W3C Web Accessibility Initiative

WAI Authoring Tool Guidelines Working Group

WAI AU Teleconference - 5 May 1999

Details

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

Date: Wednesday 5 May 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-19990430.

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

Review of Priority definitions:


Attendance

Regrets


Action Items and Resolutions


Minutes

Checkpoints 2.7.2 and 2.7.1

JT This needs the priority discussion for resolution. BR is a critical resource.

CMN So far as I can gather the question is really the priorities of the checkpoints, rather than suggesting they be merged

JT That's the status

Resolved: Checkpoints not merged. Further discussion comes under priority deifinition

Priority definitions

KB Withdraws proposal

JT: Proposed changes from mailing list - Charles' proposal is to talk about accessible content in guidelines definition. Any comments

WL: fine

JR Yes, because we talk about accessibility implying conformance elsewhere

JT Word content vs document

JT We could add a definition of document to specify the two.

BR A document is a series of elements defined by a language - example HTML 4 or an XML application

CMN Suggest we should leave this issue aside and deal with Gregory's proposal.

JT P1 definition saying "will not be able to". The author is probably always able to get into the code and make the changes

WL That's not using the authoring tool

JR The difinitions don't deal with promotion - doesn't say not knowing about

KB Not all tools will allow editing of HTML - for example saving from an office tool

BR says "using the authoring tool"

JT The way it is phrased talks about the tool preventing

CMN I suggest reword of P1 deifinition

JT My wording says "authors will create web content using the tool, that is not accessible"

CMN "authors using the tool..."

Resolved: CMN's wording, with P1 as "authors using the tool will create web content that is not accessible"

JA When we say will, do we mean highly likely?

CMN My reservations about this was based on how you check it. I am not sure if this allows it to be so clear, but I don't think we need to worry about it.

JT We can generally decide based on these definitions.

Reordering 2.7.1 and 2.7.2 - Gregory's proposal

CMN I think is a very good test of our definition of priorites...

BR Priority changes - 2.7.1 goes to 2, 2.7.2 goes to 2.

WL Explanation of how to isn't as crtical as integration of help

CMN I think 2.7.1 should remain P1. The question is should 2.7.2 be P1 or P2

KB 2.7.1 says should we have a section labelled "accessible authoring practices", 2.7.2 deals with integration

CMN Right. All I think 2.7.1 says is that it is important to explain (somehow) how to do it

JR 2.7.1 was written as CMN says. 2.7.2 is as KB has explained it.

WL Isn't it possible that if you do 2.7.2 propoerly you don't need 2.7.1

KB Possibly, but there is a benefit to having the accessibilty section

CMN can we promote 2.7.2 from p2 to p1

KB Yes, otherwise naive users will never find out how to do it if it isn't integrated.

WL If you were single-A conformant you wouldn't have to include practices in general help

JT Another though on priority definitions - if we put "the average author" into P1.

CMN I think we can assume that already

BR I can agree that it is a P1 based on our definitions.

JR I'm not sure what 2.7.2 would look like without 2.7.1

WL The implication of 2.7.1 is that there is an explanation somewhere.

CMN If we have 2.7.2 as P1 then 2.7.1 is redundant

JT Do we have a proposal to merge them again?

BR Yes

WL What if we said "Integrate all accessibility practices..."

JA That doesn't cover the case where a topic is not applicable

JR proposed wording "Integrate and explain all accesible authoring practices"

KB I'm happy to keep them as two, putting 2.7.2 first

CMN I agree

JA Me too - 2.7.1 should be first

JT So what do we do with 2.7.1

KB Leave it as it is reordered

BR If I satisfy 2.7.2 haven't I satisfied 2.7.1?

KB Not necessarily - I want to find the accessibility practices

BR So we make it clear that 2.7.1 is about grouping accessibility

JR What if you put alt into everything - integrating it - but never explain it

KB I'm fine with 2.7.1 not changing at all in wording

BR Nobody else thinks the overlap is troubling?

JT We could clarify this in the techniques

WL Isn't it possible that 2.7.2 satisfies 2.7.1

CMN Yes, but it isn't automatically true

BR yes - that's what has to be made clear.

JR For example you could do something which satisfies a number of checkpoints

Resoved: 2.7.2 to P1 and goes first. techniques to explain how these can be done and address the question of possible overlaps.

BR Is there meaning in the ordering?

CMN Not explicitly, but we can take advantage of it to improve readability etc.

BR as a tool builder I might like to see them in priority order

WL They will be

JT We decided 2.1 (P2) begins for readability

Merger of 3.2 and 3.4

CMN It seems that the guidelines cover the same idea in slightly diffferent words - seemed more sensible to make the merger

WL We wouldn't even have to change the wording of 3.2

JA recommend we renumber 3.4.1 to 3.2.3

WL could be part of 3.4.1

JA no, these are explicitly different

JR Would lose mention of graphic tags unless moved intro text

Proposed: Move 3.4.1 to 3.2, move 3.4 intro to a technique

So Resolved

Other business

WL Problem of using decimal section - in WCAG the guideline numbering is simplified because there is only one guidelines section

JT But we have two different sections

CMN I am still a fan of Ian's proposal I think this is a good issue for face to face.

CMN Propose a subsection excplaining scope of guidelines - ie more than just HTML editors. Propose we adopt wording for draft and deal with it at face to face.

Resolved: Charter definition of scope to be incorporated as section 1.x

WL Use of word 'document'?

JT We need to go through and find a word which means structure and content.

general discussion of ambigiuty of terms.

Resolved: Editors should Note that definition of word content is an issue, but we need good definitions before we change it in the document.


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