W3C Web Accessibility Initiative

WAI Authoring Tool Guidelines Working Group

WAI AU Teleconference - 23 February 2000

Details

Chair: Jutta Treviranus

Date: Wednesday 23 February 2000

Time: 4:00pm - 5:30pm Boston time (1900Z - 2030Z)

Phone number: Tobin Bridge, +1 (617) 252 7000


Agenda

The Latest Draft is the Recommendation dated 3 February, available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203.


Attendance

Regrets


Action Items and Resolutions


Minutes

JT Some stuff thrown at the list. A few thoughts on how to do this, and then look at details

JR Seems like our present strategy is statrting to be techniques for how to do WCAG. Some of the things I was mentioning was how much you can automate things, or meet several checkpoints at one.

CMN The idea is very good - the information about the Alternative Information Management Mechanism is a good thing, but the problem is that we need to have the content.

JT Are we duplicating WCAG or is there a way to put in additional authoring-tool specific information. If we adress each relative priority then we will have a repeat of the WCAG techniques several times.

JR We would even go into more depth than they do

CMN I'm not sure that that is a bad thing. In order to test conformance, you may have to do 70 things, and that means that we need to list those.

JR Yeah. There are lots of things - for alternative content there are lots of different things even in HTML.

CMN RIght. And we need to go through these things and put the information into the document. Having tests for WCAG is good, and where we can have one test that catches 5 WCAG checkpoints that is good too. But we need the text. I think that in some cases we should refer to ERT, which means that we have to follow the development of that document closely.

Phill Joins

PJ Why is a WCAG technique useful to an ATAG technique

CMN We are drawing on the material becuase it is closely related, not directly copying.

JT For relative priorities it will become a huge document if we do cover everything in WCAG. How does the proposed matrix fit into that?

CMN I don't think there will be a huge extra cost in size - and the matrix is difficult to use.

JR It isn't so bad - for example 3.1 is only relevant to a few WCAG checkpoints which can be simplified. I was trying to do these and I found there are so many things that need alternate content. They are just listed in WCAG, but if we wanted a really good test you have to write them all out.

PJ Do you mean you have to write out all the different things for different languages?

JR Do we want to get into that?

PJ Why don't we write the techniques that are useful today, rather than getting into things that might be done someday.

JT We need some sample implementations - how real things have done it. If they are not available, a description of how it would be done. We would like to have tests - how to do conformance evaluation.

JR Where are real developers having trouble with these guidelines?

CMN Getting time to do the work.

JR Do they understand what things mean?

PJ The number one thing we were working on is accessible templates. That would be really useful.

JT That's a sort of add-on.

PJ It is the one I would pick as a first.

JT Can we look at a tentative structure - are there more things we should have?

/* nobody comes up with any */

JT Relative checkpoints - how should we approach them?

PJ When the things are in there are we grouping them by priority, or by topic, or ???

JR Phill has a point - going for level-A makes it useful to have things by priority

PJ They may be intersted in a group of things - like a list of things to check, because they deal with things based on how their tool is implemented. I have had to put together several things to deal with how to do image links, because it involves several WCAAG checkpoints

CMN By authoring task?

JT It depends on the tool implementation

PJ Yes.

CMN Maybe we start out by checklist (keeping it short as possible), and then look to putting together authoring tasks.

JT Throwing things at the list hasn't worked well - should we take action items?

PJ I can start hacking away at WCAG checkpoints or work on templates.

JR Why don't you go for templates?

PJ I would like to have a joint design party on some templates

GR I would like that approach

JR I would like to look at techniques to meet several checkpoints at once

DB I would like to volunteer someone else at Microsoft.

CMN I would like to work on the relative priority checkpoints

WL I would like to step back and see if I can describe what a tool is supposed to do and see if it leads me anywhere.

JR I wil try to illustrate some existing implementations

JT I would like to volunteer someone from Adaaptive Technology Resource Center to get examples from courseware tools

PJ An interesting note on courseware - when we teach people how to do things with a mouse and screenshot they found it difficult to describe how to use the GUI when the person won't use the GUI.

PJ Should we strip out notes and so forth for relative priority stuff?

CMN Yes. I just generated the current excessively large versions by trimming from the entire WCAG.

WL We only have half a day for the meeting?

CMN Yes. The basic topic is what the group needs to do, which is a fairly focussed question.

/* general discussion about WWW9 */


Copyright  ©  1999 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 $