W3C Web Accessibility Initiative

WAI Authoring Tool Guidelines Working Group

WAI AU Teleconference - 30 November 1999


Chair: Jutta Treviranus

Date: Tuesday 30 November 1999

Time: 3.00pm - 5:00pm Boston time (1800Z - 2100Z)

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


The Latest Draft is the Proposed Recommendation draft dated 26 October, available at http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/PR-WAI-AUTOOLS-19991026.



Action Items and Resolutions


Appropriate use of Guidelines

Refer to 29 November resolution.

Extent of tool responsibility in relative priority checkpoints.

Four issues:

  1. Adequacy of support materials. WCAG is sufficient.
  2. Resolved: remain version-independent of WCAG.
  3. Matrices useful but not mandatory for going to REC. Also, tool-dependent and may evolve as state of art changes.
  4. Should Matrix be Guidelines or Techniques? Resolved: Techniques.

Discussion of Jutta's proposed text re: matrix as example.

DB: Need to define "applicable"

CMN: I understand "applicable" to mean applicable w.r.t. a piece of content.

JR: "Applicable" also relates to the level of conformance you are aiming for.

JT: I don't think the tool can ignore some checkpoints. Minimal support may be documentation or a prompt, even if the author is doing the other work.

IJ: Look at 3.3: If there's not prepackaged content, the checkpoint doesn't apply.

CMN: That's a separate discussion, we're talking about applicability of all the WCAG checkpoints.

Discussion will continue on the list. Will finalize tomorrow.

Level of user skill

Wendy proposal on skill level and Ian skill level proposal..

GR: I'm concerned that this issue is using a lot of our time.

WL: Is notepad a level 1 compliant tool?

CMN: I think that issues about skill level arise as a result of dissent on priority levels for particular checkpoints.

JT: The request was to make more explicit the expected author skill level.

GR: I don't think we can address totally the skill level of users.

GR reads his proposal on skill level.

Priority/Redundancy of Checkpoints 4.3, 7.3, 7.4

CMN: This has been discussed before and the document reflects the WG's opinion.

No action since already replied to Greg Lowney.

Interpretation of checkpoint 7.1

Q: Does checkpoint 7.1 imply that accessibility conventions may require that access is better than is normally provided for a particular operating system?

CMN: If you only use OS guidelines, you lose. If you only use Access guidelines, you lose. You must use both.

Resolved: It does imply more than OS guidelines.

No action since already replied to Greg Lowney.

Interpretation of checkpoint 1.2

Q: Does conversion include going from one format to another?

CMN: Yes.

Resolved: Yes.

Addressed on the list.

Must checkpoint 1.3 be default?

Q: Does a tool have to default to generating accessible content, or can it be an option?

CMN: No, but note also checkpoint 5.2.

Resolved: It is an option, but the option is on by default. The WG feels that the document is already sufficiently explicit.

Action Charles: Respond to Greg on the list.

Can 7.2 be satisfied by depending on Operating System features?

Resolved: Yes.

IJ: Same in UAGL.

Do 7.4 - 7.6 require addition of features?

Q: Where a tool does not provide the functionality required by checkpoints 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6, do the checkpoints require the addition of these features to a tool?

Resolved: Yes. The checkpoint language says "Provide this function."

Should there be a "Priority 0" level - do no harm (i.e. do not change imported markup)?

CMN, GR: No, we don't want a priority 0 level. Refer to proposed text from them.

Resolved: No priority 0 level.

Action CMN and GR: Merge replies.

IJ: I recommend listing the issues briefly up front, then expanding below.

Judy leaves

Linking Checklists to Techniques Document?

IJ: Done.

Editorial comments

CMN: If I mark something as editorial, the implication is that it's up to the editors to accept or reject.

JT: Please review the editorial comments and comment on those that people don't consider editorial.

CMN: I propose in the checklists saying "Level A" (etc.) for relative priorities. This will facilitate verification at a glance.

Additional Questions

WL: If a tool has a "save as" button and that's it, what level can it conform at?

CMN: Any level. Consider Word. It has heaps of structure built in. It has all the pieces built-in, but when it converts to HTML, it doesn't make use of its own internal structure. So it fails to conform. But it could.

CMN: To what level can an image editor conform?

IJ: Do we need a definition of "applicable"?

Action Ian: Propose a short applicability definition to the list.

GR: In the policy footer, the underscore is being stripped out.

IJ: I don't see where this is happening...

Action CMN: Follow up on this.

CMN: I visited Sausage software yesterday. One comment from them for Techniques is: use illustrations!

User agent Guidelines last call

JT: UAGL Last call ends tomorrow.

Adjourned 16:25 ET.

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 Ian Jacobs