W3C Web Accessibility Initiative

WAI Authoring Tool Guidelines Working Group

WAI AU Teleconference - 13 October 1999

Details

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

Date: Wednesday 13 October 1999

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

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


Agenda

The Latest Draft is dated 9 October, available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI-AUTOOLS-19991009.


Attendance

Regrets:


Action Items and Resolutions


Minutes

Priority of 6.3

CMN This was never formally resolved at the meeting. We already have requirements for everything to be documented, and the documentation to be integrated

JR, JA P3 is fine

Resolved: 6.3 is priority 3

Priority of 4.1

WL This should not be relative - it should be a straight P1 for both of these, at all levels of priority

GR I can nuderstand why one would want it to be a relative priority, but there are things in WCAG where the levels are too low.

JR We can't fix WCAG

WL This is too low if it is only relative priority

JR Really? If they don't alert the author to the most trivial thing it is a P1 failure?

GR What about having a relative priority, and have the first technique as allowing the user to set different levels, with default being triple-A. I'd rathre give them the opportunity to go for double-A and give them the ability to check for everything

JR That assumes the tool has implemented a full check

CMN I think it should stay relative. In practice I suspect the tools will develop the full checking process for starters, but i think it is a reasonable approach to start at P1. (At the face to face we agreed to note that this only applied to things that can be checked - some things may rely on the author

GR We have a better chance of getting implementation if this stays relative.

WL They got to be able to do the whole lot, otherwise it doesn't work. What if the author wants to do a triple-A page?

JR Then they need a triple-A tool

WL If you can't do it with a single-A tool then it isn't good enough.

GR I see your point. If I don't know anything I should still be able to use the tool to create triple-A

JR Being able to produce is different that checking for alerting and assisting

WL If the person who is using the tool is somewhat naive then they have no hope

GR We're concentrating on poor tools here (because most of them are at the moment). The tool has to implement the features of the markup languages.

WL If it isn't P1 certain things don't have to be done

/*DB Joins

CMN If you have a single-A tool you can implement everything, and you can find out how to do everything.

JR If we remove therelativity then there is little difference between level-A and triple-A

GR It also gives developers incentive to shoot higher than single-A

CMN I think in the short term we will see companies getting to single-A as fast as possible, but we want to see them shooting for double or triple A in the medium term

GR I don't see people developing single-A from scratch, they'll aim higher. So I think Jan and Charles are right, it is more or less moot.

Resolved: No change to priority of 4.1

Priority of 4.2

CMN Phill Jenkins (and others) have said that assisting with correction of P1 problems is not a P1 requirement

WL It is true for power users

JR I think it should stay relative

CMN I agree that it should be relative. I think a minimum satisfaction is to provide some explanation of how to fix problems that are identified (see 4.1

DB I had some problems - checking and alerting is more important than assisting users

WL You could argue check for and alert is assisting...

JR Yes, you can cut this different ways

GR The key is not to require knowledge. They want to complete the task without having to become accessibility experts.

IJ A tool that only does verification is like Bobby - it tells me what's wrong. But that isn't all we want the tool to do. It should alert, because that is really important, it is just as important to help. Otherwise they are just validators. If you're not going to do any promotion/help, why have authoring. I don't feel strongly that it should be P1, but what else would a tool do but help

JR Exactly. An authoring tool should help you author.

DB Part of my problem is tat I am not sure what it means to assist - it could be as simple as context-sensitive help. I am between P1 and P2

WL If it is a don't require knowledge, and someone is charged with putting a document online, she saves as HTML and a red light comes up, then it has to help

GR, IJ, DB agree

CMN So I propose that it remains at relative priority, and that context-senstive help is a minimum satisfaction.

Resolved: Relative priority for 4.2, note that minimum satisfaction is to provide context-sesitive help

Other issues

WL Is it implicit that guideline 6 items will conform to guideline 7?

JR I think it is explicit in the document.

CMN, DB I agree

Towards Proposed Recommendation

CMN I need to put out the revised draft, and some techinque reshuffling. We need conformance evaluations, because they are how we show that checkpoints can be implemented.

Action CMN: Check with Phill about 4.2

Action everyone: review document when published and check to see if it can go to Proposed Recommendation next week.

Please everybody review techniques and conformance evaluations - tools page at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tools

Upcoming is charter review - proposal is roughly to charter for getting guidelines to Recommendation and Techniques to a Note, then review implementation and update Techniques Note in a few months, and decide whether there is a need for more work or not.


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