2000 02 03 WCAG telecon

Summary of action items and resolutions



face 2 face

WL focus on items at face2face.

JW because of our timeline, we're supposed to work on requirements doc for next version concurrently with the Techniques document. Working this out in the meeting.

WL yes, like that. people can talk rather than write.

JW there will be a draft of it coming out of the meeting.

GR one thing that worked well at UA in Redmond. We had a breakout period where we brainstormed on techniques. then reported back. spurred generation of techniques and got people thinking.

WC so, majority of time discuss requirements, then breakout for techniques.

GR also, we may attract people that are not normally represented.

WL yes, people that show up are often people that we need to hear from but often don't. therefore, that type of discussion would be great.

JW technical distinction since some people may not be working group members. they would not be able to vote but suggest.

@@JW propose agenda for face2face to working group.

Techniques document

JW techniques for each technology (XML, SVG, HTML...) are separate in the document. You can look up the technique under relavant checkpoint.

WC 3 modules currently.

WL where is scripting?

WC currently some in HTML module, but imagine a "non-w3c" module. include pdf, ecma script,etc.

JW how to use DOM and events to achieve more accessible scripts.

/* Dick joins */

JW level 2 DOM, not implemented yet. will be introduced into UAs over time. Be useful to have techniques before widely deployed so take advantage.

WL put disclaimer, "until user agents"

JW probably not because well defined.

WL so was CSS

JW yes, but UA better at implementing to standards.

WL is the prospect of dom2 becoming widespread in terms of accessibility?

GR yes, if one DOM is adopted then access can be by any device. joint UA meeting of the DOM with AT and browser developers on Feb 17 as well as DOM experts.

@@Resolved: separate modules: HTML, CSS, XML, Scripts, DOM.

JW we have not identified all of the modules. we'll need to develop techniques for each one. how should we consider the issue.


GR rather than break down by technology, but "meta" by W3C activity. e.g., meta - rdf, png, etc.

JW also, what about a database? so one can make queries based on different criteria - checkpoint, technology, non-w3c.

WL flash?

WC proposed module for non-w3c technologies. rob neff working on flash technologies.

GR some buy-in from non-w3c technologies.

WL really like jakob nielsen's new book. one of the most interesting aspects, the word script does not appear.

JW XHTML. one can create own modules. there be standard modules, plus extensions.

GR at PF meeting, murray altheim attended. we discussed PF red flags of XHTML. in particular, drop of OBJECT in favor of APPLET. he is taking back to group to re-add OBJECT. they are more fully aware of the issues.

JW is XHTML modularization question go into XML techniques or in HTML techniques because done w/in particular architecture. not a trivial question, but could go either way.

GR perhaps we could use XHTML for a bridge to XML portion of techniques doc. or stress that aspect.

JW that leads to question of database. when rendered as a document can be rendered in different forms based on what user wants.

WC presentation or content first? (i.e. create content or generate database first)?

GR still trying to get funding for creating a test suite. feedback: "i found your suite useful, but i need info about this other problem." answering this question would update techniques.

WL techniques be a separate working group. petty details that we should not bother with. like "provide alternative means of conveying info" that the details of those means are a different level - real network, smil, etc. the guideline level the statement is "caption everything" at techniques could be a lot of ways as long as conform doesn't make any difference.

WC we're already chartered to do this. this understanding is important to support the abstract principles we have generated.

WL but authoring tools are only place to create markup, user agents only place to view.

WC that introduces a circular argument that AU wuold point to use, we point back to them. if generating HTML and user wants to insert IMG< then here's the markup to generate. I can't see that would be worked out any place but here.

JW yes. agree w/wendy. we are chartered to do it.

JW test suites are useful in some circumstances and not in others. ongoing question as to who is developing it. the testing fits here. however, how develop and what process to prepare them. concentrate on WG process and relationship with test suite.

DB we need ways to test content. should we be developing tools? partnering with others? there are some things that are not testable. e.g. looking at a site today. an image not part of tab order, but function duplicated in text next to it. technically, not keyboard accessible would fail. yet unnecessary to someone using keyboard. that type of question stored someplace.

WC sounds like ER type of work to me. the test suite for this group is to determine feasibility and browser support of techniques that we want to suggest to conform to checkpoints.

JW strategies: have people review document and propose what they want to see to the list. overlap between access notes and our techniques. they discuss access features in different languges. in the modularized form, it has been proposed that our techniques modules will supersede the notes. is there a more structured approach that we can take.

WC a "sign up sheet" here are the holes: SVG, SMIL note needs to be converted to our format, etc.

JW yes, charles working on svg. rdf relevant, especially in svg since it should be possible to create a schema that would express the additional information required to produce accessible rendering. this is a well supported hypothesis but my understand is that the work hasn't been carried out yet.

GR this discussed at PF face2face. suggested that pf look at dublin core work to see what is supported to determine crossover between PF work on SVG and the dublin core work. Liddy Nevile took action item to bring info about dublin core to PF to see if can apply to SVG.

JW if PF taking that side of the work, then we don't need to be concerned until a schema comes from PF. therefore, provide techniques on graphical components w/in SVG. those techniques are reasonably well defined. we ought to coordinate with PF on that.

/* GR leaves */

JW work with CMN on SVG. XML - daniel's draft. XHTML - not much on at this stage, other than relevant to XML aspect. scripting - dom2 events. HTML/CSS - most well developed at this time. SMIL - access note. MathML - anything written on?

WC talk with t.v. raman about MathML? will he be at csun?

JW what kind of action items?

WC my major action item is to finish creating the index and cross-checking links to make sure everything is represented. willing to take on whatever. it's all interesting. we could go to various working groups and ask for a person to work with us for a couple weeks, then we'll take info, generate something for them to review.

JW many areas that require attention. we don't have names that we can readily put to them.

WC like PF liaison matrix. target people to join the group.

TN still getting up to speed, so not putting my name down. but willing to once i'm ready.

WL if modularized, we can find people who are dealing with the technology. SMIL is just 4 letters to me. we have to tap the experts.

WC SMIL is a good example, look at all the work that WBGH/NCAM has done. should target them.

JW yes, target members with the relevant knowledge to join the group. That is on the agenda to be done.

WL we need to make some recruiting posters.

@@chairs/editors clarify to the working group what aspects of the techniques document needs development.

WL EO "inreach" send out a call to help w/in W3C.

WC chairs and i already doing that, judy is kept up to date on that.

JW see whom we can recruit. propose what aspects need attention. shall we propose that if someone proposes a technique, that they also provide a test.

WC info to collect for each proposal:

  1. link to test page
  2. what browsers have you tested this on
  3. results of tests
  4. text of proposal

TN want to encourage people for what they can. someone else could do the second part if proposal looks good.

JW set up a database behind the form. or message in prescribed format be generated and sent to the list.

@@WC talk to sysreq to see what they suggest. ETA might be a way, but not sure that is as flexible as we need.

$Date: 2000/11/08 08:30:14 $ Wendy Chisholm