01 March 2001 F2F meeting minutes (AU/ERT/WCAG)

The minutes for both the morning and afternoon sessions are contained in this document. In the a.m. the AU WG and ERT WG met along with several visitors. The p.m. session was a joint meeting between AU WG, ERT WG, WCAG WG and visitors.

Summary of action items, resolutions, and open issues

Participants (not all present for entire day)


LK Language used to describe if web content is accessible. more general for other types of testing. comes up with vocabulary that may be as wide as possible. the examples that are canned deal with accessibility of web pages. scenarios for uses of EARL /* link */ We want to get specific about vocabulary.

LK In web accessibility, there are many places where the judgement has to be made by a person. e.g. an image with alt-text. If you have an image of a cow and the image is a horse, you need a person to recommend what the alt-text should be.

LK 1st scenario - person gets a report. need way to combine comments from various people or tools. compare results to one or more standards - in the states such as 508 vs WCAG. Ideally, a language to translate between standards. A corporation may have their own standards.

CS Discussion in WCAG of a conformance schema, what's that about?

CMN Instead of conformance to guidelines at level X, have finer-grained or partial conformance. e.g., I use a mouthstick, there are 9 checkpoints in UAAG that are critical to me but don't care about visual checkpoints. Can I use this system to do that. one goal of using RDF, is to make sure you can do that.

DD The 3 WAI guidelines are for web content, user agent, authoring tool - what it means to be accessible for each. We have been good at specifying conformance to each guideline. Each have checkpoints with priorities. There is a conformance claim you make, Level A etc. (DD explains). In terms of the accessibility report, we have a way to point into our spec that we can directly reference. The problem is made complex by the requirement of human judgement. We can not automate everything. If you consider SVG test suite it is harder to point at testable assertion, but the test is look at something - is the circle red. It is more objective at looking at assertion but harder to point at what is the purpose of the test. This language will have to take into account both kind of evaluation.

LK We have a problem of specifying conformance in SVG, are there other comments on that before we move on?

RN From the implementation side, if you break it into qualitative verus quantitative, when we write tests, we have to document our requirements. I would like to see a requirement based guidelines, where i can easily see subjective or not. if quantitative i can write a test for that. otherwise, what a space for comments or someone else to read.

LK For qualitative judgements, in addition to a statement would you want a scale?

RN feasible, but still human judgement. 1,2,3 can say qualitative. if p3 and qualitative, i may not have resources to do that. how do you get buy in from the retail side. have to get it as easy as possible. get a quick hit.

CMN Two threads coming together: how do you test something against a test suite. when we looked at this, rdf seemed a good pick since it let you deal in things with URIs. if your test suite is 10K cases and each is a page, and requires a human. as long as you have what needs to be done described with a URI, then using RDF can say, "this conforms." ATAG gives tests for how to determine conformance. 1. can you insert an image? 2. can you give an equivalent? each has a URI.

LH Unlike accessibility standards, we don't have a clear set of test assertions. In practice, I synthesize those where implied. You extract a doc from the spec which is test assertions. then you apply those same processes to the intermediate document.

DD you create a test of checkpoints?

LH You have to deduce them.

LK You can imagine a lang where each output statement refers to a particular test, or imagine that it points to something more atomic then derive if particular checkpoints are produced. You can say this image meets checkpoint 1.1 or alt-text exists. then you have another set of rules that says, 1.1 is ... and in 508 it's ... i wonder if that would be formalizing that.

CMN In the toy that danbri and i made took advantage of that. we had atomic tests with rules. if you meet all p1's then you meet the atomic test which is wcag level A.

CS Would it be useful to create markup to define those standards? A way to describe why want test and rules for what test against.

CMN The user interface is the key bit.

CS Some people will do it directly in XML with a text editor, some people will want a GUI.

DD I would like to hear from lynn or lofton, we're not inventing something new here. People have been working on results to tests. They were specific to a testing technology or specific technology. OASIS has come up with XSLT evaluation. The etc people have an ISO framework for presenting test result. keep in mind there are specification of requirement.

LK As people bring up requirements, I want to list them here. Is there a meta requirement.

CMN Derive a result from other results.

DD These look like requirements for harness rather than language.

RN The language has to generate a report. Also add, modify, delete and change my report. I don't care what it does, what I want is a report that I can hand to management. With 508, the conformance is up to each agency to decide how they will handle it. It applies to corporations and companies. No one wants a document, it can be subpoenaed. You have to have a report. Who are the players and the end result?

DDimitriadis In specifying DOM tests, the language is independent of adding mechanisms to the test suite. You extend your test suite rather than the language.

DD Have to be clear not to confuse the language (keep track of test results) with pretty output. Another language is the language to express the test. WIll find lots of same data in the result.

Lofton An ad hoc design for SVG work. Similar to test expression language that NIST has done. It's simple XML grammar that encapsulates the test purpose, the checkpoints (operator script). Descriptive prose on what you should see, what should happen, how to issue pass/fail.

LR If you are doing conformance, when you test for it, it has to trace itself back to a requirement in the spec. You are bound in scope to what the spec says. Our test suites are based on the same philosophy. We have test assertions (your checklist), then test purposes and cases. We represent this in a DTD. Easy to add new tags. All tags have an identification, purpose, owner, etc. Lots of identification info. You can generate almost any kind of report you want. On the harness, you can always view the source code, find the test requirement, link to that clause in the spec. It's not like a formal language.

PJ The title EARL is what I thought we were working on, but when I hear "test language" and "reporting language" I am concern about scope.

LK Testing is expansion of evaluation?

PJ test language is source of running the test. EARL says there is an URI for the test that maps to a requirement. When we specify language of the test, perhaps too low level. Want to make sure that things scale. Want to scale at different points. if I have a checkpoint that says "provide alt for content." different ways to do it. can say do or don't vs. having test id's for what i can do to validate.

LH I think the weakest point in our work is the expression of results. I've seen everything from our earliest suites (a pad of paper), to work with DOM where you get a visual highlighted result back (indicating pass/fail). That's what interested me in this work. Not sure see the distinction between evaluation and report. Report is result of running evaluation.

LK Evaluation is something that could be read by an authoring tool as well as particular report.

JT One way I envision this being used, if we have a number of different evaluation tools and repair tools, a language to express what the authoring tool evaluates and repair, then can match up report with a repair tool that repairs those pieces. Report could contain the EARL.

PJ Making conformance claims is different than results of tests.

CMN Testing is good for feedback on the spec.

DD Scenarios where person does not know how to fix, all you may know is that the browser has a problem. The repair info is valuable in others it is irrelevant. Therefore separated in the language.

DDimitriadis Description of test could be x language y technologies. We want one eval language, so yes separate. While specifying DOM, if write atomic tests, e.g. I want to test 1.2.3 it is easy to do a conformance rating. You generate result then put indication on result. We would like to have scenario driven tests, "a user wants to add 5 lines of text and change the screen, etc." Can not express is atomic points. Therefore, output language probably not output. Put this on the agenda. Capture things based on prose descriptions.

CMN The repair info that you might carry and ultimately the value is so you can use it to fix things. the repair comes out of the tests not the language. make sense to make sense to make enough use of language that can say, "here is the test. here's what it says about how to fix." this outside scope of language itself. I used RDF because the test becomes a URI. I'd like to see us talk about what the language might look like and what RDF might do for us.

MRK I don't see a problem with the language containing more info. The UI can sort it out. Put info about what needs to be tested, what has been tested, Advice for how to repair, show in different place.

KD Possible to make scenario based on atomic test. Can we establish relationship between test and scenario.

CMN We used RDF to describe and needed inference engine.

DDimitriadis Writing tests or results?

CMN Enumerate tests. Then enumerate rules for combining tests. If you pass 1,2,3 you get stamp A.

PJ Very familiar with XML, don't know RDF. How does it relate to XML.

MRK Scope of the tests? Explain part of the document needs a test and the whole doc and then the site?

CMN Anything that has a URI - a single element, a whole site.

MRK Put them all together.

RN In my informal survey, there are 1 in 50 that state in contracts: use HTML 4. don't want to bind themselves. Need to carry on explanation why something fails. need good examples. easy to read. one centralized tool: do HTML, do x. One access point. re: test conditions: implementation issue is that there are over 40 browsers where you can't turn javascript on/off or css. if make test condition, "now turn off css" or "invert colors." then you don't rely on how a browser works. it will tell you how.

LK We've been hearing about meta requirements. In terms of pinning down how and if use RDF. Which of these considerations are the key things we should focus on.

AB Why would you consider using RDF? XML?

RS This a.m's discussion is about what you want to describe and how to point people to more info. In the course of describing these things, you'll figure out which concepts to encode. RDF and variety of notations will do in a variety of ways. must first figure out what want to express.

LK Ground rule: as we talk about general requirements, it should be accompanied by a concrete example.

CS Like to see output importable by bug tracking systems. What line of code, test, etc. If you end up with 1,000 reports.

LK Want something that could attach any sort of machine readable info?

CS Want to see output, may be a tool issue. Bobby does this, when you get a report.

CMN Why RDF instead of XML? Wanted to refer to anything in the universe as a test. RDF model, X has relationship Y to Z. X, Y, Z are URIs.

LK How does that grab you?

AB Right. Seems that people needed clarification.

RS When LK and I talked about this. One question that we thought we might want to answer was to describe the e-mail traffic over the last few weeks. Ultimately, what we do with this will be expressible in XML (i.e. no angle brackets in my description) rather the mechanism. I drew this example to tie to the N3 description. The notion is that we have stuff. Each oval is a thing. One is "pat" two don't have names. there is a relationship between pat and the 1st unknown thing called "child." imagine that the objects we're talking about are some bit of markup that exists on the web. the thing on the left is an XHTML markup. it has an img element that fails one of your tests. #img failsReqruiement http://www.w3.org/some-wcag#p1. document and conformance claim that is being failed. what is the conformance test? that's for you to define. prose is good for human readers, not for machines. What else can we say? We add relationships between the conformance tests and what repair tools can do. You get to describe the relationships, their names, their semantics. We can name anything. failsRequirement is a name of a concept. it will have a URI that you can follow to find out what it means. We can find out info about any thing in this relationship. To make it easier to express what's going on in this image, we have RDF and N3 that we can express it in.

/* go to pat example with 2 children example in N3 primer LINK */

RS What are the attributes of tests that we want people and machines to discover? What does this relationships mean? How we write them in e-mail, we need to agree on notation but focus on concepts. Don't spend a lot of time on syntax. Further info is who made the claim, what did they base it on, what tool decided it was the relationship that exists, etc. Let's define the concepts then go to the RDF spec.

CMN What makes this useful in the real world? The use case that PJ and NIST have. Do testing, get results, etc. Another is Jutta's. If a small shop may have 8 tools, if larger have 8 departments. What kinds of tools exist?

RN Lots of tools exist. Test conditions will come upon the tools and pages. We need to prioritize what we do first.

JT seems to be an open issue about what EARL will actually be used for.

DD Here is a vocabulary of things to express.

  1. testinfo - framework (wcag, svgspec, htmlsyntax), test id, test purpose, code?, manual y/n
  2. result info - individual result (url pass/fail, confidence level, syntax error line)
  3. repair ino - (optional)
  4. run info - constraints platform, operator instructions (merge EARL Language with harness language)

are there additional items we should store and process? /* get rationale and requirements from DD */ perhaps syntax error line is based on something more generic.

LR Under result info, I would like to see person info as well as date tests are run. It is important to note that these reports can be used in different purposes and ways. Depending on if i'm going to repair or as a report to claim conformance, the type of info i get out of the report or how i use the report will be different. think about how used to make sure it's all covered.

LK After break let's flesh out addtional info that we want here.

/* break - most of the RDF folks leave */

/* DD changes "schema" displayed on screen on the fly to incorporate comments */

RS notation and syntax are not user interface. The purpose of the syntax is to exchange stuff between tools.

RN In two week sin new orleans is a conference by carnegie mellon. seems to be synergy.SEI - Software engineering institute. Model for how you do software engineering. Those are foundations for building software.

RS the way you specify the date of the result and the page what information do we want to record.

LK The question is do we want to record an individual date and stamp for each element? Some images change. for example, banner ads will change.

RS Test date applies to all.

WC Not necessarily. Test could be on an element or even attribute level. Tool could only care about one or other.

RN code on the page, versus what's on the page.

CS Separate test from subject of test. Subjectmight be page or image, running the same test.

WC Harness?

DD framework of interaction that leads you to a result. there are languages to express how you move from page to page. The test info is part of the harness.

LK The question on the floor: what does the test mean adn what is the scope of these thigns?

CMN The scope of the test is whatever you are making the assertion about. it should be a requirement at an atomic level at an individual object, or page, or whatever atom you can think of.

KB We need to say that something applies to more than one URL. e.g., ,in alt-text applies not only to image file but image tag. assertion of alt-text is about 2 things.

LK good point. let's get to that point after this one.

CS It seems that that is not a test. The test is what you do. If you are testing a site, you might test index.html (subject) test is "does it conform" don't wan to mix those in a single term. suggest s wording change? test case - do these steps, and test object.

CMN Think we're in agreement except on terminology.

JT 2 pieces of info that relate to test: what the outcome is and how we're testing it.

JR Instead of something fails, it's that "it fails on the basis of the test."

JT What is the test testing for?

RN Trying to describe test conditions.

CS language should express both automatic and manual tests.

CMN In one sense there is a test that you run. it says "open browser, turn on the feature, make it happen." that is test case info. result info says, "this is the version, browser, etc." Or test case "go to this store to this shelf and buy the 3rd box...etc." whatever it is, you need the instructions.

CS I have seen this factored effectively: test case - what you have to do again later, result - what happened.

CMN Are we testing rendered stuff or code? 1 - http.w3.org/image does the alt-text work? human result. 2. validator says some element fails some requirement of html spec. completely machine run. code level. don't think we are writing the test language, we're discussing what we expect to be in it. rather the result language.

KB Generalize platform to context.

RS Don't get rid of details like platform - will help you keep track of details.

PJ Depends on the test you are doing.

RN I see 2 issues. we're all users. perhaps we're getting caught up on test methodology. we're trying to show our wish list. can we brainstorm what we want, then we could talk to a test engineer for the best approach. best way can change - test case/test suite, etc. what do we want to accomplish?

RS Don't worry too much about packaging. I suspect that one objective is to capture as much info as we can so we can precisely reproduce the test. Focus on what data needs to be captured and for whom? don't fall into the trap of generalizing from one detail. Capture as much detail as comes out of the brainstorm.

JT We need to address what will the info be attached to. Describe the results. Scenario: i head company x, we have a document that shows how to conform to 508, must do these 10 things. i want to find a test tool that do these things (perhaps more than one tool). then want to repair them. i then find tools to help me repair these things. need description of evaluation tool and repair tool and what they test or repair.

CS In a bug report i want to see: the environment (the context that the tester believes are important - might be platform, browser, etc.), reproduction steps, date test run, version of code against which run, steps of the test, how make it happen, the expected behavior, observed behavior, optional things - general comments, line number, messages created by system, copy of code, screen shots. for interactive testing, but could be applied to automated testing. e.g. reproduction steps: run page x against schema y. expected results: i get this file with these results.

LK sequence of steps looks new.

CS If a test is not reproducible, is an error on the tester. expected results still not captured.

LH Should be in test case info.

CS actual code is not there. image 3 could now be image 5.

CMN Only if you've changed the page.

DD Could also have copy of subject of test.

CS Likely that the test is run on monday and person who fix won't get to until friday and will change by then. won't always be available, e.g. coming from a cgi.

MC Line of code may not be approach. Could have 10 images on one line.

CS Enough geeky info so that developer can find it easily.

RN Specific test condition: if doing test for wcag, could pick up info in browser, what about screen readers that don't provide that info? would we have a box for other devices?

CS Suggest discuss at tomorrow's meeting to discuss context.

LK Let's capture everything.

RN Other device.

CMN I want to talk about tools in general. I want to know what tools exist already

KB We need to be able to include a cc/pp profile.

LK Can you make that a specific case of something more general?

KB All the things we're talking about as devices and platforms, one way to do it is cc/pp but not only way.

RS Partly a question of how much you snapshot.

PJ concerned about things changing.

RS recommend a practice that when refer to test case, if we change test case give changed version diff identifier. how much history do you want to record. propose in each circumstance how to record change info.

RN Do we have the export to another tool?

DD requirement listed. just write a parser.

CS Does require some requirements.

DD Might account for steps in the form. may not have the data.

CS For these systems, be invalid and not be imported

CMN A value of including stuff by reference is you can ignore it by reference as well.

MM if there isn't some way to extend this than how we're envisioning, it won't be useful to all.

LK Doesn't this get into what RS was talking about? The benefit of implementing in RDF is that you can extend it.

RS Right. having a flexible structure, rather than a fixed DTD..most DTD tools break. suspect want a structure where developers can include structure of own w/out interfering with other tools.

LK Is this captured here?

DD Part of the framework. It is a requirement.

CS agree has to be flexible. think the verbs should be user definable. may only care about pass/fail, or perhaps something richer. might want to look at modularization. perhaps automated module and manual module.

DD Captured in subclasses - page/ataga/uaag/suite/bugtrack.

CMN good thing about rdf module can say how much you are saying then qualify. different scope of statement - one line, one word, etc.

DD's notes from discussion (from front of the room visual display)



EARL schema



Next steps

JT This afternoon: AU/ERT comment on WCAG 2.0 then go through AERT open issues WCAG

Afternoon session (AU/ERT/WCAG)



CMN, Raman, Helle, Loretta, Jason, Andi, Cynthia, Marti, Jan, Wendy, Donovan, Marja-Riita, Michael, Brian, Josh, Matt, Harvey, Len, Jutta

Open AERT issues for WCAG

WC HTML specific

LK Solve in relation to 2.0, unless cause need for errata for 1.0.

JW Right, that's what we agreed up on in WCAG a few weeks ago.

CMN The issues seem mostly techniquey, but valuable to go through them. Spend 2 minutes on each of them or 2 minutes and agree to postpone. Useful from AU perspective for how WCAG will approach them.

JT Valuable piece of going through today, might relate to revision of WCAG.

WC move that we either limit our time, we have 3 groups here and more interesting issues to discuss.

JT limited discussion at beginning? 1 limited at end? 5


LK Are there people here who have not heard about EARL? Briefly, it is a machine-readable representation of evaluating a web page. Could contain suggestions for repair. Applications: raw form that would go into a report tool. Several different EARLs, conditions, could be merged into one report. (human readable). also fed into an authoring tool for convenient mechanism to give tool list of what to repair. in terms of WCAG, there are 2 possible ways it could impact WCAG. if we assume only used with WCAG, then each statement could point into techniques (in terms of 2.0) and then give "passes/fails" or other rating. Another approach is for EARL to produce lower level statements that don't have checkpoints in them. e.g. "alt text is missing." Rule sets that take that as input and in the context of WCAG that violates 1.0 or 1.4. or 508 ruleset. with 1st approach, wcag would have machine-readable reference. possible to point into wcag. instead of plain text, in terms of HTML it would say "this is missing an attribute." on the other hand if EARL reflects more fundamental facts from which you derive checkpoints, then need rule base to convert to WCAG statements. then, who writes the rule base and is it informative or normative?

CMN Interpreting that into checkpoints. working out how to do a test of your spec.

RN Timeline for implementation of EARL?

LK Nothing has been committed to?

RN We have people interested in EARL. Talking to Karl Dubost, he said there was a QA conformance meeting in late march.

CMN I will be there to represent EARL.

LK We are interested in those people joining the effort.

RN One tool on the interest group does a WCAG conformance guideline test. Will there be correlation?

LK This is a format for out put of tools, not a tool.

CS One bullet point of th eEARL proposal is to compare results to one or more standards. e.g. internal intranet sites. sounds like something like specML. If feed a spec in, it has to be machine-readable. what would that look like? It would be a wonderful thing to have.

CMN COmpare results, isn't new. use an rdf thing. does not provide testing language. a separate project.

CS How do comparison?

CMN When do the tests, ability to record test and say what test was.

CS How does the comparison work?

CMN If you have 15 things, img have useful alternative? etc. then say 508 conformance you need these 3 tests, for wcag you have 2,3,7,9 out of a million. designed to allow their tests to be allowed.

CS MAchine readable version of WCAG is out of scope or not? that's what i'm trying to determine.

JT It's not a testing tool, it's a method for tools to talk to each other.

LK As far as our charter is concerned we have a general clause, "helping development".. My personal opinion is that without formalizing it, using an existing method with rdf. don't want to invent something new.

JW er will have to resolve how they want to support multiple specifications in their system. if they think it's useful that the test output should bemapped to a requirements of multiple specs, then they must figure out how to implement the system. then a joint work item between wcag and ert. what are the issues that involve both groups that need to be decided, e.g. issue of conformance claims. Daniel put together a schema for which to make conformance assertions. If the new language is appropriate for that role, and provides appropriate granularity, then WCAG may adopt as base for conformance claims.

LK At this point, judging by the discussion, people are still formulating. I don't think we could come to a conclusion this afternoon, it is more of a heads up. The simplest issue is to at least point into text readable portions of it.

JW Any XHTML version including techniques would provide anchors. 2.0 techniques written as checkpoints in 1.0 version. possible to refer to any of them from an external source.

HB The EARL has importance for potential readers for them to say, you conform at a level that my AT can handle. Should there be a standard link from the doc to the place where teh review may be, is something you may want to consider. versioning issues: if successful with EARL, go back to creators of docs. particular review can age. we should be able to notify the reviewer any time the doc has been updated.

MC EARL as a language speaks to saying this thing conforms with that and that is a URI. machine readable goes into defining what "that" is. for some guidelines be easy, for others not easy. abstraction of guidelines from techniques helps. can put it in the context of a specific language. some can not be tied down to one thing. e.g. navigation bars. how define that in such a way that i will always find it and never not find it. what that means for wcag is that it's an issue when thinking about the guidelines. while not tying the guidelines down to being too specific, need a way to define what apply to.

MM Making a machine-readable spec, lends self to automated tool. techniques will be non-deterministic. e.g., wherever we use the word minimize. we can not look at a doc and determine if we have minimized the use of images.

CMN versioning isrequirement for EARL, out of scope for this discussion. already listed as reuirement. notifying reviewers is not yet in EARL. EARL let's you point to a test. agnostic about test if it is human or manual. mapping of how you test if you've met a requirement of wcag, is something we have to do. we're obliged to show how you conform to the spec. whether we do that by writing up each technique with a test case or if we do it afterwards and how is something we have t do. if we make those available, people reuse known tests. not a wcag issue.

JW Can we bring this discussion to a few specific points.

we need to confine ourselves to how we will carry this forward.

/* vote */

JW Only members of WCAG allowed to vote on this.

  1. WCAG Will consider EARL as basis for conformance. Places this on the open issues list. favor 11, against none. Resolved.
  2. WCAG undertakes in defining techniques, ensure that each requirement can be referred to w/sufficient specificity to enable test results to be associated with it.

CS clarification - we won't use words like minimize or make them atomic enough?

CMN test has a URI

KHS We'd have to work hard to not do it.

/* vote on JW's point 2 */

Resolved: WCAG undertakes in defining techniques, ensure that each requirement can be referred to w/sufficient specificity to enable test results to be associated with it.

LK question of machine readable rules. don't think we can decide it now.

MM w/out resolving normative vs. informative, end up with orphan checkpoints. EARL and related testing tools won't be able to test for.

CMN Resolving normative vs informative is work of group in explaining what it means to conform to.

LK I think there is a misconception. Inability to automate does not put it outside scope of EARL. It can record results of human judgement. e.g. clear and simple language.

MM: QA dept. won't be able to determine "minimize". There will be orphan requirements that beg the answer "well...ok...sure". Not a fully formed compliance with subjective tests.

WC: There will always be subjective tests. As long as manual steps are clear, no problem. Claims will always be subjective. If assertion is machine readable, easier to communicate your case.

CS: "Minimize" is defined at the beginning by designers not the end by testers.Assertion made following design.

JW: Proposes to move to the next agenda item.

CMN: Still valuable to thrash this out.

PJ: Wants to talk about necessary and sufficient conditions for techniques.

CW: We should continue discussion.

/* vote - defeated, discussion will continue */

KB: Agrees with JW.

CMN: EARL doesn't care about wording of tests. It does allow different results for same test. Primary use is not legal, its so stuff will work. It builds up a body of previous test judgements.

Josh: EARL expresses too much. WCAG techniques need to be more clear about what repairs are.

MM: There are design principles that use "avoid" or "minimize".

LK: Subjective cps or techs are totally irrelevant to EARL.

MC: Lots of challenges for EARL to handle conformance for WCAG.

Katie: If terms need to be defined consistently, its something for the glossary. Implementation model for setting up an accessible site.

WC: Passed to EO.

WC: Would like higher conformance granularity.

CMN: Implications for AU and ER not EARL. Let's move on.

JW: Yes, let's move on and leave aside WCAG issues.

JT 4 issues here: conformance statements, operationalizing requirements, evaluation, EARL language. Not just about WCAG relates to all.

RN Plant a seed: spec needs to read more like a requirement. requirement rather than words.

KHS important in 508 stuff to appreciate good faith efforts.

EARL and aU

JT Issues are the same.

CMN Yes, discussion would be ten same except substitute ATAG for WCAG.

LK As far as applying EARL to specify if an au passes ATAG, but one purpose of EARL is an info feed into authoring tool. Do you need to take that into account when write spec? bolted on later?

CMN implementing EARL is a useful technique for bunch of AU stuff. not an issue but an action on AU WG.

HB Also action on EO. usability and accessibility are foreign to most all of the books that address web authoring.

LK If i create a EARL report, there is a issue that AU would import an EARL report. specific scenario: dreamweaver. should it be seriously considered? if so, back of mind with other ATAG requirements.

JT How is EARL used to express ATAG conformance and how it is used to repair doc.

RN If stored where could be referenced locally, great. Agree with Harvey, right. We need to state proper terminology.

CMN EARL is considered. Does not give rise to other requirements or issues. implementation issue.

JR Not sure how EARL is stored, a file or info w/in a doc?

LK That's implementation detail. Info is there, linked with the doc. Like CSS - in head or linked.

CMN ditto.in ATAG techs, havce to figure it out.

JR One reason this comes up, originally it was so wouldn't have to do manual checks over and over again.

CS if becomes requirement that extra XML included in doc, likely not used.

JR could be stripped out b4 published.

CMN maintain stuff or toss, depends on tool or the stuff.

MRK are mechanisms like annotations. have RDF servers.

LK propose: there be an issue added to AU issue list: add requirement that tools import EARL. note that you can't reasonably decide until you hear that EARL has firmed up.

Resolved: add to AU issue list: add requirement that tools import EARL. note that you can't reasonably decide until you hear that EARL has firmed up.

HB Server should deliver EARL evals to requesting client so that they can deliver appropriately to what the user's capabilities are.

CMN UA check EARL statement about a page.

Action CMN take issue about UA checking EARL statements about a page to ERT and UA.

Issue: implications on EARL as to how to express for UA.

/* break */

/* donovan minuting */

/* wendy's personal notes */

priorities - inherit - govnt policies are saying Level A of WCAG, and not necessarily of WCAG 1.0. Requirements - general to HTML - people need to test for each language. end up with 1.1.1-1.1.15 for HMTL, 1.1.16-1.1.26 for SMIL, 1.1.27-1.1.37 for SVG, etc.

broken up by technologies, but we also have our core techniques which are cross-technology.

top level also for policy makers and managers.

"fractal worlds" navigation paths through different types of users ("how to use this document"). Techniques will still exist. HTML checkpoints vs. techniques (examples, screen shots) formatting - still have to collect all of the data.

PJ what things are necessary, what are minimally needed, etc.

open issues: CMN guideline, checkpoint, requirement, technique OR guideline, requirement, checkpoint, technique

WC themes, guidelines, checkpoints, techniques instead of grouping them??

4 themes, 22 guidelines, 89 HTML checkpoints, 82 SMIL checkpoints, HTMl techniques, SMIL techniques etc.

techniques database - marti. AERT open issues will be incorporated by WCAG 2.0 techniques. agreed upon structure - framework.

/* WC returns to minuting */

Resolved: WCAG will adopt those aspects of AERT into HTML techniques that are relevant.

Other cross group issues

JT in courseware packages there is content that allows interactive authoring via the content. also, when is the best timing for ATAG 2.0 to draw in WCAG 2.0.


JB Get input in lower tiers so don't have to go back to the beginning of the game.

CMN The goal is that we would shadow up through the process. Best guess of going to last call and then CR.

WC then shadow our working drafts.

CMN Give us warning for last call.

JW I've seen W3C specs that say "editors and working group believe next draft would be last call." this good idea.

Next F2F meetings

JW For all three?

CMN Do we want to do F2F meetings in conjunction again?

JB Encouraging suggestion: in terms of W3C planning process. Interested to hear if have more joint meetings. what are your plans over the next year. in generating ideas, we need to rotate the meetings geographically. We end to get to europe and asia.

CMN bunch of AU people aren't here. this has been really useful. particularly where we have a joint meeting, then have individual groups to have meeting but can run next door to get clarification.

WC At October, WCAG proposed going to PR in November of this year and doing that in Australia.

JB Poll yesterday "want to do this again?" "6 months?" 38 yeses. "12 months?" 38 yeses. so another opportunity between 6 months and 1 year.

CS How many people going to Hong Kong?

/* 7 */

/* unanimous - do this type of meeting again at a plenary like this. */

RN I like the technology meeting yesterday to find out what is going on.

JB how soon to do next one?

6 months - 3

12 months - majority

9 months - 2/3

location - australia, europe, japan, greece, haiti(?)

What about a WAI half week (3 or 4 days)

Lots of joint, plenary single group stuff.

JB many organizations say they can not get approval for meetings inHawaii since a junket. does 4 days considered a week?

CS flying where have 18 hour flight, 8 hours of meeting, 18 hour flight is impractical.

JW Europe easier?

CS For me europe and australia are somewhat similar. (in terms of travel).

Helle More serious talk about going to europe. we have very few people from europe here. particularly, where we have smaller companies who are not part of the w3c work but interested in accessibility or required to consider them. will help outreach. must do more in europe.

KB Agree with europe idea. We were bought by a european company. Brussels would be good.

JB The WAI has an explicit obligation this year and next to hold a certain number of meetings. We've complied with, since the meetings in bristol however the intent is for outreach and recruitment. there are fascinating things in europe, due to the commitment on the european union level. an initiative w/in each country. everyone is doing it differently. a WAI most of week in europe would be great. Greece is one of the worst.

WC What countries recommend?

JB Can't answer.

WC Finland?

RN Couple this with an outdoor activity. Like an adventure through a museum or some way to enjoyment of the area. The bonding.

$Date: 2001/03/07 19:10:27 $ Wendy Chisholm, Jan Richards