Chair: Jon Gunderson
Date: Thursday, January 27th
Time: 2:00 pm to 3:30 pm Eastern Standard Time, USA
Call-in: Longfellow Bridge (+1) (617) 252-1038
Chair: Jon Gunderson
Scribe: Ian Jacobs
Dick Brown (left at 2:30)
Mickey Quenzer (joined at 2:30)
Gregory J. Rosmaita
DB: IE Team and Charles and Dick, Tim Lacy, others met at Microsoft. Reviewed all the checkpoints. The upshot is that IE isn't far from Level-A conformance. Keyboard-selectable text still not available. We learned that if the Team decided to focus on these issues, they could hit Level-A. There was one point where a Power Toy was the answer. We may have better luck getting this list out there. Rob Rylea wasn't at the meeting.
IJ: Which version did you review?
DB: I think we reviewed the 21 Jan checklist. Charles will send notes to people in the meeting. We need to bring up-to-date the people not at the meeting and get a commitment from them.
HB: Is IE 5.5 available?
DB: It's in beta. No big differences w.r.t. accessibility.
DP: IE 5.5 has real problems with accessibility from what I've heard.
DA: One build may have problems with screen readers. Another build may have fixed that.
Action DP: Send comments to the UA list.
MK: I haven't got an answer. Will move up my todo list!
IJ: summarizes status of CR page.
DA: How long is the review period?
JG: Aiming for 18 February. Ending PR by the end of March. Have a ftf meeting in April to process issues. Hope to go to Rec in April.
IJ: I'd to get the WG to contribute to a FAQ as part of the later process.
JG: I've been contacting developers
JG: One issue that they've raised is publication of the evaluation. They want to cooperate but don't want bad press. I've proposed different stages of response. I've suggested that in lieu of a checklist, that they provide feedback.
IJ: I think we could anonymize results. The checklist is important.
DA: Down the road, the vendors who want to claim conformance will need to give a list.
DB: Yes, we will have to do it. But the problem is that once you have done an analysis, you need to have your ducks lined up to address the issues. It's true that if MS doesn't analyze, someone else will. Thus, it's in MS's interest to do their own review.
IJ: Create a hierarchy of results:
a) Detailed checklist completed. This helps the WG understand how the document is being used. Make this list public. Include techniques!
b) Anonymized checklist completed. Keep the developer's list confidential.
c) Generic feedback.
/* People indicate that this is reasonable to ask for */
DB: The checklist is very useful from experience. Maybe play it up more in the document.
HB: We should encourage developers to encourage techniques.
JG: We have an offer from recordings from the blind and dyslexic (George Kerscher) to host a meeting in April.
(Note that CSUN is 20-24 March.)
JG: I propose during the week of 10 April.
DA: I'll be running a meeting the 14-16 in New Jersey. Prefer 10-12.
MK: I'm not available the week of 17 April.
DP: I hope we will have conference calls set up.
JG: We'll ask the organizers of the meeting. I would rather people attend physically and only use the phone as a backup.
Resolved: JG will propose to Judy 2 days among 10, 11, 12 April. Alternative dates: 17, 18, 19 April.
IJ: Note that I'll be moving to California early March, so I may have some available gaps during the first week. I'll also be travelling in Italy for 10 days in February.
JG: Ian, please analyze your travel schedule to ensure that we go to PR before 10 March.
JG: I've suggested to developers that WG participants may walk them through the guidelines. This is also very useful to the WG since it reveals points of misunderstanding.
Volunteers: Jim Allan, Denis Anson, Ian Jacobs, David Poehlman, Mickey Quenzer.
JG: Would like to invite AT developers to discuss the DOM during
CR. I propose the 17th February (just before the end of CR).
IJ: On the agenda for the meeting:
- What is your experience with DOM 1 and DOM 2?
- What is the current status of DOM implementation in your tools?
- What is your current implementation plan for the DOM?
- If not, can you make a commitment to implement the DOM?
JG: Yes, I think drafting a list of specific questions is a good idea.
IJ: Have a demo ready that people can refer to?
JG: I'm working on that.
IJ: Also need Mark Novak and Rich on the call to talk about timely access, etc.
JG: Also, I intend to contact Hans Riesebos.
JG: What about Unix products?
DP: Peter Korn does a lot of work with Java.
Action JG: Send a list of questions to the ua list.
JG: Refer to list of AT reviewers:
JG: Please send additional organizations and contacts to the list.
JG: During CR, we will need to strengthen techniques for some checkpoints.
IJ: Checkpoints without techniques: 2.4, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.14, 5.3, 6.2
DA: P1 are the most important.
Action DA: For 2.4, link to markup language specs where text equivalent info is discussed. Include rationale. Point to WCAG 1.0.
IJ: Refer to ER Repair information. Talk to Wendy.
Action JA: 4.14
Action DP: 4.7. Note that setting the volume is different than configuring.
Action MK: 4.8. Do any media players do this?
JA: I'll check with Geoff Freed and send to Marja.
JG: Also, contact Madeleine since she has action items.
Action MQ: 4.9. Send a screen shot.
Action IJ: Add these.
Action IJ: Add these.
Action JA: 4.14: There are CSS2 properties (including :focus).
Action JG: 5.3: Find out windows/mac accessibility guidelines.
Action IJ: I'll look at XWindows
Action IJ: I'll look into DOM2
Action IJ: Add a link to the TR page. Add links to conformance sections in specs. Also to validation services.
Action Ian: Fix section numbering in techs doc in checkpoint 7.3
Action Ian: Ensure that checkpoints are in proper priority order.
JA: I've discussed with developers how LPWindows is must faster with NN than with IE. IE causes too much of a performance hit.
IJ: Perhaps we need to distinguish in the techs document between "that which has been implemented" and "this might work and we think it's a good idea".
JG: Yes, we need to take more care with what we put in the documents.
IJ: I'd like to see:
a) Techniques editorial cleanup.
b) Techniques substance cleanup + markup of what's known and what's not.
c) Future techniques will only be added according to those two categories.
Action JG: Add discussion to next weeks agenda of how techniques are added to technique document