IRC log of au on 2004-01-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

21:03:03 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #au
21:03:10 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #au
21:03:15 [MattSEA]
zakim, this WAI_AUWG
21:03:15 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this WAI_AUWG', MattSEA
21:03:21 [MattSEA]
zakim, this is WAI_AUWG
21:03:21 [Zakim]
ok, MattSEA
21:03:32 [MattSEA]
zakim, who's here?
21:03:32 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Jan_Richards, Matt, [IBM], Greg_Pisocky
21:03:33 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Zakim, RRSAgent, MattSEA
21:03:43 [MattSEA]
zakim, [IBM] is Kip_Harris
21:03:43 [Zakim]
+Kip_Harris; got it
21:04:24 [MattSEA]
RRSAgent, pointer?
21:04:24 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2004/01/12-au-irc#T21-04-24
21:05:27 [Zakim]
+??P12
21:05:45 [MattSEA]
zakim, ??P12 is Karen_Mardahl
21:05:45 [Zakim]
+Karen_Mardahl; got it
21:07:21 [MattSEA]
agenda+ f2f
21:07:26 [MattSEA]
zakim, take up agendum 1
21:07:26 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "f2f" taken up [from MattSEA]
21:07:44 [MattSEA]
jr Plan is for Austin in February.
21:07:51 [Zakim]
+Tim_Boland
21:08:13 [MattSEA]
kh Got the room and catering. What time do we start, and when should we bring in the lunch?
21:08:29 [MattSEA]
jr We start at 9, so 8:30 is when we start filtering in.
21:08:54 [MattSEA]
jr Lunch at 12, then wrap up 5-5:30
21:09:20 [MattSEA]
jr A range of hotels would be good. 2 or 3.
21:10:18 [MattSEA]
kh Internet connectivity?
21:10:34 [MattSEA]
jr We'd prefer high-speed, but if all else fails, dialup is passable.
21:11:05 [MattSEA]
jr Anybody who is in the center who would like to present is welcome.
21:11:52 [MattSEA]
agenda+ Plan for publishing new ATAG WD
21:11:57 [MattSEA]
zakim, take up agendum 2
21:11:57 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Plan for publishing new ATAG WD" taken up [from MattSEA]
21:12:12 [MattSEA]
jr Need to plan a draft for late January or early February.
21:13:36 [MattSEA]
mm Need to sync up latest version, and catch everyone on action items.
21:13:42 [MattSEA]
km Would like to help coordinate that.
21:13:57 [MattSEA]
jr May want to schedule an extra meeting next week at this time. Availability?
21:14:20 [MattSEA]
kh Do we have a list of action items?
21:14:46 [MattSEA]
tb Next Monday is Martin Luther King Day in the US. I can attend.
21:15:04 [MattSEA]
ACTION: mm and jr Work on a list of action items
21:15:40 [MattSEA]
jr Once we identify actions we can divide it up by participant expertise.
21:16:18 [MattSEA]
kh We think ATAG is ready for a technical review?
21:16:26 [MattSEA]
jr Yes, some work to do, but should get outside review.
21:16:49 [MattSEA]
jr Some items from Geoff Deering, who has a CMS background to offer, has thoughts to offer on the guidelines. We're still open to that input.
21:17:24 [MattSEA]
tb Plan for going to last call?
21:17:32 [MattSEA]
jr We'd like to be a Rec by end of year.
21:17:52 [MattSEA]
jr Judy has been pushing for an end of January date.
21:19:11 [MattSEA]
kh If we're going to get a draft out by end of month, we would need the techniques in by this time next week.
21:19:24 [MattSEA]
kh Is that what we're proposing?
21:20:13 [MattSEA]
jr Guideline 2 is back in, from Liddy. My piece is close. Tim had two reports on his action.
21:20:30 [MattSEA]
tb Still questions about ISO 16071 and its terms for release.
21:20:51 [MattSEA]
kh We need to know what needs to happen by when to get things out by the end of the month.
21:21:19 [MattSEA]
jr If it slips by a week or so, it's not a big deal. But we need an issues list, assembling the techniques, etc. quickly.
21:22:43 [MattSEA]
jr If Matt and I can have an issues list out by the 14th, and we can put techniques together by the 19th, I can do that.
21:23:13 [MattSEA]
kh We had an open question about whether the fee required for an ISO spec was an inhibitor to us referencing the ISO document.
21:23:20 [MattSEA]
mm I'll get an answer to that by the 14th.
21:23:50 [MattSEA]
ACTION: mm Find out about referencing fee-based documents (ISO 16071)
21:24:05 [MattSEA]
ACTION: mm and jr Issues list for ATAG by 14th
21:25:18 [MattSEA]
gp I need a little help with my piece.
21:25:24 [MattSEA]
jr Matt and I can coordinate with you.
21:25:57 [MattSEA]
km I have references to this info
21:26:07 [MattSEA]
jr Glossary issue. Karen?
21:26:34 [MattSEA]
km I matched up the glossary with ATAG and the techniques. They're identical. I think we should pull it out of ATAG 2.0 and leave it in the techniques.
21:26:56 [MattSEA]
jr How does that square with the guidelines as a normative document?
21:27:48 [MattSEA]
mm Would prefer to leave it in ATAG Rec and take out of techniques.
21:28:04 [MattSEA]
jr Agreed to remove glossary from techniques and leave it in the guidelines?
21:28:11 [MattSEA]
(agreed.)
21:28:57 [MattSEA]
km Question about the glossary. There's been a lot of changes from earlier versions. Can I assume that what is in the current draft is approved?
21:29:19 [MattSEA]
jr What's in there now is what we're suggesting. If we've lost something and you'd like to bring it back, we can take a look.
21:29:38 [MattSEA]
tb I was asked to develop a list of terms that needed definition. Have those been defined? I could resurrect that list.
21:29:53 [MattSEA]
jr Maybe we can add that in to the glossary. We'd need to do that before it goes out.
21:31:06 [MattSEA]
agenda+ proposed changes to ATAG references doc
21:31:11 [MattSEA]
zakim, take up agendum 3
21:31:11 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "proposed changes to ATAG references doc" taken up [from MattSEA]
21:31:28 [MattSEA]
jr This addresses references to versions of WCAG. Does this work?
21:33:11 [MattSEA]
jr The doc introduces that there are 5 relative priority checkpoints, and conformance to ATAG will be with respect to a specific version of WCAG.
21:34:27 [MattSEA]
km I like it.
21:34:52 [MattSEA]
tb Question about priority 3. Some items currently don't need to be satisfied.
21:34:56 [MattSEA]
jr We're remapping them.
21:35:10 [MattSEA]
tb So all P3 items in WCAG must be satisfied, not just the ones that are in there now?
21:35:17 [MattSEA]
jr Yes. If you want to suggest new wording, ok.
21:36:54 [MattSEA]
jr In our document, we're not going to refer to any level. We're just going to look at this document.
21:37:00 [MattSEA]
tb Has the WCAG WG looked at this?
21:37:07 [MattSEA]
jr We've told them about it in a joint call.
21:37:22 [MattSEA]
jr It'll be a Note.
21:38:38 [MattSEA]
jr Tim's draft to test for ATAG conformance. It looks like a lot, I haven't had much chance to look at it.
21:39:45 [MattSEA]
tb I was just thinking about what tool vendors would have to do. Out of that came this document. Intended to stimulate discussion on how to build the testing plan for CR.
21:42:09 [MattSEA]
tb This was designed to determine what A-AA-AAA looked like, and determine an approach to a low-cost test suite for authoring tools.
21:43:43 [MattSEA]
jr Everything to do with relative priority checkpoints are necessarily a matrix. That means following WCAG as it moves along.
21:43:57 [MattSEA]
tb I intend to keep the document updated.
21:44:31 [MattSEA]
kh I thought it was a mind-expanding thing to think about. Whether there is any context for testing success criteria in other WAI documents. Are we breaking new ground?
21:44:41 [MattSEA]
tb There's a WCAG techniques TF.
21:46:41 [MattSEA]
mm UAAG test suite has several hundred tests.
21:47:24 [MattSEA]
kh So, about Tim's role-based tests, is there anything like that? Where the vendor comes up with a use-case scenario, and an author certifies that claim?
21:48:25 [MattSEA]
tb I had assumed that there was a user that knew enough about the tools, and then a tester or testers who could take that knowledge and try to verify the state of conformance.
21:48:48 [MattSEA]
jr And these could be different authors?
21:48:58 [MattSEA]
tb Yes, but they wouldn't have any a priori knowledge of the tool.
21:49:14 [MattSEA]
kh That sounds innovative to me, and interesting.
21:54:27 [MattSEA]
kh How did this work in UAAG?
21:54:47 [MattSEA]
mm UAAG was more technical. ATAG has a human element that would be worth exploring.
21:54:55 [MattSEA]
kh Would this be a TR document?
21:55:17 [MattSEA]
mm No, shouldn't be. The test suite is a support document, and shouldn't need to be released as a Note.
21:55:30 [MattSEA]
tb In CSS, errata are still being issued for CSS1 suite.
21:57:33 [MattSEA]
jr Next meeting 19 January, regular time.
21:58:01 [Zakim]
-Tim_Boland
21:58:04 [Zakim]
-Kip_Harris
21:58:05 [Zakim]
-Greg_Pisocky
21:58:05 [Zakim]
-Karen_Mardahl
21:58:14 [MattSEA]
zakim, who's here?
21:58:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Jan_Richards, Matt
21:58:15 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Zakim, RRSAgent, MattSEA
21:59:29 [MattSEA]
rrsagent, bye
21:59:29 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items:
21:59:29 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: mm and jr Work on a list of action items [1]
21:59:29 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/01/12-au-irc#T21-15-04
21:59:29 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: mm Find out about referencing fee-based documents (ISO 16071) [2]
21:59:29 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/01/12-au-irc#T21-23-50
21:59:29 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: mm and jr Issues list for ATAG by 14th [3]
21:59:29 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/01/12-au-irc#T21-24-05