W3C Web Accessibility Initiative

WAI Authoring Tool Guidelines Working Group

WAI AU Teleconference - 28 Apr 1999

Details

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

Date: Wednesday 28 April 1999

Time: 3.30pm - 4.30pm Boston time (1930Z - 2030Z)

Phone number: Tobin Bridge, +1 (617) 252 7000


Agenda (draft)

Review of Latest Draft

The latest working group draft is http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI-AUTOOLS-19990421.

Interest Group Review (one message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0142)

From the previous meeting:

Raised by Bruce Roberts: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0023

Raised by Charles McCathieNevile: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0045

and in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0124

and in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JanMar/0244

Raised by William Loughborough: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0008

Review of Priority definitions - Proposed by Kynn Bartlett: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0101


Attendance

Regrets


Action Items and Resolutions

IG Review:
Conformance to other documents:
Adopt wording proposed - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0124
Abstract:
Adopt wording for abstract from CMN proposal of 8 April, using 'author' as throughout this document and 'tool developer' as suggested.
Conformance definition for this document:
Adopt conformance statement from Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
Other Business:
Note that the use of 'content' and 'structure' should be clarified

Minutes

IG Review

All: Happy to keep using ensure. Other grammar stuff is left to editors to deal with.

JR: I like preserve instead of never remove

Resolved: Preserve instead of never remove

JR, JA agree about standards

GR When I talk to people the distinction can be treated in the glossary. If we get into the fine details too far we are muddying the waters

WL: That's too bad - there is a thing about using the word standard.

JT: Standards are good. That's all that we say, not a "W3C standard"

JR: Should we change W3C Specifications to "Recommendations"

Resolved: W3C specifications to be called recommendations. Standards in general sense to be called standards.

GR: References might want a pointer to W3C space which explains the termimnology used.

So Resolved

2.1.1

JT Priority 2 to begin can be addressed when we deal with that

JR This checkpoint fits here logically whatever the priority

CMN, WL agree

JT This is a building block.

2.3

WL: Can't check it is all there.

All: agreed

JT 2.3.2... clarify example.

Resolved: "LABEL, FIELDSET, LEGEND for form controls"

2.3.3

CMN No. Tools can provide clip art and alt content

JA Where tools use things with multiple prpose there is an issue here.

CMN We should note that case in our discussion of this checkpoint

WL It isn't a drop-dead sticking point - it is good to provide it still, and note it if it is unclear.

Resolved: Note the issue in techniques for this checkpoint. Point out that default may not be appropriate in all cases - check with author

2.3.4

CMN It means the Tool needs to manage the relationship, not the file format

JT Do we need to make this clearer?

Resolved: Explain this in techniques

Action JR: Write technique for 2.3.4

JT 2.3.5 Don't understand the objection

WL This is just an example

All: Agreed

JT 2.5

CMN: When we talk about markup we include content, structure, etc.

JT The text which is an attribute could be seen as not part of markup

CMN I don't see how

GR Nor me

Resolved: We think attributes and their values are part of the structure and of the content. Clarify in definition

2.5

JT His rant is one of the things we wanted to allow

JR I don't think this needs to be made explicit.

WL Agree

JR Tool can do that and ask the author - it is an implementation thing

CMN: Do we want to have it as a requirement - P2 or P3

JR I would love it...

CMN I suggest we put it in as a P3

JR I don't like this as a checkpoint. It is a power user feature.

CMN I think this is a good feature as a P3 feature

Resolved: Add 2.6.5 Allow the author to perform tag transformations P3 for example B -> STRONG, tables to lists, Fonts into Heading levels

2.7.3

JT This is a technique we could use

GR I don't like that

CMN I'm against showing how to do bad things

JR When they put the rest of stuff in do they say 'don't so this'?

JA Sometimes they show invalid markup...

CMN As a general principle it is a bad idea.

So Resolved

3.1

CMN Don't think we need to remove 'ensure'. Publishing is fine

JT publishing is good

Resolved: leave as is

3.2.1 The examples given are text brackets.

CMN The suggestion is that text brackets just means words.

JT Should we put examples in? The problem is that there are little images used in some tools to mark tags. We are just saying make sure they are readable

Resolved: Clarify with examples.

appendix - sample implementations

This is already resolved. See changes document.

Definitions:

CMN Propose we defer this to WG discussion of definitions.

General:

CMN These are to do with scripts used to generate the document. We can name as many elements as we want for future reference, but we should clean up scripts for giving attributes inside quotes.

Merger of 2.7.2 and 2.7.1

GR Wanted to make 2.7.2 and make it first, as P1, make 2.7.1 a P2

CMN The problem hinges on definition of priorities - propose we postpone until Kynn and Bruce are in group.

Postponed until next week

Merger of 3.2 and 3.4

Deferred

Conformance to other documents

CMN Our conformance to other docs statement doesn't meet requirements for conformance to WCAG.

Resolved: Adopt propose wording

Abstract, Introduction

Resolved: Adopt wording for abstract from CMN proposal of 8 April

JR We should keep enabling seperate from authoring.

JR I like the term authoring interface instead of authoring tool interface

GR: That's slick

Conformance

Resolved: Adopt wording from WCAG for conformance statement.

Priority definitions

Deferred

Other Business

WL We should clarify our use of the word 'content'

So Resolved. Note: Confusion about whether content includes structure and format


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 $Date: 2000/11/08 08:11:51 $ by Charles McCathieNevile