W3C Web Accessibility Initiative

WAI Authoring Tool Guidelines Working Group

WAI AU Teleconference - 11 August 1999


Chair: Jutta treviranus, <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>

Date: Wednesday 11 August 1999

Time: 3.30pm - 5:00pm Boston time (1930Z - 2100Z)

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


Review of Latest Draft

The latest working group draft is http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI-AUTOOLS-19990805.

Note that in most cases there is a thread of discussion following the message which has been referred to here.



Action Items and Resolutions


Checkpoint 2.1

CMN We should put the explanation about W3C specs into the checkpoint text as well as in the Techniques

JT The grammar needs to be clarified carefully.

IJ Yes

PJ I would like the P1 first.

JT It was felt as a leogical progression.

Resolved: Proposal adopted


JT Text proposed by Ian, revised by charles, with comments by others.

PJ Is the "editing tools" a list item?


PJ OK. (It isn't clear from the plaintext formatting on the list)

JT It is easy to miss the accessible software point. But that's OK

PJ don't need word 'production' in second sentence of second paragraph.

DB Looks OK to me

IJ I am not so happy about the single issue example.

CMN I am happy to leave it out...

JT Part of the reason for this was becuase it came from the text that was introductory to specific guidelines

PJ Can we be more general, rather than getting into one in detail?

JT Or make it more general

PJ I think we should give some actual examples of design issues.

CMN How about if we drop the example itself?

PJ I would like to delete the detail of the automation example, add "checking accessibility".

JT I would agree with that, as long as we explain why it is important in an authoring tool. We need to make the point that the authoring tool is probably the most important place to have this occur

Resolved: JT to propose text, to be incorporated in place of detailed example. Add checking for accessibility to issues.

DB What does normative mean? Can you put in some explanatory text

PJ Could we define it in glossary and link to it?

Resolved: Put definition in glossary

IJ What needs to be clear is that normative is related to conformance. So the techniques document does not impact conformance.

JT We could just say "not a requirement for conformance" here.

PJ Could we add in the introduction a request for techniques.

CMN Certainly. It sounds like a good idea.

Resolved: Put public request for further techniques into techniques introduction

Reordering Checkpoints

CMN We had decided to keep 2.1 before others although we wanted generally to have priority order. If we treat relative priority as P1 for purposes of ordering then we only have two changes apart from that.

DB are we saying that W3C recommendations are not published standards?

JT No. It is a reading order. We think that it is better where applicable to use a W3C recommendation

PJ Can we put into the intro text of the guidelines to use W3C standards where applicable, and after that to use a published standard.

JT In 2.2 should we use "produce"

PJ "this is necessary for User agents to be ale to transform web content to a presentation appropriate to a particular user's needs.

Resolved: Add text to checkpoint intro, change note for 2.2

PJ Document language - should we say document markup language.

Resolved: Use "markup language" where that is what we mean. Define it as the encoding language...

JT What happens if there are P1 and relative pronouns

CMN Suggest to leave them as they are ordered in that case.

Resolved: Move 4.4 and 6.2 as proposed

Sample implementations

Nobody has had time to review yet...

Resolved: Put the SMILey example it into document

Last Call

JT We are wanting to make a decision and put the document to last call. There haven't been any substantive changes, last call is a good opportunity to get outside review. Proposed to put it out for last call in about two weeks.

CMN Last call draft is a working draft. Working group doesn't plan to make changes. We call on all teh W3C groups who have relationship ot this to sign it off or identify show stoppers, and we have to answer all issues reaised before we can ask for a Proposed Recommendation. List of groups we need to talk to in W3C is SVG (they require conforming generators to conform to these guidelines in their current working draft), SMIL, HTML, MathML, WCAG, WAI IG, WAI EO, User Agent Guidelines, WAI PF, Amaya.

PJ I am concerned that a 5 week last call will just mean people take that time. Maybe we should shorten it to four weeks or so.

CMN Agreed, but on the other hand the longer time allows developers to go away and think, ask questions, and get feedback and think again. There is not much value in finishing a long way before the meeting

PJ We want a buffer of some time.

CMN We curerntly would have about 5 days to organise issues for the meeting...

PJ OK. Sounds good to me - that means we can shoot for the end of the year as a recommendation

CMN Depends a bit on the schedule - earliest possible is about the start of December I think. But this is not a secret negotiation - you can go to your development teams and say we think there will be a last call review - allocate time in September for review...

JT That means that the working group need to go over the document fairly carefully in the next couple of weeks and make sure it is OK. Phill you had identified guideline 1 as a concern.

PJ Yes, I will have to look through that. I have read the august 5 draft and seems ok so far.

DB Sounds OK to me. I will be away next week, but will read the draft when I return - before the 24th.

JT Charles if you could prompt Bruce to take another look

Resolved: We hope to decide we will go to last call on 24th

Meeting, 7/8 October

PJ That conflicts with ATIA conference, Orlando Florida. Can we have it the next week?

CMN Conflicts with UAAG meeting Monday/Tuesday, and then with Closing the Gap.

PJ I don't think I am likely to be at ATIA. What about earlier?

JT That will start to cut into the Last call period (the Monday/Tuesday conflicts with W3C meetings)

PJ That isn't such a problem.

Resolved: Ask the list if 7/8 October is OK.


Copyright  ©  1999 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio ), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements.

Last Modified $Date: 2000/11/08 08:11:51 $ by Charles McCathieNevile