April 18, 1998 WAI: Interest Group Meeting Face-to-Face Meeting Minutes Attendees Judy Brewer, Jan Richard, Daniel Dardailler, Max Nakane, George Kersher, Liddy Neville, Charles McCathieNevile, Rob Seiler, Cynthia Waddell, Jason White, William Loughborough, Phil Jenkins, Kitch Barnicle, Jutta Trevinarus, Gunela Astbrink, Rick Nelson, Marja Koivunen, Kevin Nguyen Marco ? George: Posted some questions re: accessible authoring tools. Has system now that is working , it is a text editor, it has ability to parse & validate, works well for individuals with some programming skills. Jutta: Next release of hot metal will benefit from work with JAWS and beta testing. Next release: around mid 1998 Agenda: IG: all working groups report back to IG group after face to face meetings Will discuss process issue of mark up guidelines going out. Initial feedback has been somewhat negative. Like to think of next nears conference, what can we do regarding promoting access issues. We should also take advantage of being here in Austalia to talk about outreach. Next meeting: tentatively in July in Birmingham. Just had a face to face meeting of approx. 50 people last month (LA). Need to discuss upcoming meetings. Agenda re: authoring tool meeting. JT: Good to talk about process issues that go across all groups. Also interested in general comments on technical areas that we have been discussing DD: WG reports: PF: Behind us: HTML improvements, summary paper on WAI home page. We are happy with the results that have been incorporated into HTML . RE: HTML future, W3C doesn't have a plan for future. There will be a workshop in May to discuss future, may include somethings like database inclusion. The PF working group will be giving input to this group . Dave Ragett has already gotten input from PF, e.g. phonetic markup, may be other things eg. frames, table etc. Not sure is this is FP group area or page guideline group. PF will have to track this activity. CSS2 & SMIL: Going out as recommendation soon, starting to create public document explaining access features, eg. captioning. Also coordinating with MS SAMI to see if they can interact (SMIL & SAMI). We believe they can reference each other. FUTURE work areas: DHTML interest in DOM working group. Scheduled for recommendation for beginning of summer. Also looking at XML. Need way to make XML DTD accessible. Area where we can use work of ICADD. (Int. Committe for access. document design). ICADD has defined a binding to braille?? We need a t link between XML DTD and HTML. JW: DD: The goal is to take arbitraty DTD and map to HTML which we know well . IS there membership from early ICADD members. Murray Moloney? Mike Paciello has been trying to start an access discussion on webable. Hasn't gotten much activity. GK: Reporting what he is doing- NISO in US. Library of COngress setting up committee for digital talking books. DAISY invited . Felt that HTML 40 would be inadequate to describe most books we need to do. THerefore decision was made to develop DTD using XML. Mark up team formed. George chair of this mark up group. MIssion is to develop book type data into this DTD. Will have link for braille prodction. JW: are you in contact with RNIB? RNIB had DTD for braille, speech... GK: Yes, Dave' (RNIB) Keith Gladstone work together has been rolled into Daisy cons. Moving forward with XML DTD. JT: Which baille conversion companies are invovlved. GK: Not a braille dtd. trying to define semantics. not trying to format a book, identify semantics. any tool can be used to format for braille. need enough semanit info to support dtd. We do not master data. This is really an extension of icadd work. jt: once this comes out we will have so many xml data types. will need new industry to keep up with all the transformation routines that will be needed dd: what is context of this group? GK: Daisy & NLS. didn't want 2 groups so they joined together on this. html is insufficient. we would like simple dtd. with multiple fragments. eg. use html table model, jw: issue: if you want to preserve semantic content of html, will not be well achieved , likely to loose info. Will including a transfomatoin in xml standard (to HTML) would be a good approach? GK: were looking at using class attributes to provide semantic information. then use html dtd to provide additional info. XML more elegant way. SDA is a mechanism to provide transformation . JB: Sounds like a good discussion. Can we wrap discussion and move on to others. DD: Need to coordinate this group (GK's) and PF group. W3C doesn't need to track all DTDs going out. Can link web sites. Harvey B. & Mark H. are on group. JT: What is generaly access approach to XML? DD: Need to decide what approach to take. eg. use class attributes with wai prefix??, RDF - can build on Rdf to describe relationship between elements and accessible elements. JT: good to coordinate efforts, especially if DTD already exists. JB: George (or other rep) needs to sit in on pf group call. GK: Scope creep a big problem, potential to become much bigger. DAISY wants to collaborate with WAI. But we have to have DTD out in 90 days. DD: PF work - CSS3, already looking at more support braille media, tty, internationalization, braille styling. HTTP: browser sniffing, may need to explain access issues. eg. lynx users not getting access to secure sites because server thinks browser is obsolete. lynx user much "trick" server to be able to get access Other issues: VRML, JAVA PF group setting up priorities for working groups. will present to interest group, get feedback. Must work within constraints. Mark up Guideline group: Public draft release February. New version released APril 14. Not "public" yet, officially release. Much better than Feb. version, reorganized content, lots of work on alt issues has been incorporated. Need more work before it becomes recommendations. Subgroup of members recently posted a proposal for form guidelines, needs to be integrated into guideines. Want people in field to look at this draft. What public working draft sometime in May. Looking at summer for recommendation. jb: w3c has somewhat formal process of releasing documents. Process now described on w3c site, explains working groups, interest groups etc. Trying to get WAI process more structured to go through proper steps. DD: RE: interoperability testing - is something that happened for SMIL but not something that happens in all groups JW: now that css2 is a proposed recommendation, how is this going to be treated in author guidelines? Appendices? Separate guidelines? Will guidelines have to be written in a more general way with HTML as an example implementation ? (so can be applied to XML??) DD: In favor of a section on css2 in page guidelines for now. Need to discuss more on list. JB: With smil, we are making sure technology supports access but need to get people to use technology. Current guidelines say mostly what needs to be said regarding smil. Educatoin group: working on sample code. JW: current guidelines code spread out through document. should code be separated out? DD: Guidelines group did discuss how to give examples, but currently have operational mode. Could run into trouble trying to expand scope. Should probably focus on current version. GK: Texas passed bill to require publishers to create accessible books . State moving to MM books. Have a grant out to create a demonstration book. RFB&D (??) responded to proposal to create reference implementation. CW: re: texas law, all textbooks k-12, must be in accessible mm. (Back on track) JB: RE: things this week. CSS test suites developed by Eric Myer from CWRU. Met to see if there are wayse we can use these. You visit these pages to see if your browser supports its and it tests for css1 and css2 compatibility. Page author group might benefit from these. We want to coordinate with these group. SO we can look at what is implemented in these tools. Need to give feedback to Eric to see if it is "not" testing for certain thiings. Another meeting: Internationalization: Discussed common ground. SHould we coordinate guidelines? We compared types of guidelines some overlap some potential conflicts. Other: HTML writers guild has an implementation project on going to test guidelines. Bobby is using feb version. People are having problem using bobby. There is confusion. PC week did an interview. Wants to do follow up using bobby could cause backlash. We often want to get info out quickly but IG review could slow things. gk: Is bobby funded? CAST is exploring commercialization. CAST has agreed to keep going forward with bobby. cw: Why is there a perception that bobby is a wai thing? JB:Hard for people to distinguish activities. There is a lot of overlap. CW: We have to deal with this all the time. Should we add a statement on wai page e.g. disclaimer. DD: Or can we work closer with bobby. eg. evaluation working group. Need to coordinate evaluation group with education group. cw: Industry knows that this is dynamic industry with a lot of change. administrators often focus on a single thing. Need broad base solution. JB: action items: wai needs clearer messages on site describing bobby. education group needs publicize dynamic nature will try to stop article from coming out at this time GK: issue: If laws require accessibility, we may fall into situation where bobby says "good" when it actually is not. JB: Need to clarify that bobby is not reliable enough . Charles: What is w3c's feeling on complaince laws. JB: Of 5 areas of work (tech, guideilnes...) note that one is not policy. However, policy is of interest. We develop things that can be used in some thoughtful way. eg. A government may say "we require" by that we mean compliance with level __ of guidelines. WAI can also "consult". Charles: If people come for advice, do we say the guidelines should not be taken as laws. CW: In US can't be a "law" ie. government agencies can't apply these as regulations currently . But we can point to guidelines as a resources. JB: Tricky thing is people don't always understand "required" term. WL: Laws can't refer to an external document, people have no control. BOBBY thing: if you go to bookmark get new site, Gunela: Bobby getting more publicity in Australia. Users may not be aware of guidelines. JW: Maybe we should make user read disclaimer first before using bobby. (BREAK) User agent group: DD: UA group met in LA. Moving forward. Plan for public working draft in May. Organized : Presentation adjustabity (fonts colors, own CSS etc) Orientation: where you are on page, ua can help by giving you context infomation. Navigation: eg moving by link, header Compatibility with AT: JB: Need to coordinate with press activity with mid may. Need to do several things before then. Need comments from companies supporting guidelines. CW: Can we get the high tech center in cupertino to review guidelines (Carl Brown). GK: Center has a good reputation. Very pratical group. JB: Still need manufactures to support. We need to track potential backlash. Additional reviews helpful. GK: This would be a way to link in universities. CW: Cente also ahas a pool of users. RC Group - evaluation DD: This group will have call for participation soon. Len Kasday is chair. DD helping develop charter. This group will focus on evaluation tools and repair tools. Also will look at coordinatoin between tools outside w3c and working group tools. Looking at what can be fully automated vs those things that need human intervention. eg. html 4.0 can be automated. Accessibility can not be fully automated, need semi automation. Re repair tools - things can be done regarding 3 rd party tools eg. proxies - linearize tables, auto generate alt tags, eg. OCR tools that gets alt text from logo. Want to coodinate with bobby, w3c validator, tidy up. H. Neilson has been making tool to explore site report on problems. Lynx viewer tool also being developed. Charter and call probably will be sent out soon. GK: will this group rate browers and authoring tools? DD: have been discussin this, so far have limited scope to content, but still being discussed JW: Will wai help support lynx etc develoments???? JB: Seems to be out of scope of w3c as a industry consortium. Other things we can do. Netscape will work with us. One to two UI engineers will participate. THey have limited resources. They have outside developers interested in access. WAi can use resources directly for development. May be able to do some prototyping that others can adopt. DD: Agree with caveat that Netscape is different than lynx. There is probably less problem with working with lynx. WL: Netscape- no harm in putting references (to accessibity) on "do it yourself" netscape lists JB: Hopes to meet with Netscape in 2 weeks. WL: Has seen strong awareness of accessibility on netscape development lists. JB: Netscape will put outside developments into Netscape. Charles: IS amaya the place for a test bed? JB: Test bed for access solutions is good. Other issue is testing other browsers. DD: netscape souce story. 2 products - Netscape and Mozilla (the free ware copy) Mozilla will include things that is not in Netscape and vice versa. These 2 things will be synchronized but they are still different. JW: We must not been seen as supporting one product over another. JB: DD: Amaya is both browser and authoring environment. ANything that goes into mozilla can be used my microsoft. There are multiple versions of mozilla mac, windows, ..... Gunela: Authoring tools - I would support a reference to authoring tools that do provide accessibility features. DD: Name of evaulation group still open. ER - evaluation and repair. Liddy: Names are so important. Maybe we should ask a specialist. This will be a public face. DD: Other groups have deliverables so their names are clearer. THis one is more of a coordination effort. CW: Need to distinguish the fact that this is an accessibility topic. JW: ERT - evaluation and repair tools (tools for evaluation and repair) WAI - TER (waiter) Education & Outreach: JB: Charter to develop many materials. 12-15 people signed up Meeting at CSUN - did some prioritizatoin of deliverables Looking at gathering groups that we could distribute through - disability groups, industry groups Since CSUN meeting- WAI - TIDE meeting - to coordinate efforts Lot of work this month. Ready to go out next week. Look at charter to find more info on products being developed. Need to add : need to collect info on other activities eg. internet training centers eg. have goal to get access into every training center cw: We are doing training in library. The same need that you see in commercial centers is needed in government. I would be interested in training programs that other governments are using. I need to know what other governments are doing. I've been to 6 conference to speak about access at government conferences. JB: Group is working on a speakes group with pre-set materials. Authoring tools JT: 2 major tasks 1. provide recommendations which relate to supporting page author guidelines in tools - eg looking at what documentation should be included, what would prompt author to follow recommendation (e.g. alt text) -warnings to authors who don't follow guidelines -checkers in tool to check page for following guidelines -tools and wizards to support guidelines JB: What about indirect authoring tools - word processors, mm tools, - do we need a separate set of guidelines. JT: Group discussed having a separate section in the guidelines to address these issues. CW: Critical to have discussions with product makers (corel, microsoft etc) JB: Microsoft is worried about it. They have started thinking about this. They need priorities for tweaking products. JT: Further discussion with MS office art group. Did not think they would add prompts. User interface bloat. JB: Problem at 2 levels - technical - stripping out access needs and next level of need for prompting. Liddy: Why we have both authoring tools and word processors. Eventually will move to one tool. All of my documents are html. It is easier for me to work this way. I think we will see an integration. SHould we be spending efforts on this now. JB: Is a relavent issue. It is not just WP, but also spread sheets. Liddy: Need to think about other communities, eg. deaf. In Australia, text is not the language of the deaf. Sign is. CW: we are talking about evolution of media. Goverments are looking at saving money by putting text on the web. Reality- human are familiar with word processors. Important to looks at those tools that convert to html inaccessibility. JT: Two things we need to discuss. 1) need for central repository of reasons or justifications e.g. refer to universal access, disability access, functional access. And what attitude we shoudl promote. 2) how much redundancy should their be with other guidelines - should we combine documents 2nd part of charter - how to make tools accessible to authors with disabilities - specifically looking at authoring structured documents JB: E&O needs to coordinate with groups on language . LUNCH JB: Connections between Australia and WAI. Does anybody know the amount of participation of Australians in www7? After panels questions came from Australians. Comments on national and local legislation. What are key dissemination routes? We need ideas on where to distribute educational materials. Also need to know if key groups in Australia know about WAI activities. Gunela: What material is available now? JW: New stuff coming fairly rapidly. Code examples, demographic info, policy info, curriculum modules. JT:Has there been any market planning regarding the sectors we want to reach? JB: There has been some discussion of that since the November meeting. It will be revisited this month. PRimary audiences we are trying to reach disability groups, industry, research.... Also looking at specific audiences. Designers, developers, writers (media), user community, government folks. Are there establish networks for access info? Rob: ARATA (??) providing reference point for at info. Target audience engineers, clinicians, developers. JB: Parallel in states is RESNA. In Europe it is AAATE. Don't always interact with electronic technology sorts. ROB: Will be happy to bring this info back to ARATA. LIDDY: I have a feeling that there is a lot of overlap between groups. Web may provide way to unite this info. Australians used to united spread out groups. JB: What is focal point of that? Libraries? GUnela: Yes, libraries in VIctoria getting public access terminals. Also will provide training in internet services (library staff in turn will train communitity) Encouraging local Queensland content. We run page design courses for library staff who train local communities. We can incorporate accessible design into these course. We also train local people, government people, real estate people etc. We convened the first meeting of internet coordinators in government agencies. We can raise access in these meetings. These notes may get worse - charles starts. Liddy: intiativs are happening in many organisational contexts, as well as libraries - especially education. Schools are being encouraged to train themselves and then their communities, as are other organisations JB: In Qld libraries can pull together Internet coordinators in federal govt departments? Gunela: No. We got a meeting to happen, and generated enthusiasm aamong state government departments JB: who can do it federally? Rick: Federal dept Communication and the Arts - their responsibility. They are exhorting, not regulating. Liddy: It is NOI National Office of the Information economy. Closely linked to libraries - Natinal library us elping develop search systems JB: can you put requirements on allocations out of that office? Rick: legal requirement for accessibility under Discrmination act. A complaint driven process not policed. Liddy: Event in Sydney was well attended - there are people out there trying, but the skills seem to be difficult to find. NSW are pretty good, Victoria have been given a hard time and are trying. Qld is involved, South Australia has been trying for some time. Gunela: Raising awareness is very time-consuming JB: Somebody at IT office for NSW said there is a federal online access council. Can w3c help raise awareness etc in Australia? Liddy: people need to learn the skills as well as just know about the issues. We will be able to offer our CD as a tool which can help. We need to have our own national program rather than import one, which means we need to hve australian product in it. CW: Needs to be bottom up and top-down. JB: How organised is the disability community, and how well connected to ech other? JASON: There are a few groups for disabilities, but no one group could do it. There is a round table organisation of producers in alternative media. They are interested in talking books, and electronic production, but may not have been involved in web accessibility. I am not an expert. There are organisations around, who wold all need education directed to them. CW: Do you have disabled people advising Australian government on disabled people's issues? Liddy: Extending the need to have disability commissioner type people for online as well as physical world. Rick: National disability council advises government, their focus is on physical issues, and they are generally people with disabilities. They are close to Hman Rights Council, could be promoted through them. Liddy: There is a disabled-friendly tagging organisation, but the definitions applied are not necessarily relevant online. Gunela: ACROD are involved in technology and services, there is a person involved who would be good for web accessibility outreach target. JB: Are there other major web training organisations or people doing outreach? Is there a national webwriters guild? Rick: There is a national webwriters guild. Liddy: organisations vary state by state... JB: Actions? Who should we be linking to formally or informally? CW will be getting involved with NSW Human Rights Commission - both policy and training. Rob S: Hase WAI ever had a roadshow? JB: Yes - w3cLA is Leveraging activity - increasing participation in Europe, has country by country roadshows. Presents acoss all domains of the consortium, and have demonstrations of activity. Close match with the format and wai-EO activity. The EO model is suited to roadshow and there may be funding for it. WAI is funded by US govt, EC, and a few industry sponsorships. Becoming a sponsor can be done by coughing up $75k - 1/3 for IPO, the rest for in-country activity. Rick: Discussions with Australian Govt. JB: Some, but not going far. Liddy: Had contact with senator alston - he is willing to participate, but there are other issues to be drawn together and lobbying required before it is done. VIC and NSW govt are prepared to support spendig grant money on w3c. RobS: Thinking more in the nature of a stand at PC show public exhibitions. JB: Looking at that in EO - try to identify key events internationally and decide on a suitable type of presence. Costs can be exorbitant. Liddy: booth costs can be prohibitive, but putting speakers can be cheaper. RobS: PC user groups could be a good avenue to go with - they would be likely to at least pass on the info. Corporate partners are possible. Phill Jenkins from IBM introduced: Trying accessibility roadshow is not as effective as getting every other speaker to plug accessibility for one minute. Gunela: Aust computer society previous head is interested in accessibility. He has worked on computer shows building up awareness. Liddy: APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Community) think access is about hardware, but if we could raise content and accessibility as an issue it would be a good forum to target. We should hold one-day seminars etc - there is a lot to offer. Perhaps a roadshow targetted direct at developers. Gunela: we have done that successfully. Materials and follow-up would be a good flow-in, acccessibility could follow on. JB: So who goes to the show... RobS: PCUser groups could be aforum - amateurs but good, perhaps an alliance with professional organisations is better Liddy: better to work on electronic media - brochures are expensive and target market are online. Rick: Human rights commission want to keep in touch with w3c, and EO, as tey are revising their web accessibility guidelines GUnela: If we run seminars it would be good to be able to refer to the work of WAI. Charles: Tying Internationalisation to WAI would be good - Australia is keen on being multiculturalism JB how? Gunela: Involved in EC group who could be good. Jutta: What would be good at www8? (NEW TOPIC ;) Marja introduces herself. JB: What should we do for www8? What do we want to accomplish? Liddy: Of first 550 that registered, 200 were Australians. JB: SOunds like 40% of participants were Australians. Original brainstorming- differently than last year. Last year we had "converts" at WAI session but when the conference started we weren't really integrated. THis year we tried to integrate access throughout conference. PJ: IBM documents must specify how this effects accessibility. Can we required authors to address access. What is w3c role in this conference? JB: W3C does not run conference, does have a w3c track in conference. Liddy: In Toronto, with Murray, we have an "insider" JT: In request for papers can we ask authors to address access. JB: Can we say we would like to permeate access throughout conference. cw: Can we have a keynote address on accessibility. Liddy: can we get a speaker to give a topic that promotes access (almost indirectly) JB: A keynote on accessibility, also have all keynote speakers mention accessibility. Papers & panels: this year we did some coordination, but ended up with some conflict - we want to coordinate so access talks don't conflict. CW: Have something for policy people. JB: Need something on developers day. We also tried to have accessible in internet cafe. (Jutta can help in Toronto) PJ: IBM has steered away from sponsoring "play rooms" because it involves integrating many other technologies that don't always work. JW: Conference web site needs to be accessible. LIddy: conference owned by IW3C, there is a contract with local committee. We can talk to IW3C and make them aware and write it into their contract. Murray is on committee. JT: We have other advocates there can help us determine how to approach this groups. Jim Miller, Joseph Harden JB: Need to have an accessibility committee. JT: In Canada it is built into most convention centers. Rick: THis building was involved in landmark cases due to its inaccessibility. Liddy: This has to be a big fight. On every committee we asked to have access on the agenda. Problem is - groups don't hear. In large conferences it is very hard. We really need to have a strategy for breaking through. JB: Other organizations have guidelines for hotels, convention centers etc. Liddy: We need to send these checklists to Iw3c. Actions : need guidelines and on-going accessibility committee Max: Getting some kind of poster session to reach technical people . Eg. HTML, SMIL, etc. JT: An accessibility clinic where people can come for advice. Can we get a list of companies and check their web sites before they come? Liddy: We should train the paper reviewers. Gunela: Prize for best access related paper. JB: HTML guild doing test with guidelines. One corporate sponsor also interested in a prize for best design . Marja (??) Get more materials. eg. 120 tutorial notes went out from Jutta's course. Liddy: Consider who attendees want to be here with. ie. what other groups do they want to interact with... Can we ask committee to invite specific speakers who would not have to submit paper. We want best speakers. Can we encourage conference planners to allow special speakers. JB: Between now and next May. There will be a meeting in the UK in July (w/ Sight Village). In LA we had high participation with disability community. Can we piggy back on industry. DD: we can piggy back on other w3c work. CW: women in international technology june, october 98 statewide impact.. California kB: should we look at IEEE, ACM etc. Authoring Tools Group- We need to recruit authoring tool manufacturers. Who is in group now? JB: was Hot Dog at conference? DO we have connections? Can we get them on user agent. DD: We can find out what tools are being used. BY authors. Liddy: BDedit ( a mac product) does its own check against some criteria. (Kitch - send web week article to Jutta re: designer survey author tools). Jutta: each of the page author guidelines were split up within the group We've developed text for tools to place in the on-line documentation. Prompts- when do we need warnings for authors (Hand out - example model - on images) For plain images, linked, server side image maps, client side maps- We were talking about the first wizard or tool for this issue. One question : when giving rationale what wording should we be giving - specific terms, general terms, links to other rationales. e.g. when we tell authors to do something how should we explain why we should do it. JW: In documentation we should include some brief discussion on why this is necessary with reference to author guidelines. JB: We should be more general with links to specific info. eg. Will not be usable by all readers such as web phone browsers, Kitch: warning should be general only. Charles: need to keep bloat down. CW: I agree in general guides, but need to educate. Daniel: Still think we should give a few examples. People won't know what you are talking about if you don't give an example. Marco: Make it required. Dialog box could include "more info button." Jutta: Warning only appears if author ignores. Gunela: Maybe we need to be more forceful. JW: Include a statement "this will not be usable by non- gui users". Implies some users will not working in GUI. Charles: Tell them DD: Need a few examples to some context. JW: braille, audio browsing, Marja: If people don't understand why you need alt text they might just but letters etc. CW: Maybe statement should be positive (action) statement. JB: Have to think of "long term" effect. Marja- People might have different work flow. Jan: 1) acknowledge dialog box 2) mark problem (ie. like spelling erro underline in word 97) JB: Reducing "in your face" aspect is good goal. Jan: Some techniques are easier to implement. Checker will run in a convential spell checker mode. JB: We should do some implementation testing. Usability is key. can't evaluate until its been built. JT: Softquad was a good case study in this process. Management was willing to pursue. FInancial constraints were such that all things couldn't be implemented. Release dates also a tremendous pressure. JB: HOw would we do usability testing on the guidelines. Marja & Jutta: paper prototying and other prototyping techniques Jutta: Visual basic prototypes. Gunela: Novice users may be happy to use warnings etc. Jutta: Preference setting for verbosity and strictness of checking. JW: Do recommendations deal with the issue of tools actually changing markup after check? Is their a display in the tool to get a source code. Jutta: We'll recommend that tools don't change mark up. Jan: Notepad is being used a lot by some authors. JB: Agenda items for meeting with Netscape. Editor strips things out. This should be a top recommendation ... not to mess with markup I've "fixed" Jan: Only recently have tools added a "notepad" view. DD: Shouldn't we say, "don't create server side image map." JW: This issue came up in page author guidelines. If the author wants to include complex shapes, a server side map may be needed. Author tools may have to be instructed to provide text alternative. DD: BY default, it should push authors to make client side image maps. In practice no server does more than a client. Jan: This is relavent if you are importing your legacy pages that have server side maps. You will need warnings Jan: Wizards & tools, description editor, alt text registry, saves alt text used previously, server to client image map converter. JW: Will D link be important as opposed to LONG DESC in the near future? Charles: Inclined to leave D link in for the time being. Might as well leave this technique in. Can map D link to long desc so author only has to do it once. JW: "D" link probably not consider acceptable by many authors. JB: WGBH getting feedback that people think it is an error (stray code). DD: Can use class "d link" with css style display "none" for this class. Jutta: Further input is welcome.