WAI Authoring Tool Guidelines Working Group
Chair: Jutta Treviranus, firstname.lastname@example.org
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)
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.
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.
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
Resolved: Draft paragraphs will be brought to discussion Monday.
Note. This is not fixed, and should be reviewed in successive drafts.
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.
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.
JT Are these redundant? Where does it belong?
WL: Belongs in 2.2
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
JT: Responses were on both sides - any takers
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?
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"
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.
This time suits people present.
Meeting Closed 5:30 pm US EST (2230Z)
Last Modified 23 February 1999 by Charles McCathieNevile