W3C logo Web  Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo

WAI AU Teleconference - 31 October 2000

Details

Chair: Charles McCathieNevile

Date: Tuesday 31 October 2000

Time: 2:30pm - 4:00pm Boston time (1930Z - 2100Z)

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 18 September, available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WD-ATAG10-TECHS-20000918. The latest draft of the Accessibiltiy Evaluation and Repair Techniques is dated 15 March at http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert-20000315


Attendance

Regrets


Action Items and Resolutions


Minutes

CMN Not much of an agenda for this week. WCAG 2-based techniques.

JR Let's forget it until we are looking at ATAG2

CMN Sure

LM Makes sense

JR There are some changes we would like to make to ATAG for version 2. And we have teh checkpoiont mapping

WL What about a requirements list for ATAG 2

JR Sure. I haven't heard too much developer feedback on ways to improve the document.

LM Not yet.

CMN It is always possible that we did a really good job first time around, and there isn't a lot of need for change <grin/>

WL A lot of the people we are talking to are dealing with the tool as tool, and we do not get much from non Web-page authoring tools.

JR Have we contacted graphical authoring tools, for example

CMN The short answer is yes. For example Ian is talking to Adobe about graphics software for User Agents and Authoring Tool guidelines, but keep on getting out there...

WL There is also some value in RDF stuff that crosses over. If we are to make a requirements wish list I think we should begin thinking about specific RDF stuff that is generated by authoring tools.

CMN I think that is a one-line technique - it is a case of getting implementation.

Action CMN: Generate Issues / Requirements for ATAG 2

JR The main one I am thinking of is make sure that prepackaged content is accessible and make sure templates are accessible. I think they should be one checkpoint rather than 2

CMN And we want to refer to WCAG 2 instead of WCAG 1

WL The value of having RDF is that there are good methods for saving the author a lot of work

CMN How much of it is a checkpoint and how much is a technique?

WL No idea. I would put it at a checkpoint type level, becuase it is necessary.

JR Is it a WCAG thing or an Authoring Tool thing?

WL I guess it should be in both.

JR I am not sure it is a requirement. Is a page inaccessible without it?

WL To people who are looking for linking to accessible content.

LM That's a radical concept

CMN Actually there are people who try to do just that.

LM When I was an advocate there were sites that would say "you are now leaving" and felt no responsibility to seek out accessible content.

WL There has to be more.

CMN One other question... When we integrate AERT my initial impulse is to put it in as techniques for 4.1 and 4.2 - does that make sense to people?

JR I was going to look at it this week. Both of those are relative checkpoints. For all of the relative checkpoints I would like to filter the relevant WCAG checkpoints.

WL The hard thing is to remember is that this isn't tools but a description of how to make tools

JR It is strange - we have different checkpooints for evaluation and repair. There will be some interesting navigation structures for us so people can go back and forth

CMN Raises the issue of wheter we should combine the checkpoints

JR They don't affect conformance - you have to do the same thing about both.

WL The decision included discussion about why not make it one - those arguments will come up again

JR The arguments to keep it 2 checkpoints is that they are different things - a systems that just checks won't get any kind of conformacne anyway

CMN It goes to the question of granularity of evaluation. I don't suppose we will solve it today.

WL Why not get a proposal to integrate the checkpooints

CMN I would propose to produce a techniques draft that includes: SMIL techniques, the work Jan has done on improving the classification of techniques, the AERT stuff, and the evaluation techniques. I would like to do it this week, but that might be fantasy.

JR Can you let me know when you start doing it, because I would like to clean it up a bit more before we start.

CMN I wasn't going to split AERT stuff

JR I suppose we could try that.

WL The guidelines document is probably going to more religiously include a means of checking conformance as a part of the techniques for that document.

CMN There is the evaluation techniques - please havea look at it

JR Right, that is a piece needing work. There is a need to make sure that WCAG and us are connected on what we are testing for

WL WCAG are going to have a justification for each checkpooint - I wonder if we need to pick that up.

JR We have a section in 6

WL I was thinking about doing it for checkpoint by checkpoint

CMN I agree that we should have it, but would not put it in the guidelines. How about in the Techniques

WL Sure.

CMN Next meeting is joint call with ER - I don't know if I will make it (travelling to Spain)

MK I will almost certainly not be there.


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


Last Modified $Date: 2014/02/24 23:46:37 $