

JR These things are really requirements - for example a word limit on the text of an alt attribute. If they are requirements for stuff in the page they should be in WCAG.

JT It can be both

JR Right. All the WCAG stuff comes across, but it would be strange to have things in ATAG that are not there in WCAG.

CMN It sounds like we should pass on techniques to WCAG as we integrate them.

LK As a matter of fact sometimes in ER we had discussions that we wound up having to pass over to another group.

JT This isn't an objection, but a point that we also want to send some stuff into WCAG?

JR There will be some division of stuff that goes to WCAG.

CR Is there someone in AU who is interested in editing the document? Does someone have to go to AU with it to work on it?

JT I think so

CR I think it would not be good for me to move over.

CMN Wendy volunteered to help integrate the document.

JT Do you think it is sufficient for Wendy to help?

CR we have it close to complete.

CR What is the strong argument for moving it?

CMN The document forms a large part of HTML techniques for AU and that it would free ER to spend more time on tools.

WL How does that argue in favour of AU instead of WCAG?

JT Checking and repairing is more a responsibility of the tool than just an author. Are the bulk of AERT tings checking and repairing, or WCAG requiremetns

LK IT depends how you look at it. For example, when you have a form that goes to a CGI check the mime type that is returned. From a tool point of view, check it, from a WCAG point of view you just make it something. It is really a question about point of view.

CMN I think that there will be a bunch of stuff passed to WCAG that we will keep duplicated - expressing them in our documents as tool methods, and WCAG will do it as how to hand code

TS We based a lot of our work on the AERT and I think it is much more useful for tool development than hand coding.

LK An example that is an operational process - it is inferred that the tool does such and such.

CMN I propose that we take this into AU, accept Wendy's offer, and take an action to look at the techniques and pass them to WCAG as appropriate.

JT Any objections?

LK Practically, no objection. Philosophically you could express this as WCAG methods. But there is a home open and waiting. Given that Wendy has offered to edit this, and is one of the editors on WCAG, I think this is OK

TS Will the AERT be mapped into the AU structure

CMN yes, but there are clear checkpoints for checking and repairing - I don' think there will be a loss of identity

JT we are working on seperate views, so there will be a view for evaluation/repair tools

TS The current format was very good for us to use, so I would like to keep it like that

LK What exactly was helpful?

TS In particular the fact that it mapped easily to the WCAG guidelines

LK For example it has requirements for each element

TS Right. The downside is that you can lose some of the higher level concepts

LK Kind of like lint.

TS Yes

CMN The AU techniques that are likely to be relevant are already mapped. I think it would be good to have the lists of things to do by element. I guess we should take away that we want to keep the format of this pretty much as is.

JT Any more comments?

Rersolved: AERT to be incoroporated into AU work, with proviso that we want to keep the existing format and features indentifiable.

other business

CMN Mapping techniques of WCAG 20 to see how they can be done. Do we want to do this on list?

LK If we can get consensus on the overall philosophy that will save a bunch od list hacking. With very few exceptions it is impoassible to do a 100% automatic check. So a simple yes/no answer to "can it be checked automatically" isn't a good question.

CMN It seems clear to me too that we can't automatically check to 100% certainty

JT Anyone disagree?

No disagreement...

JT You prposed some calssifactions of checkability.

LK They are just a better way of thinking about them - I don't have a good idea about how to do this. You could do it statistically, but we don't havea statistcial base. But it is obvious that some things you can do a pretty good test for, and other things it is awfully difficult. I don't have goos scales for that

TS The way we guage it is what kind of interaction and comprehension the user needs to be able to use the test. I don't know if that makes sense for a scale, but it goes from completely automatic to completely user-run and requiring the user to learn/know something specific.

CMN I thin ka first approach would be to take AERT, work it through the mapping supplied, and we will be able to say "we have pretty good tests for X, and pretty much nothing for Y"

LK OK. I can imagine there being a new style of doing web pages that changes what we have to test.

JT Charles are you volunteering.

CMN Well, I am not sure that I want to - does anyone want to volunteer for a section?

JT There are people who own chunks already

JR I sent a big chunk

Moved to agenda for AU next week

JT What is the goal of the WCAG request?

CMN I think they want qualitative information on what can be done, to set up some expectations.

JT I think we should have a dialogue with WCAG before we go further with this.

CMN Should we do the ampping of AERT and then ask, or should we ask first

JT I think we should ask first.

Action JT: Coordinate with WCAG to get clarification of the request

/* MK leaves

Next meetings:

AU Tuesday, ER Monday, normal times

Next Joint meeting 7 November 2:30 pm Boston time - adjust for localisation(Melbourne Cup day - Charles will not be there)

Copyright  ©  2000 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio ), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements.

Last Modified $Date: 2000/11/08 08:13:13 $