W3C Web Accessibility Initiative

WAI Authoring Tool Guidelines Working Group

WAI AU Teleconference - 24 February 1999


Chair: Jutta Treviranus, jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca

Date: Wednesday 24 February 1999

Time: 4pm - 5.30 pm Boston time (2100Z - 2230Z)

Phone number: Tobin Bridge: +1 617 252 7000 (note change from usual number)


Check for instant consensus

Determine if there is a consensus for any of the proposals on the agenda. This is not an opportunity to discuss the proposal. It simply allows any items for which no discussion is required to be cleared at the beginning of the call.

Review of Latest Draft

The latest working group draft is http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WD-WAI-AUTOOLS-19990216. Where proposals are still current, but were based on old drafts, numbering given here reflects that of the current document.

Specific suggestions:

Proposed by Charles McCathieNevile: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JanMar/0079, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JanMar/0120

Add several checkpoints to 2.1 'generate standard markup'

and in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JanMar/0100

Use the definition of priorities, Guidelines, Checkpoint and Techniques from the Working Draft of the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19990210 with minimal modification as required.

and in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JanMar/0131

Remove checkpoint 2.5.1 - it is redundant.

In: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JanMar/0132 in response to Jamie Fox http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JanMar/0129 and Dave Pawson http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JanMar/0121

Add a checkpoint requiring Authoring Tools to include a DTD with a document.

Raised by Jutta Treviranus: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JanMar/0096

Should "including professionally written description" be a checkpoint or a technique?

Raised by William Loughborough: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JanMar/0117.html and Jamie Fox http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JanMar/0129:

Some grammatical changes.

Proposed by Charles McCathieNevile:: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JanMar/0114

Add summaries of Principles behind Web Content Guidelines and User Agent Guidelines to introductions of sections 2 and 4




Action Items and Resolutions


Instant Consensus

Validate Markup

JR: Tool must generate standard markup already.

WL: Proposing a 2.1.2? Is it different?

JT: Make authoring tool validate content

JR: 2.1.1 says write valid mark-up. I'm not sure that a validation is necessary.

CMN: This is to ensure that imported markup can be validated.

JT: We're not asking them to require validation of stuff which has been generated. We should be explicit about it applying that to imported markup.

WL: Seems to be pretty much included already

JT: We want checkpoints to be very specific

WL: Imported is still generated

JA: 2.5 talks about importing

CMN: this differs from 2.5 because it refers to standards, not accessbility.

JT: 2.1.2 encourages validation, specifically for imported documents

CMN: This doesn't say whether it goes outside the tool or not, just that it must be validated

WL: What does inter-operability mean?

JR: We should be explaining why we need standard markup in the introduction to the guideline.

WL: That makes sense

JR: The role of this guideline plays in the document

JT: Standards promote accessibility.

CMN: Without a standard, there is no way to build accessibility on top of it.

WL: Necessary but not sufficient

IJ: Also, W3C Standards include accessibility support.

JR: This guideline says "Whatever you do, it has to be valid. Then the next guideline says that you have to support accessibility features."

KB: Is the tool responsible for checking and or correcting that markup is standard

CMN: No, under 2.5, it is only required to ensure accessibility of the markup.

KB: 2.1 could use a checkpoint that says 'ensure that imported content or content created by another source is in accordance with W3C specification. See checkpoints in 2.5 about alerting/correcting

JA?: Modify 2.3

WL: We could add parenthesis to 2.1.1

JR, KB: Would prefer second checkpoint

WL: Second checkpoint should require standardisation of imported content

KB: Should allow for correction as well

JT: explicit correction?

KB Not sure yet.

CMN: The rest of my proposal is to seperate the requirement for W3C standards via two more checkpoints, from adherence to specifications.

WC: Use of Javascript/ECMAscript is classic example here.

JT: We have 4 checkpoints under this proposal

KB: Should we mention DTD here?

JR: Checkpoint 3 is pretty open-ended.

CMN: Yep. It says don't extend in such a way as to exclude

IJ: Can we special-case HTML, and say don't extend it?

CMN: Proposed checkpoint 4 covers HTML and SMIL, MathML

JT: Can they go to the list

CMN: Propose to put them into document, and argue about them at the meeting

JT Any objections to the 4 checkpoints being in the public Working Draft?

IJ: Still thinking about number 4.

CMN: Number 4 is restrictive not permissive

Resolved: add these three new checkpoints to working draft with modifications as discussed.

2.5.1 and 2.2.1

JT Are these redundant? Where does it belong?

WL: Belongs in 2.2

JT: Agree

Resolveed: remove 2.5.1. Maybe use langauge in 2.2.1

KB: Or in 2.3.1

IJ: 2.2 and 2.3 are very close

JT: One addresses the practices, the other addresses the insertion of markup

KB: 2.5.1 sounds like one of the things that won't be conscious in the user's mind

JT it applies to both.

CMN: I'd be happy to move 2.5.1 to 2.3.1, keep 2.2.1

WAC: How much do you want to highlight the structure stuff? Leave it there, or assume that it will be inferred from 2.2 and 2.3

JT: We're talking about removing stuff. We have already talked about what is accessible.

WL: What does 2.2 intro mean?

JR: Means 'make sure you can hadnle the accessibility features of a language'.

IJ: Authoring tool as User Agent?

JR: No. The tool understands how to use the feature.

KB: So you can insert a longdesc, for example. (in HTML 4)

IJ: I would argue that part of ensurign markup is accessible is making sure the features are there.

CMN: 2.2 expresses the dependence. 2.3 says what to do about it.

IJ I still think 2.2 goes into 2.3

JT: We're talking about auto-generated markup in 2.3.

CMN: I buy Ian's argument

IJ: If it is authoring tools support, then it definitely belongs in 2.3.

JR: 2.2 builds a logical argument.

WL: Why don't we say that.

IJ: I would think differently if it were broken into parsing, user agent support, etc.

JT: Jan - write some more checkpoints.

Resolved: Discussion on 2.5.1, relationship between 2.2 and 2.3 goes to the list

JT: Including 2.2 in 2.3 would mean a major change to 2.3 which is not general enough.


CMN: This is important as we start to mix document types. I suggest we do it without requiring it as an

JT: This is XML-specific - do we need more intro text?

JR: This sounds like a page author guideline

CMN: Yes, but it's not there.

IJ: It would be an interesting discussion to hear what the implications are.

JT: This brings up a good point. If specific guidelines are not in teh Web Content Guidelines do we address them, or send them back

IJ: At least tell Web Content Guidelines

CMN: Do both

JT Then we are diverging from Web Content

CMN: I think the danger would be if we put in something that belonged in Web Content, and didn't send it back to Web Content.

IJ: We should send this to chair of GL group, copied to lists.

Resolved: Decision delayed pending review by Web Content

IJ I don't know that we should limit this to DTD's - we should consder schemas as well

Including Professional Descriptions - checkpoint or technique

JT: Responses were on both sides - any takers

CMN: Checkpoint

JT Anyone for a technique

WAC Seems like a technique. Maybe it shouldn't say 'professionally'

WL If related to stuff that came with the tool then it is a checkpoint

JA: Include Alternative Content for All multimedia files packaged with the authoring tool

JR: Do we want to say human authored?

IJ leaves

JT: Do we need to specify that the alternative content is human-authored? Rationale is to have good quality alternative content.

JA: Could just say 'appropriate'

JR: Could have technique say 'professionally written, good quality, etc'

WAC: Use professionally written, link to WGBH or somewhere

JT: Don't want to imply that it needs to be done out of house.

WAC Professional just means you paid for it

WL: Ensure that text accompnaying content conforms with recommendations

JT: We wnat to say Include it.

WL: Yes, and that it qualifies as good

JT: How can we do the second piece

WAC: It is defined as well as possible in Web Content guidelines

JA: Reference Web Content Guidelines in checkpoint

JT: Make sure it's there, and make sure it's good.

JA: Add, "which complies with Web Content Guidelines"

Resolved: Checkpoint 2.6.1 says" Include Alternative Content which complies with Web Content Guidelines for All multimedia files packaged with the authoring tool"

Intros to section 2 and 4 - summarise principles

JT: Where other guidelines covered this, we would not replicate them. CMN proposed we should cover the principles, as introductory text. (reads proposed text) It is possible to do all that and still have an inaccessible tool. If we do this, then we need to refer to the guidelines. There were issues of using standard APIs, etc.

CMN: These are an introduction, not a substitute.

JT: These are very specific in some areas and may imply incorrectly that the summary is complete.

CMN: The specific points are examples, and could be lost

WAC: I think it would be helpful to have some sort of summary - it gives good context and motivation to read the real documents

CMN: I'm sorry Ian left - he had said 'it is exactly what is needed'. But he's not here

WL: I liked this. Is it helpful to the audience?

WAC: Having an introduction to the other guidelines is really helpful. You could lift the new intor to the Web Content Guidelines

JT: I'd be comfortable with copying that.

Resolved to Have some introductory text?

WL Not sure. Are we reaching the audience we need?

CMN: I suggest we throw it in, and ask for comment. Several developers have agreed to comment despite not being in the group.

JT: I dont think we are comfortable to put this in the draft as is.

CMN: I would prefer to throw something in, and get comment. I would be happy to take the Web Content Material unseen.

Action WAC: Send intro material from WC Guidelines to list.

Resolved: Draft paragraphs will be brought to discussion Monday.

General discussion (2 minutes)

This time suits people present.

Meeting Closed 5:30 pm US EST (2230Z)

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 23 February 1999 by Charles McCathieNevile