WAI Face2Face Meeting, Los Angeles Marriott Saturday, March 21, 1998 Introductions Opening Announcements: Judy Brewer 1. IG meeting to 3:30 Working Group Updates 1. General Update (Judy Brewer, chair WAI/IPO) A) Technical Activity and IPO divided into 5 components: Tech, Guidelines, R&D, Education and Outreach, Tools 2. Protocols and Formats Group: PF (Al Gilman, chair) A) the WG formerly known as the HTML4/CSS2 Working Group (HG WG) B) 2 formats currently under active review: CSS2 and SMIL 1.0 C) good dialog between WAI WGs and W3C WGs D) Q: what does protocols mean? A: HTTP a protocol; DOM a protocol E) Q: concerns over DOM? A: way that scripts are able to access manipulate and change page; akin to having rug pulled from under one's feet; bad and good things that can come out of it (AG); project hat has been going on for 6 months--first PR by beginning of summer/mid-summer; top priority to look at DOM by end of spring; related to programmatic access--document represented as a tree--lets you access internals of interface; opportunity presented by presence of Java experts (DD); Lauren Wood chair; open communication between DOM and PF WGs F) DD: CSS2--aural CSS support; universal design aspects: auto-numbering instead of indenting; ability to generate content into presentation (insert labels passed to screen- reader or other output devices); access attributes of elements on demand; decided in Austin not to delay release of CSS2--postpone some complex issues for CSS3 G) SMIL: an XML application that allows you to play multiple channels of timed info from multiple sources into a multimedia ensemble; digital talking book project has decided to adopt SMIL for digital talking book format; accessibility input: linking from non-textual objects to amplifying textual descriptive info; captioning; user control over play of multimedia composite; getting SAMI lined up with SMIL (Q: agreed that will be interoperable (PJ-IBM): AG: yes; SAMI and QuickTime used to capture caption track; caption stream a media object needs an integrator; PK: how does captioning work with QuickTime? SMIL will work with SAMI and QT; DD: SMIL is an integrator, SAMI is merely a format, as is QT; SMIL control over integration, not a format H) JB: as PF performs its review of W3C working groups and W3C specs, loop accessibility concerns to IG; how can we make process better so that WAI WGs are informed before IG? I) PJ-IBM: is each spec going to be passed through each WAI WG? JB: not specifically, would happen better if we did that more directly and more uniformly J) Q: what about PICS? JB: fits in with RC WG work 3. Page Authoring Guidelines (AU WG) -- Greg Vanderheiden A) WD of Guidelines released to public February 3 1) working on open issues and new issues; posting concerns to IG and weeding out threads B) 2 big issues 1) ALT test and TITLE: what is their function; how should they be used? problem: function of ALT text different on LINK and IMG; lot of controversy over what is decorative and whether it should be tagged; proposal will be out soon for discussion 2) guidelines ask you to do things that make pages look ugly or simple; no browsers support CSS2 C) tomorrow: collecting ideas and issues; won't be hammering out the issues D) Ken Bartlett (HTML Author's Guild): have 58000 members; push accessibility to members; test-interviewing process: tell us what you have; give feedback on guidelines; implement them; tell us what you did, what you didn't and why; what else would be useful? (NOTE: opportunity for AFB public web to be showcase) 1) DD: should wait for next version of guidelines; get resolution of open issues 4. User Agent Group (UI WG) -- Jim Allen for Jon who is sick A) changed name from UI to UA B) overview of what browsers should be able to do; checklist of what is important; first section C) 4 issues presentation of information and adjustability by user orientation information navigation issues visibility of accessibility info D) rating system: developing scenarios; put a face to the scenarios; composite portraits of users to illustrate browser-imposed limitations; recommended ways for browsers to overcome obstacles E) DD: functionality that MUST be supported at format level; compliance F) timeframe: open; JB: needs to be done quickly due to impending new releases of browsers G) GV: need to look at differences between graphics and test; need to be considered by RC; compared against a checklist 5. Authoring Tool Guidelines (AU WG) A) pulling together list of all toolmakers B) issues: auto-insert--auto-detection of errors and inaccessibility issues; implementation C) make accessibility checker part of spell and parser check; do it running or after? D) short list of things that are most crucial so that they are implemented rather than ignored E) open dialogue with manufacturers F) most places gung-ho as long as check benign; not on toolbar or as pop-up/dialogue box 6. Ratings and Certification (RC WG) -- Len Kasday A) originally the RC WG, soon to be the Evaluation Tools (or just Tools for short) group; its purpose has evolved B) concerned with tools for evaluating and repairing a web site C) complications: browser display differences; rating of end to end transmission from designer's mind to user's mind D) first order of business: what deliverables we want to create? fully-automatic tools (bobby model); human-aid tools; tools can be local (become part of authoring tools); remote tools--attractive in short run E) third-party: PICS: way for a third party to have a readily accessed rating of various sites; why not do it for accessibility F) REPAIR 1) tools: fully-automated tools; semi-automated tools G) WHAT KIIND OF OUTPUT 1) what form does the rating take? 2) simplicity of output: non-technical language (suggestion use webtechs/weblint model) 3) mechanisms: specification for combining results of evaluation tools H) CONCRETE VALUE 1) forum where those making tools can obtain input and publicity 2) coordination of effort GV: Trace efforts: put together a toolkit for web authors to make sites/pages accessible; CAST, Jon Gunderson, Jutta, NCSA; get different groups doing different tools to combine them into one tool or one integrated toolkit 3) way to include non-member organizations and entities I) NEXT STEP 1) hammer out a charter J) SUGGESTIONS Harvey Bingham: awards GJR: awards only meaningful if tied to auto- validator/parser and backed up by spot checks Dave (CAST): need to define guidelines; JB: this group will flirt with policy more than others; remember international effort; take into account regulations of other countries 7. Education and Outreach (EO WG) -- Judy Brewer A) no longer an interest group, but a working group 1) call for participation on IG list; asks for 4 hour a week commitment B) scope of group 1) planning and prioritizing strategies and approaches 2) identifying audiences 3) compiling existing materials and event/dissemination opportunities 4) media for distribution 5) promoting implementation of accessibility 6) coordination with other groups 7) coordinating translation of educational materials C) deliverables 1) FAQs on technical specs, accessibility improvements 2) code samples for accessible design 3) samples of accessible and inaccessible designs 4) developing awareness and promo materials 5) economic arguments D) proposed charter available on WAI site: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/charter.html 8. Coordination Group (CG) A) composed of WG chairs; at large members by appointment, not nomination as originally stated at the November '97 Austin meeting, in accordance with new W3C regulations/protocols 1) nomination then appointment; additional call for nominations will go out within next 3 weeks on IG list; those nominated at the Austin meetings will still be in contention/consideration 2) commitment is substantial: bi-weekly conference calls B) WAI WG chairs have been working to coordinate work 1) CG charter calls for synchronization, not prioritization 2) pace and priorities from IG, not WG 9. Judy's Questions For Discussion A) use of IG list as a forum WL: is it possible to get a summary and not merely a digest? Jaap & Phil J: when reach conclusion should post to IG with identifying subject line Judy B: perhaps a once-a-week summary should be issued/compiled Jaap: subject-oriented summaries TV: exercise self-discipline; pay attention to subject lines GJR: suggestion: distribution only summary list Harvey: over-lapping responsibilities; not always clear which group is proper target; narrow scope for current discussions through closure posts summarizing conclusions and setting new agenda PJ: if have chairs keep list of current issues under discussion; GJR: reiteration of suggestion: a distribution only list dedicated to agendas and summaries; agendas would identify topics for discussion, set parameters for discussion, point interested parties to the proper forum/list; summaries would point back to list upon which discussion unfolded, and would cite URLs of relevant/important messages B) feeding information from Working Groups to Interest Groups Wendy Chisholm: not only include suggestions, but possible solutions Judy: what about someone who ids a problem and doesn't have a solution; need problem identifying; send issue- oriented topics to IG, detailed lists to WG Len: one line summary at beginning of posts Raman: agree with Len because of participants' inability to use intelligent subject lines C) priorities and pacing Cindy King: timing needs to be improved; W3C WGs need to get materials out to WAI WGs sooner and quicker Judy: all W3C groups have charters which include accessibility; W3C has commitment to accessibility; need to sweep charters to ensure that all WGs and areas and charters are all aware of accessibility issues; attempting to improve synchronization Will L: EO should include education and "inreach" Judy: priority agenda for CG and JB personally Will L: lurkers outnumber participants; off-list communication has yielded response that there is a lot of talk and little action; progress not apparent because it has not been properly reported Jaap: whatever happened to the bulletin? subscribed to the bulletin; but haven't yet seen a bulletin: Judy: point of clarification: bulletin intended to be the place where progress can be reported; the first bulletin has yet to be issued; more for external education than for WG members/participants