Minutes from AUWG telecon, 2 Dec 2002

Attendance

JR Jan Richards
LN Liddy Nevile
PJ Phill Jenkins
MM Matt May
Regrets: Jutta Treviranus

Minutes

New ATAG 2.0 Draft

MM: updated draft to 2 December, will post this today.
JR: Broken link to techniques.
MM: I'll run the link checker before sending to the list.
ACTION MM: Add "Contents" and "Techniques" links at the top and detailed links in the TOC

New Charter

MM: No new action on W3C end. Judy was on vacation last week. Will talk to her tomorrow.
PJ: Will that refer to WCAG?
MM: There's a section called "dependencies".
PJ: Is that where it'll be ironed out? What's the thinking on that?
JR: We'll have to do some thinking on how that's done (version-specific reference to WCAG, or not)
ACTION MM: Get comments from Judy to the list

Toronto plans

JR: Liddy and Phill will be in town 12/11. We'll have an impromptu meeting that afternoon.
MM: Will be in Toronto 12/10.
PJ: I'll be in the morning of the 9th.
MM: Will we have a phone in the room, in case others may want to dial in?
JR: Yes.

Techniques for user guidance

JR: We have things to work with from the old 3.1 and 3.2. We need a little work on that.
LN: Charles met with local content management system people. They discussed what a CMS needs to know regarding WCAG. A lot of what WCAG says has to do with authoring tools.
JR: Seemed like we were reprioritizing WCAG items. For example, they have five guidelines (Perceivable, Operable, Navigable, Understandable, Robust). We have perceivable, operable, navigable, but then understandable isn't well represented. Do we forget about it?
PJ: I don't think we can forget about it...
JR: For content generation, etc., we refer to WCAG. Now, when we come to user prompting, it doesn't say to prompt for understanding. Maybe that's work we should do.
PJ: Are WCAG success criteria better for that now?
JR: They're under construction. We could still say to prompt, but carefully define what we say about prompting. Maybe a topic for Toronto.