See also: IRC log
CI: should we look at WAI-ARIA as a group?
... think it is important
CV: we are only 4, if we focus on all these
documents in detail we won't get our work
... PFWG is big and well-staffed
CI: i will do it anyway, but think it is
relevant for ERT
... to ensure that EARL covers all ARIA stuff
CV: we have dimitar in that group, not sure if we want more
CI: we will be using it
SAZ: cross-group review is important, ERT has
been gaining a more central role on oversight of evaluation tools &
procedures
... need to balance time but think WAI-ARIA is an important one
... review deadline is 20 feb or 3 mar
CI: haven't reviewed the latest draft yet
CV: may not get to it for long, assigned someone else from my staff to this group
SAZ: sounds like we may only be able to do this
review at Last Call
... this may be as early as april
... having said that, RDFa is really relevant for EARL
... may not be a review in terms of finding issues, but something that we can
learn from
... we should at least read it
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2008Jan/0007
CI: what is the applicability to user
agents?
... web sites shouldn't fail this SC due to browser bug
SAZ: does that relate to "accessibility supported technologies"?
SAZ: techniques don't talk about embedded objects or other technologies
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20071211/keyboard-operation-all-funcs.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20071211/keyboard-operation-keyboard-operable.html
CI: nothing mentioned in the intent, maybe write something general in the "accesibility supported technologies" section and link to it from individual SCs
RESOLUTION: would be good to point people to some background information for SCs to which user agent fucntionality plays a role
SC 2.4.3 Focus Order
CI: any order has meaning
... usability studies show that
SAZ: may not always be relevant
... might be good to explain point of view more clearly, and send follow-up
to WCAG WG