AUWG Teleconference Notes, 26 August 2002
Participants
DG: Doug Grude, Adobe Systems
JT: Jutta Treviranus, ATRC, U. of Toronto
LNG: Lou Nell Gerard, Microsoft
JR: Jan Richards, ATRC, U. of Toronto
MM: Matt May, W3C/WAI, scribe
PJ: Phill Jenkins, IBM
Use of icons in techniques document
JT: Feedback on the icons?
DG: Users preferred this info.
LNG: It would help me.
JR: Idea of icons is good. What do you think about how they appear? Are categories easy to understand?
DG: Once I understand what they are, they are representative.
MM: Should we display the information differently?
DG: That would be helpful, to filter items out.
JT: Other ways?
LNG: People tend to learn the icons.
DG: Agree.
JR: I was worried that because Wombat techniques may use different types. Wombat should be using views.
MM: Could this be better done using text with spatial separation and color?
JT: Agreed that Wombat is going to use views?
DG: I don't know. We should seriously consider it.
JT: I think we should decide in which form we should publish this ASAP. The only factor that bleeds over into Wombat is the versions of tool. The question is, in the present state, are the icons okay?
JR: Publish and allow preferences?
MM: Yes, that's possible. We could provide links between them.
DG: Agreed.
JT: Would this be the best way to publish them?
MM: We'd be presenting info in one form, and not in the other.
PJ: Agreed. We'd be missing tool categories.
DG: Agreed.
JT: Can we ask IG for feedback?
PJ: Sure.
PJ: An issue: While I was reading Wombat doc, the beginning section says we're going to detail differences between 1.0 and Wombat. Does that doc exist? There should be.
JT: procedure. Still working on icons.
JT: Should we publish two versions of the document as the Note for techniques document?
DG: Is the alt text okay for the icons?
JT: It can be noisy on screen readers.
DG: If that's customizable, then we're okay.
JT: It may be that some users would prefer it without the icons.
PJ: The alt has to be consistent, anyway.
PJ: They all say "tools technique". We should use just the names of the icons.
JR: The names are, e.g., "Markup Editing Tools", "Multimedia tools", etc.
PJ: Should leave out "tools".
JT: Agreed?
(agreement)
JT: Any further edits to this document needed?
JR: Not that I can see.
DG: Nothing jumped out.
JT: Agreed that we should publish?
DG: Appendix A is in a different font.
JR: Dropping evaluation techniques link?
(for ATAG 1)
(agreement)
PJ: Any link between ATAG techs and Wombat?
JR: Maybe backwards, but not forwards.
PJ: Should be a backwards link.
MM: Shouldn't be in a note. The Note should be a complete piece, and shouldn't be referring to works in progress.
JT: But will have reference to it on the web site.
PJ: I disagree. Notes shouldn't be as strict as Recs.
MM: We shouldn't be referring to them in perpetuity. We should claim that this is complete.
PJ: I think we should be pointing to Wombat techniques anyway.
DG: Once we get Wombat to a "beta" stage, I think it's fine to refer to people using Wombat.
JR: What if we said in the notes that work on ATAG is ongoing?
PJ: Agree.
JR: Should we be pointing people to ATAG 1 or Wombat techniques?
PJ: Wombat.
MM: Then we should question whether to publish ATAG 1 techs as a Note.
JR: ATAG 1 is a Rec, so we need to publish techniques.
DG: Do we have release criteria for what types of content can change when?
JR: We can say, if you're looking for techniques to comply with ATAG 1, here is the document. For newer thinking, look at Wombat techs, but know that these can change.
PJ: But most map back to 1.0.
JT: Proposal: make something of the proposed Note and how to refer one to the other.
JR: Some are numbered "T????". They need to be numbered.
JT: Also some that haven't been categorized.
JR: Draft ready for publication as a Note for consideration next meeting.
Wombat development
JT: Wombat proposal to publish as a note.
MM: As Recommendation-track document.
(MM gives Rec-track description)
JT: How many drafts can we publish?
MM: As many as we want.
PJ: But we should be publishing every three months?
MM: Correct.
JT: Numerous checkpoint mergings, edits, etc. in Wombat.
JR: We have issues flagged throughout the document.
JT: Should we do a walkthrough?
JR: "WCAG 1 Reference"
JR: Should we be referring to WCAG 2?
PJ: Yes.
MM: I think we should be referring to the latest WCAG TR draft.
MM: As long as we're not deep-linking (referring to checkpoints), we can refer to /TR/WCAG20
JT: Should we be referring to this as ATAG 2.0?
PJ: I think we may still want this to be ATAG 1.1.
JT: Are you proposing that the Wombat changes be released as 1.1 and not 2.0?
PJ: I want to leave that open.
MM: I don't think we can publish this unless it's at least WCAG 2-ready.
PJ: It clearly states in the draft that when WCAG 2 becomes a Rec, that Wombat will be ATAG 2.
I think that referring to "2.0" gives more credence than "Wombat".
JR: Can we work toward 2.0 and still retrofit it as 1.1?
MM: We would have to jump through some hoops, but could add a "1.0 Second Edition" on a Rec track.
PJ: Is there going to be a WCAG 1 revision?
MM: I don't know.
PJ: If there is, we'll need to be able to react to that.
JT: Do we publish that as wombat or atag20?
MM: We can do it now, but shouldn't do it later than CR.
PJ: I think we should be referring to it as 1.0 Second Edition, rather than 2.0.
JR: I think it'll get more attention when WCAG 2.0 surfaces.
ACTION MM: Ask for feedback on naming scheme for ATAG Wombat