W3C Web Accessibility Initiative

WAI Authoring Tool Guidelines Working Group

WAI AU Teleconference - 29 March 2000

Details

Chair: Jutta Treviranus

Date: Wednesday 29 March 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. The latest techniques draft is dated 8 March, available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WD-ATAG10-TECHS-20000308

  1. Review outstanding action items
  2. CSUN meeting
  3. Marjolein's comments on 7.1 (added to agenda during meeting)
  4. Teleconference timing
  5. Charter (added to Agenda during meeting)
  6. New techniques draft - when?
  7. Conformance evaluations

Attendance

Regrets

Action Items and Resolutions

Minutes

Action item review

Action CMN: Liaise with ERT to try and organise joint session if possible.
Done. Home page now has link to meeting details. Note that AU participants are asked to let the chairs of ER know if they intend to register.
Action JR: make techniques screenshots into .gifs
Done.
Action CMN: check out the objects in the techniques draft
Not done - held over
Action CMN: look into providing the techniques document in two versions - one with images linked instead of inline
Not done. Note that the face to face meeting decided that we would prefer to have one version
Action PJ: Propose text for keyboard accessibility in techniques for 7.1
Not done - held over
Action GR: Make some suggestions of screenshots from HomeSite for Marjolein.
Not done - held over
Action MK: Take some screenshots and send to JR.
Not done - pending recommendations.

review of face to face meeting

JT confusion regarding prompts and alerts. Can we make changes to definitions?

CMN We can add errata. If they are trivial we can incorporate them into a 1.01 draft, but if they change anything we must go through the process.

JT reads definition of prompt. An entry field is not requiring author response.

GR There can be author response.

JR This is confusing

CMN the question is whether a prompt can be part of an existing prompt

JT we could remove the second sentence

HS that would allow a squiggly underline

DB that isn't a prompt

CMN We have defined alert as well, and a squiggly is an alert.

JT there was a discussion on the meanings and what we were going to say.

Action JT send notes on definitions of prompt/alert to list

JT We need to be clear on what we mean. We should have examples on what we mean by prompt.

GR That's why I suggested image insertion from Homesite

/* Heather leaves

CMN I haven't been able to get the minutes up, so I would rather finish them and this discussion on-list or next week

Marjolein's comments on 7.1

CMN has read, but not responded formally

JT Were the comments about the referenced document or the things in the AU techniques

MK The things in the techniques document

Action CMN Start response thread for Marjolein's comments on 7.1

timing of telecon

CMN The thursday time cannot get W3C bridge. Maybe MIT but not month to month. Tuesday there was a bridge but no Gregory. GR I can do Tuesday now

JT The time might be conflicting with CG as well.

JT Should we try to change earlier?

Yes

Action CMN Find bridge and teleconference time, and give two weeks notice. Prefer thursday noon

New draft

CMN we have to produce a public draft by beginning of May, so need to put out to WAI-IG mid April. Need not be a Note, just a working draft.

GR is in our best interest to get it out early to get feedback before joint meeting with ER

JT This isn't so much a choice as a requirement on us

CMN If people can use structures (headings, etc) and alt/longdescs I can get it in a lot faster

Charter

JT we were looking at one year, writing up what we think should be one to the Guidelines

Action JT Post charter suggestion to list as proposal

Conformance Evaluations

GR Going to do FrontPage / HomeSite

JT Any volunteers for re-evaluating existing conformances?

DB I would like to keep Heather doing that. I will work with her. One of our best shots is to get more from Frontpage

CMN The Frontpage people were keen to get evaluations and comment on them, rather than do their own, especially at this early stage. That may be a common approach.

JT I will ask some people here (ATRC) to do some repeats. We will have Education tools review soon as well.

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 $