AU Teleconference (Monday, February 11, 2002) - Joint with EO

Telephone: +1.617.761.6200
Conference number: 2894


0. Agenda additions
1. Encouraging Compliance with ATAG, strategies and resources.
2. "Selecting and Using Software for Web Accessibility" as per Judy's message: (FYI this is part of a draft implementation planning resource.
3. Face to face joint meeting with IMS on February 25: logistics and agenda.


JT: Jutta Treviranus
JR: Jan Richards
HS: Heather Swayne
AG: Audrey Gorman
HaB: Harvey Bingham
HeB: Helle Bjarnø
LN: Liddy Neville
J-M: Jean-Marie D'Amour
CV: Carlos Velasco
KA: Kathleen Anderson
SaH: Sarah Horton
SH: Shaun Henry (Name Spelling?)
JB: Judy Brewer
NL: Natasha Lipkina
HS: Henk Snetselaar
CMN: Charles


Phill Jenkins: Unable to join call
Andrew Arch

Action Items:


LN: People interested in Dublin Core accessibility group at:

JB: Some trouble getting people added to call due to cap on # of participants

0. Agenda Additions

JT: Anything else to put in agenda.

LN: Australia govt. doesn't worry about tools, just content.

1. Encouraging Compliance with ATAG

JB: Finds the same thing (in Madrid for EU). We need to drastically improve ATAG messaging. Reviews are a gap.

CV: We have put up a few recently.

HS: Microsoft has not yet scheduled when they will do a Word review.

JT: We don't have the ability to be a comprehensive tool review service.

JB: What is the purpose of evaluations??

JT: To help us come up with evaluation techniques and get ideas for exemplary techniques for guidelines.

HaB: UAAG is doing that.

JT: There are many more authoring tools than browsers.

JB: Just looking for top 4 or 5. There's more that EO could do but EO needs more to point to from AUWG.

LN: Maybe we can get an outside pro to do it.

JB: But do we have 4 or 5 up to date.

kA, JR,CMN, JT: Yes for Dreamweaver, Notes, Courseware, etc.

JT: We need to strategically talk to govts about tools once they have legislation for content.

JB: We do include ATAG in policy reference suite. We have not added any software policy placeholder in policy listing.

JT: It's a follow-up message - in order to implement content policy, software support needs to be in place.

AG: in EO we got beyond policy to people who have to implement policy.

2. Selecting and Using Software for Web Accessibility

JB: Document background: tried to come up with general guidance on tool use rather than recommending specific tools.

JR: Presents ideas - user feedback, checking/correcting tools, management of equivalent alternatives

CV: Bobby needs is no longer free so it might not be good to mention.

JB: Deliberate strategy to not mention commercial products.

kA: If there are free tools and plug-ins should they be reviewed?

JR: Yes

JT: In conjunction with base tools?

CMN: ER spent a lot of effort tracking these kinds of tools. Maybe we should talk to them.

JB: EO already refs their existing page of tools.

JB: What do people think generally of this document?

LD: Will send comments.

CMN, JR, HS: Looks good.

JB: Will remove the will not reference (to CMN's comment).

JT: Reviews seem to be an outstanding issue.

JB: Could an external organization do a better job?

JT: They may have the time as well.

CV: Internationalization is a problem in the reviews.

HeB: Agree but small language areas would have to use what's out there.

JB: FP is often the tool people talk about for internationalization

SH: could ask in checklist: is internationalization an issue?

JB: Will go through changes:

JB: JR's user feedback idea.

SB,JR,JT,JR: Discussion.

JB: Internal reviewer may need reader feedback as leverage with content developers.

JT: Underlying misunderstanding about ATAG. Fully ATAG-compliant tool should produce accessible content, regardless of knowledge level of author.

SH: We should put it in.

JB: List of changes:

3. Face to face joint meeting with IMS on February 25: Logistics and Agenda

JT: Can we have a meeting on the 18th?