Last updated: $Date: 2000/11/08 08:30:14 $ Wendy Chisholm
WL 2.2 second bullet focus on activities.
WC yes, included in techniques.
JG scripting different than markup languages. different animal therefore interested to know how approach.
JW included as one of the technologies that will be considered in development of the guidelines, particularly techniques document. scripts will become part of those technologies under consideration. at this stage not proper to constrain it in any way. by mentioning it we at least include it as an issue to be addressed.
WL agree. charter does not need more than what it has. it's already in section 2.2.
WC so, JG satisfied?
JG concern is that it needs new set of principles.
WC potentially, yes.
GR share concern that we can bring out HTML event handlers. for those that tie specifically into W3C Recs, we ought to address head-on. could address sets of rules for when you are doing scripting.
JG scripting so common seems like there ought to be more guidance.
WL may not affect guidelines.
GR would like to commit to creating test suites. people want examples of accessible sites. cutting edge for sake of cutting edge isn't always the best choice.
JW as far as the charter is concerned, don't think we need to change. are scripts and user interface issues listed as dependency with user agent? if not, then need to be.
JG in relationship to scripting? sounds like there are lots of possibilities for scripting. I'll try to follow and contribute to that discussion.
/* jon leaves */
WL www9 panel, "can accessible web sites be cool?"
WC who's that?
WL i'm organizing that. JW, JB, Chris Lilley? Hakon?
WC asks WL about UUA document, explains that
JW expects they will continue to exist because of differences in implementations.
GR lag time in mainstream and international products. also noticeable with ATs. we can tell people what is supported as well as get feedback. this info is what we really need.
JW W3C has this in relation with CSS. someone must have one for HTML. many access features do not affect presentation. thus, may not know if supported or not. will need to do some scripting or something.
GR therefore, can help users make decisions about best browser to use for their needs.
WL what do in charter.
JW large amount of work if you want to write a set of tests.
WC test suite.
WL this seems to be an ER or UA or PF. they are looking to us to tell them what it is supposed to do in an ideal world.
WC but ideal world doesn't exist today. we have to provide some guidance.
JW agree with WL. it's a separate activity. there is a difference between guidelines and testing. it isn't one of our deliverables. a case of coordinating with other groups.
WL 9.4 - ER group.
GR everyone is asking for empirical evidence. i wanted to create a proxy to track people through a site. this works for this class, here's anecdotal evidence, here's etc. for how well these techniques work.
JW that would be within ER they have a table linearization tool as proxy server. not sure where user agent support issue should go moving beyond current document.
JW difference between showing that a technique works and that a feature is supported.
WC CSS best example. could not say "avoid tables" after tested style sheets. wildly different support on various builds of Netscape 4.
GR it makes sense that WCAG has some responsibility, as well as the UA group. therefore, I don't think we'll settle it here.
JW therefore, we should take to the coordination group. it touches on just about all of the WAI groups. They should all have an opportunity to comment on it.
WC does this change the charter or do we go to CG first?
JW reasonable for us to test, test suite is not a deliverable. therefore, carry out tests or write them and then carry out.
WL resources needed may exceed what we have. last sentence in 9.3 and 9.4 express what i thought what we were about - consulting/clarificaiton/interpretation more so than test suite.
JW in many instances there are dependencies between WCAG and UAAG. if UA developers implement UA and authors implement WCAG then an accessible solution. but if not then there isn't. that dependency taken into account in checkpoints. then what already supported not as important as what the 2 are requiring.
GR it seems hypocritical to say, "you should all use these" and not to be able to say "this is how it is done." i know there are resource problems, but people needs to see good accessible design.
JW doesn't curriculum work satisfy that?
WC but those are very HTML focused, we need to look forward to other technologies.
JW can't test implementations, unless someone create a tool.
WC need to get ahead of the game. work through PF when find holes. work with groups who have prototypes to ensure that prototype support all features needed.
JW yes, there are implementations that can be used. we have to draw a distinction between legacy techniques and newer techniques. "testing of every technique" is a bit difficult but with qualifications is o.k.
WC closure? summary: have discussed a test suite, but not sure that it is in our scope. what is currrently in the charter seems reasonable. I am pushing testing because our product will be better.
DB testing is really important. we would like exmaples to point to.
JW where it is possible to develope a test case there should be one, where isn't one provide something through other means. not sure who should write them.
DB right now it says, we have to test.
WL but we may not write them.
DB may want to reword if not writing ourselves. going to outside people may not work.
WC have been contacting developers to participate.
WL we are making progress.
JW an advantage is that we are going to be more clear who is in the group and requirements for participation.
WC more open and shared responsibilities pushed in charter should help.
WL Microsoft have examples, many were spectacular. many were fairly accessible.
WC we don't have to develop everything, we could surf and gather.
JW other issues with the charter? test suite will go to CG. scripting is appropriately addressed. UA is ok because almost written anyway. what's next?
WC i'll make editorial changes, send to the group and judy, if all is well (i expect it should be), then it is reviewed by two members of the management team. we'll get their reviews back, perhaps make changes, and then if all is well it goes to the Director. Once approved, it gets sent to the Advisory Committee with a call for participation. I expect this will happen at the earliest the 2nd week in January.