W3C Web Accessibility Initiative

WAI Authoring Tool Guidelines Working Group

WAI AU Teleconference - 27 June 2000

Details

Chair: Charles MccathieNevile

Date: Tuesday 27 June 2000

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

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. The latest techniques draft is dated 4 May, 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. Review outstanding action items
  2. Conformance assessments
  3. Prompting techniques
  4. Other business

Attendance

Regrets


Action Items and Resolutions


Minutes

Action item review

Action all: check techniques against new prompt definition
See discussion on mailing list and below
Action GR: post method for Accessibility Evaluation
Outstanding
Action HS: Will look into logo program
Outstanding
Action JT: talk to CG about evaluations and methods
Meeting is this week (after this meeeting)

Conformance evaluations

CMN I have asked Karl Dubost (new w3c QA person, starting Monday) to be at our next meeting - two weeks away, joint meeting with ER. Beyond A, double / triple A, what must we, should we, would we like to do?

WL take the must out.

CMN A conformance assessment should be able to justify a claim for meeting a particular level (or not). So a minimal, but fairly useless review is to show that something fails a P1 checkpoint

JR I think it is helpful to discuss more even in a tool that does not reach level A

WL It doesn' matter - you don' search for something it doesn' meet and then quit reviewing.

MK What about a tool that meets a lot of checkpoints but not all.

WL It is non-conformant (but is probably still helpful to people)

JR We have the conformance levels. If details are given, people can make informed decisions are the best for their particular purposes.

MK You need some level of detail about a tool especially if it doesn' meet level A but there are things it does conform too.

CMN I think our goals in assessments are to look for techniques, to provide information about tools that meet some needs of people so they can pick what suits. Can anyone start out doing one?

JR I am waiting for a template to do one.

FB i can check some things but not all - I don't have software to test for accessibility.

CMn partial evaluations are helpful, and they are also helpful for coming up with template stuff

WL I can look at the one I use

MK That would be helpful in coming up with a template.

FB What do we need to do right now?

CMN How many people are making web pages?

MK I don' think I am the best person to test my own tool

WL WHo better

CMN In testing Dreamweaver i found that it required a lot of work and knowledge

WL put me down for HotDog

MK Me too.

CMN having multiple independent tests is good for seeing what is hard to check

MK Right. That will show us where we need to work on a template. I am a bit shy of evaluating a tool that is a competitor. What I do internally is different from what I would do in a working group.

CMN we need to be sensitive about issues of vendor neutrality and not causing problems with our respective employers. But this is not official certification, it is opinion

WL Anyone got Word

MK what version?

Cmn i think there is not a lot of value in doing old versions

MK Word 2000 has more in it, but word97 is used by lots of people

WL nobody will buy a new copy of it

CMN There is some value in doing it because it adds to the body of test, and the tools are being used.

MK The argument is that it is not just what you can get but what people are using out there.

Action WL Review HotDog

Action FB Review HomeSite

Action JR Review GeoCities online tool

CMN where should techniqeus for testing go? Into the techniques document? Written up seperately?

MK Should be a seperate document

FB Agree

CMN They are related. Should it be a companion document? seperate?

MK They are related, but don' make it part of it. If a developer is going to use the techniques docuement they will want to refer to testing.

Action CMN: Draft a testing document.

CMN I propose to do it on a checkpoint by checkpoint basis, like the current techniques Another approach is to look at a scenario/task-based approach, that can produce information for building assessments.

Prompting Techniques

DB HS is fine with proposal.

MK I agree that we should acknowledge the difference in our definition.

CMN my follow up would be to put that statement in. I would like the definition to be clearer about what is a definition and what is explanation

MK Do we need a definition if we have a good explanation?

CMN I think we do.

MK Make it like the first paragraph is definition and the rest is like an explanation.

Action CMN post new proposal to the list.

Other Business


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 $