WAI Authoring Tool Guidelines Working Group
Chair: Jutta treviranus, <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
Date: Wednesday 22 September 1999
Time: 3.30pm - 5:00pm Boston time (1930Z - 2100Z)
Phone number: Tobin Bridge, +1 (617) 252 7000
The Latest Draft is the last call draft, dated 3 Septmeber, available at http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-AUTOOLS-19990903.
CMN Are we happy about referring to WCAG rather than including checkpoints from that in our doc?
JT He was most concerned about style/content separation - I can see how we could do that, but I agree with the approach we have at the moment. That didn't seem to be an issue, but WYSIWYG still did - are we providing the appropriate requirements
WL The review seems to suggest that we should be giving guidance to authors in these guidelines
JT It seems to be clear that we are providing requirements that are applicable for WYSIWYG tools
GR I agree. The problem isn't that the information isn't there, it is that people are going through by guidelines and not reading the introductory text.
/* Wendy joins
/* Jim joins
CMN It seems like we have a rough consensus that these don't need significant action, although we will have to deal with this formally at the face to face.
JT There is the idea of whether we should say mulitmedia in 3.3
WL If we take it out someone else will ask for it to go back in...
JT Yes. He was also looking for automatic generation. That is an AU issue, but he thought there should be further generation required - 3.3 doesn't address that.
CMN That is more or less exactly the point of checkpoint 1.4
JT I don't know that we thought of automatic generation as a checkpoint
WL I still don't.
CMN In his example you get 1.2 then 1.4
JT Jon wanted to derive information, not just preserve it
CMN that sounds like a really fine point to me.
JT In some cases the information might not be recognised as accessibility information.
GR So in the spreadsheet example he wants to identify the column/row headers and preserve them, but also generate accessible formats with multiple information.
WL If you do 1.2, you have to do 1.4. If you don't do 1.2 you have failed
JT I like the idea of making it a technique - is it a requirement?
GR It is one way - I don't think it is the only way
JT So it belongs as a technique
Resolved: We think Jon Gunderson's spreadsheet example is a technique
JT There is the splitting conformance issue
WL/GR No way
GR There is the question of 3.4
CMN Put the staement of the problem was not correct.
/* Dick leaves
CMN proposal is to have the techniques for a sample implementation as part of the normal techniques, and a spearate document available for each sample implementation.
Action CMN: Publish new techniques draft to show what it looks like
JT There are a couple of these around. Kitch did one from User Agent. I think we ahve done the ER one already
CNM Can we do these on list
JT Yes, let's.
GR Does anyone else have ideas about dependencies from ER?
JT To meet the requirements using an external module there are a list of techniques to make sure they are integrated, but that is beyond the scope of the document
GR We reference Chris Ridpahh's document
WL And the validation
Last Modified $Date: 2000/11/08 08:11:51 $ by Charles McCathieNevile