W3C logo Web  Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo

WAI AU Teleconference - 14 November 2000

Details

Chair: Jutta Treviranus

Date: Tuesday 14 November 2000

Time: 2:30pm - 4:00pm Boston time (1930Z - 2100Z)

Phone number: Tobin Bridge, +1 (617) 252 7000


Agenda

The Latest Draft is the Recommendation dated 3 February, available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203. The latest techniques draft is dated 18 September, available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WD-ATAG10-TECHS-20000918.


Attendance

Regrets


Action Items and Resolutions


Minutes

Plenary session

JT: Plenary Meeting logistics: There will be 3 days. 2 days meeting with AERT. Then there will be a plenary day (Wednesday). Does this meet our needs?

MK: Can't we decide before hand who we can meet. DB joins.

PJ: Can we submit an "requests for presentations" to each group we're meeting so they tell us what they want to know.

JT: Good idea, se could suggest for the plenary day every group submits expectations to others.

/* GR joins.

JT: Will send on the idea.

GR: will go to RDF and ???

/* WL joins.

JT: Propose that we send request for presentations to groups that are conflicting with our meetings.

User Agent Guidelines issues:

PJ: Question about UA. For their documentation they say its P1 to meet WCAG P1 and P2.

GR: He had proposed that UA documentation should be P1 to all WCAG P1, P2 and P3. There are lots of reasons when installing software, etc.

PJ: In what cases should the WCAG priorities be raised. For UAs you believe that the prioriteis should be raised. Should they be raised for AU as well.

GR: When documentation is inaccessible. Some applications need to be held to a higher standard.

GR: Documentation is so important. Prevents people from upgrading. Also concern that manufactures could send out PDF and link to Adobe PDF access - not a good solution.

PJ: Doesn't WCAG cover this.

WL: No.

PJ: Sometime content is different mouse vs. screen reader use. Maybe UA needs to require supplementary documentation for using access devices.

GR: That's the users responsibility. They know how to use their tech. They need to know how to use all the UA access features.

PJ: Accessibility of accessibility features in the doc? GR: No its the accessibility of the documentation. [Back and forth]

PJ: Are there WCAG checkpoints you can point to. GR: We did not go through WCAG point by point.

JT: Could also interpret checkpoint as saying that documemtation is very important and should meet both P1 and P2.

PJ: GR is saying that minimum is higher than P1 when WCAG says P1 is the minimum for accessibility.

GR: P1 eliminate impossible, P2 eliminate difficulty, documentation needs to meet a higher standard.

PJ: What other case need to meet this higher standard? AU? How do we decide this?

GR: What about platforms that don't have accessibility standards.

WL: The thing about documentation is that WCAG deals with docs that don't have documentation. UA and AU deal with software and the documentation is very important.

MK: A web page could be an application that does have documentation.

WL: WCAG doesn't deal with that.

PJ: If it's just a web page, documentation is not a problem.

GR: A criticism of WCAG 1.0 is that it doesn't cover Web page apps very well.

PJ: Right, it talks about turning scripts off.

GR: Talked to Ian about submitting this as errata to WCAG and Ian thought it would be a good idea.

JT: Not for this group to decide. But we can look at our own guideline 7.

Action JT will discuss this at CG.

JT: Should AU follow the UA example?

Integration of AERT

JR: Reports

PJ: Lots of tools doing evaluation now. New IBM product does some accessibility evaluation.

JT: Can you pass on the new techniques to ER?

PJ: Some of new new tools check for unimportant things. Can be confusing.

GR: Some of this was implemented when the ER document was at an earlier state.

Discussion of new Dreamweaver product screenshot.

JT: I have trial copy and a request for conformance evaluation.

JR: Will look at the Macromedia 4 trial version.

JT: Can we move Checkpoint 4.1 Techniques to ERT?

All: YES

JT: Any other issues?

WL: RESPONSIBLE AUTHORING INCLUDES INDEXING

WL: New authoring tools guidelines need checkpoints concerning metadata and conformance claims.

JT: Relies on WCAG.

GR: Reliance on UA as well?

JR: Can't do that now. Would be good for ATAG 2.0.


Copyright  ©  2000 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio ), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document useand software licensingrules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements.


Last Modified $Date: 2000/12/07 20:10:15 $