WAI AU Teleconference - 20 June 2000

Action item review

JT: First business is to go through techniques to see if there are inconsistencies with the definition. Did anyone do them?

Most: No (some misunderstandings since minutes of last meeting not up)

JT: Did this. No glaring problems. But would like others to review. Largely the appendix that JR did.

JT: Action item report for the techniques and evaluation database.

CMN: Not yet

JT: Reason?

CMN: Time. Hope to work on it this week. Techniques database is a long term project.

Other Business

/* CMN joins

JT Let’s talk about conformance evals.

GR: Conformance evals. Difficult for guideline 7.

JT: for ATRC course tools study access was more objectively tested. Dedicated workstations equipped with representative assistive technologies. What do others do.

HS: MS trying to refine process for internal accessibility testing this can be dependent on who tests and how. For Windows Logo program there is one external provider who ensures consistency.

CMN: My consistency process is to do the same things across products (not a very satisfactory or scalable approach at this stage).

JT: We listed a set of tasks and tested across a set of technologies. Needed a balance between being to prescriptive and to open. When too prescriptive it was hard to get a good idea of access. Better to focus on tasks.

HS: More scenario based.

CMN: did partial review of dream weaver. Tried to write down how things were tested. Would like to post how this was done.

JT: Asks about MS logo program

HS: I think methods used for badging program are proprietary to outside testing companies - will check.

CMN: We need to develop a matrix type method. For each checkpoint there are a bunch of things to test for for different kinds of tools.

JT: Do we want to do pass or fail or scoring?

CMN: Scoring is A, AA, AAA

JT: Other stuff?

CMN: His conformance database tool will allow partial tests to suit individual needs. People will build their own scoring mechanisms.

HS: Scoring will add validity to "why" product didn’t pass

/*GR rejoins

JT: ATRC used scoring such as how many steps to alt-text. But still included comparative tables.

GR: people ask him how the guidelines will help them make judgements. Must be more than A,AA

CMN: database approach will allow simple A, AA as well as custom queries

GR: it is also helpful to put in tips for users

CMN: that is just writing help docs

GR: it is just providing work arounds

CMN/GR: Back and forth

GR: Disability community wants results. Very bad to ignore work arounds.

DB: What are we arguing about?

JT: Ratings

JR: Work arounds

JR: Can we agree to general ratings as well as specific details

CMN: (comment not recorded)

JT: More granularity – ex. does something easily or with more steps

GR: Granularity has to include how it satisfies relative checkpoints etc. A, AA is meaningless out of context.

DB: Concerned whether WG should be doing this at this level of granularity.

GR: as evidenced by how many we have been completed.

JT: Task of WG will not be to pile up lots of evals. But should we come up with process.

GR, CMN: Agree

JT: We need to develop objective tests. Many steps for relative priorities.

GR: My method is not yet ready. Used boilerplate text

CMN: Mailing list should be the feedback mechanism.

JT: When will GR’s work be ready?

GR: Still needs work.

JT: Do you need volunteers?

GR: Give me a week.  

JT: We have a huge task ahead of us. We are making little progress. Ideas?

GR: Sense of urgency has dissipitated. We need to get moving again. First we need to reping all present and past AU members.

JT: OK. We are re-chartering. Maybe we need new staff. Will talk to CG group.

CMN: Spent 40 hours on dream weaver. Takes a long time to learn new products to the proper extent.

GR: AFB has resources for testing. Maybe we can get these resources for evaluations. These people are professional testers.

JT: Should we pursue other testers?

DB: Then WG is still undertaking large effort. Concerned about doing everything we talk about.

JT: Agree that our main task should be to great a process. Should we make pieces that can be funded, staffed externally.

GR: Talked to someone at AFB about blind low vision evaluation of five main market tools etc.

CMN: Balance betwen collecting evals and support and setting up a software testing service.

GR: Same problem holding up WAI review process.

CMN: Hoping QA person would sart sooner.

JT: Should I go to CG with idea of separate externally funded project.

CMN: Still concerned. But we should talk to the CG about it. It is WG work. But we have limited resources.

GR: Should use pre-existing expert resources.

CMN: Need vendor neutrality.

Action Item: JT will ask CG what they think

CMN: Long range question. How does documententation apply to accessibility of the tool itself? Does it fit in 6 or 7?

GR: Both

JR: 7 only