13 March 2000 ER telecon

Summary of action items and resolutions


Converting plain ascii to markup

/* someday this might be folded into ER */

Releasing to IG, AU, and WCAG

WC should we go through the @@ now or trust that we can clean them up?

CR need to finish going through.

WC please finish today so that I can clean things up tomorrow and post for review on Wednesday.

CR will do.

@@CR finish up edits on ERT today.

@@WC clean up @@'s, post to IG, AU, and WCAG by Wednesday.

Future plans

LK /* reading mission */ history: there were 2 groups, an IG and WG. nothing has really happend on WG list we've folded into one. "assemble?"

WC "assemble" vague b/c not sure how much development we do.

HB don't think we'll do a lot of development, but we can keep the existing tools list up to date.

LK what does it mean for the group to develop tools. currently, table linearizer by daniel, bobby by cast, etc. how do those fit into "develop."

WC like to develop a community of people that are developing tools, sharing ideas, etc. not sure how to capture in mission statement.

WL depends on what "working on" means. "here's to fix" then the group is working on.

WC to create a forum to devlopers to work together

BM "encourage cooperation"

LK cover case where several developers sharing ideas about features and things, another level there would be intercooperation for info to be put in DTD. at one point we had talked about a language (XML or RDF) to express the output of an ER tool. don't need to write that into the charter.

WC so 2 levles: share ideas about features in own tools and all working towards one idea.

LK instead of linking in a library, link in higher level info like RDF. some sort of define communication among tools. an out put of the group is a more formal type of specification rather than qualitative like what doing now.

WC yes, that's from modularization idea from old charter.

WL lots of types of tools, lots o audiences.

WC basic question: do we want to facilitate people in this group working on Amaya.

HB only 4 people working on. driven by their interests. it won't get usage coverage of commercial tools.

MC the point of amaya is to work out the glitches. that knowledge could be redistributed to wider distribution.

HB yes, important purpose, but don't think we can expect them to shape what they are doing to fit our desire.

WL the amaya list is attracting more talent who are contributing open source. it's more like linux world. Amaya has a public place to post stuff. the codemakers will include that if they see fit. the contributing user group is enthusiastic. I think it may grow into more than just a testbed. Software grown this way has achieved enormous success.

LK there are 4 full-time people who are focusing on this?

HB that's across all W3C interest? they are the hosting testbed to explore w3c ideas.

WL yes, but Charles has put a lot of effort to make them aware.

LK how modular?

WL based on THOT engine. heavily modlarized. i highly recommend that you all try it. Editing and browsing are very well integrated.

WC perhaps get mozilla folks involved in our group.

HB got response that Eric Krock interested in us working with them but did not offer that someone would join a WAI group.

LK Another model: HTML and CSS Validator. doesn't matter if people use IE or Amaya. things that are not tied to particular browser/editor. that could also be amaya if it could incorporate intelligence from "out there."

WC like with Homesite.

LK yes there are tools that integrate Tidy into the tool.

HB what get returned in program be in an accessible form.

LK the earlier version easier to read output w/another program.

HB I wrote tools that would analyze the results from Bobby.

WC still not clear idea what changes need to make to mission statement.

LK currently, creating techniques. not a specification what tools should do. standard output would be requirements for tools.

HB my concern about requirements for tools: tools that get used for certain purposes.

LK requirements specifying tool output? define a format for tool output? or XML and clear write-up.

WC don't want another document. want to create tools. people don't ask for another document they ask for tools.

LK say that tool produces machine readable markup and we're done.

HB how identify "gaps"

WC more proactive - like the original ER IG charter - survey people. also, need to implement ideas in ERT.

LK if create something, need a platform. leaning more towards Amaya.

WL yes download.

LK just a few of us have been talking about. general comments?

CR do we need a motherhood statement - this is intended to make Web accessible to everyone.

WC yes, need impact in 2 sections, "mission statement" and "success criteria." also, assess impact. e.g., Amaya will conform to AU by the end of our charter.

HB Amaya set up as testbed, encumber a testbed with accessibility concern. testbed is level 1 effort.

LK depends on the architecture. if we can go in and fix it. judy's concern is that there are not enough keyboard shortucts. it's normally menu driven. it's a module somewhere. easy to go in there. but if spaghetti-type thing.

WL it's the former. it just takes some doing.

WC keyboard is just a config file. very modular.

WL horizontal scroll bar didn't work for a while, could do easily but didn't have resources.

WC don't need to wed ourselves to Amaya in charter, but would like to say something about open source.

LK yes, also emacs W3.

WC TV Raman worked on that?

LK yes. that is open source browser.

WL one of the neat things, despite all of this high-level stuff is that which is addressed by WAVE and a-prompt. fairly simple tools. if we could get it past the point where it says, "welcome to image."

HB wendy still working on existing tools?

WC yes.

LK everyone welcome to contribute.

HB would like to see which ERT techniques a tool is addressing. it should be in our charter to maintain and reacte to those tools. we could link to more discussion if appropriate.

WC WART group works on whereas members of group work on a-prompt, bobby, etc.

HB Idea of consensus. is there consensus on WART?

WC good point. difference between documents and tools in consensus building.

LK contributing to Amaya seems to be group effort.

HB however, many not understand. collecting info about tools is most important part. list of tools should be main focus.

@@WC more work on charter to reflect this discussion.

AU to Amsterdam face2face

HB how many of us? Brian and Harvey probably the only people who won't be there.

WC think a good idea.

WL arne't most of us AU as well?

WC no. plus a few AU people who aren't in ER.

CR yes invite them.

WC how much time? propose 1 day or 1/2 day out of 2.

LK everyone agree to invite?

/* yes. */

LK 1/2 day or more?

HB what sense of input?

WL they be dealing with something that is part of overall thing. no differentiation.

LK full day.

@@WC contact w3t-wai let know we would like to invite AU for one day. ask which day they would like.

Next meeting

@@Resolved: no meeting next week 20 March. The week after may also be cancelled.

$Date: 2000/11/08 08:17:43 $ Wendy Chisholm