10:00-11:30 Eastern USA Time (GMT -05:00) on the MIT bridge (+1 617-258-7910)
Leonard Kasday LK (scribe)
Brian Metheny, BM
Dick Brown, DB
Chris Ridpath, CR
Michael Cooper, MC
Regrets Gregory Rosmaita, William Loughborough, Harvey Bingham
Meet for Dinner at 7 PM at WCW campus, where the actual f/f will be held.
Enter the WCW campus on your left through the gate. The building entrance, with signs "CWI" and "SMC" (Stichting Mathematisch Centrum), is on your right. 7:00 pm
ACTION CR: investigate A-Prompt's status vis a vis open source
CR: Not right away. Concern that other people could use it for 508 and people might try to sell it as 508 fix and we'd lose control. Also can't say that other people would want to join. Maybe get other people in amserdam will take on. will improve chances of open source. So can proceed but not right away.
ACTION MC/BM: investigate CAST's plans for making Bobby open source.
MC: no plans right now. Am changing to modular evaluation. WAI would plug into core. Module would be open source as how to use api. But procesing logic would be in different module. Rule set open, but engine not.
ACTION MC: send example to list of what Bobby can do easily that Schematron can't do, as well as ideas for relating RDF and Schemas to those things that can't be expressed in terms of HTML structure.
MC: no news yet. Sketched our oa few that would be hard to do with schematron.
e.g. detection of D links hard to detect in schematron, also ascii art nearly
impossible, color contrast difficult, evaluating style sheets and scripts,
Also 13 and 14 difficult to implement.
Currently doing some of these in Bobby with partial support.
LK can put into rules set?
MC: trying to design approach. Looking to rules approach in general.
ACTION LK: put feature into WAVE that will allow someone to look at source to see if what appears to be a list is a list; add logical tags so that if there is a numerical list outputs an icon
MC: demos and face to face helpful.
CR: a prompt is up on site. download and run on own computer. windows version. win 95/ 98 NT 2000. Screenshots previous version.
LK: Pro's and Cons. Con (e.g. expressed by Wendy): We have plenty to do just implementing current WCAG, should focus there. Pro: Brings up more issues regarding presentation rather than content or structure. So useful to include even if not in WCAG yet.
MC: worthwhile to consider in terms of automatic vs. manual checks. If we rendered page rendering engine so person could check if it scales well.
DB: this anticipating guidelines on low vision
MC: got requests for this sort of test in Bobby.
CR: I've got my hands full on present in APrompt. Puttin things outside is version 2
LK: don't need a rendering engine. E.g. can put in 480x640 pixel frame for inspection.
MC: like designing a browser. And keep up with changes.
LK: actually just make browser imitate by putting in frame 640 x 480
LK: How much time should we spend
DB: doesn't seem to be as pressing as dealing with whats less than 1 hour.
MC: 1 hour, or it's just few throughs and whoops gotta go.
BM: I wouldn't there but... heads up enough ... announcement 30-60 min
CR: 1/2 hour ... maybe optimistic
LK: 1 hour.
LK: how about 45 mins got consensus.