DG: Doug Grude, Adobe Systems
JT: Jutta Treviranus, ATRC, U. of Toronto
LNG: Lou Nell Gerrard, Microsoft
JR: Jan Richards, ATRC, U. of Toronto
MM: Matt May, W3C/WAI
CMN: Charles McCathieNevile, W3C/WAI
JT: Thoughts for next f2f: limited due to MM's wedding (22 Sep), and
September 11. Space in DC?
MM: I have no details on that.
JT: What are MM's constraints?
MM: Away 9/20 and 23, 9/28-10/12. Mentioned 9/18-19 as an alternative at last
meeting.
DG: Can make it those dates.
JT: Check with Liddy?
JR: Works for me.
JT: Constraints on Microsoft time?
LNG: Pending more details. I'll have to follow up with Heather.
JT: Tentatively scheduling next f2f for Wed-Thu 9/18-19 in Vancouver. Will
verify with host, and pass on to MM for W3C planning.
JT: Reviewed a document written by Carlos Velasco for the European Union.
Definitely not a finished document.
JR: My feedback and Judy Brewer's are being incorporated.
JT: I would propose that stronger wording go into WCAG documents regarding
using ATAG-compliant tools to create WCAG content. I'd like to draft a
proposal to WCAG to introduce ATAG.
JR: I think it should be #1 on QuickTips card.
MM: WAI is working to integrate the documents in public opinion. This kind of
thing would be in line with that.
JT: Problem is that that message isn't strong enough within WCAG vis-a-vis
compliance. ATAG needs to be there front and center.
MM: We're trying to bring documents together in that sort of way.
JR: I think what Matt's trying to say is that WAI is pushing to have all
guidelines documents viewed together.
ACTION JR: Create a proposal for WCAG, run it by AU list
JR: MM and I have put together a revised Wombat draft, and I have a new
techniques draft because some have been split due to reordering. This is the
first Wombat techniques draft. I think we should publish ATAG 1
implementation techniques first, and then a working draft of the new Wombat
guidelines and techniques.
JT: Where are the ATAG implementation techniques posted?
JR: I'll give them to MM.
JT: How long should we take to give the go-ahead to post?
JR: Nothing too objectionable.
JT: Two weeks?
JR: A window in which there can be a call.
JT: 2 weeks.
MM: Would like to take the other (Wombat) docs and push to public space after
f2f.
JT: Any further editing needed before ATAG impl techs go to Note?
JR: No major issues. May like more techniques, but that's for Wombat
techniques doc.
JT: Anything else?
JR: Would like to strip out categories and icons.
JT: We should read through the document for consistency
JR: Yes
DG: Should we "strongly recommend" items?
MM: "Recommend" is a reserved word in W3C space.
JT: This is a document of non-inclusive ways in which one can comply.
JR: If we move to a different categorization, we're apt to confuse people.
Let's keep it out of ATAG 1, and try again for Wombat.
JT: If we have one in Wombat.
JR: Right. We haven't fleshed things out yet.
JT: Agreed we should remove categories/icons from techniques?
MM: I'm concerned about losing the semantic issues.
JR: If a tool changes info, we'll have conflict issues and confusion.
CMN joins
CMN: My approach would be to allow people to be confused and try to resolve
that. Classification is useful. I think we haven't exploited its full value
because we don't have enough implementation technique info to show where it's
relevant.
JR: This is ATAG 1, not Wombat. I agree we should keep working on the idea. I
just don't think it's ready for Note status.
CMN: A Note is just a way of saying the WG has something to say. The Note
doesn't confer quality on the document. If there is substantial difference of
opinion on the classification, then I'd be happy to let it be taken out, then
publish it, and point to a document with those intact.
JT: Other thoughts?
MM: I don't have a strong opinion. It can be left in and ignored, if nothing
else.
JR: I wouldn't mind leaving it in for the draft.
JT: We'll prepare a draft and get feedback, then make a final decision when
we decide to publish.
JT: Are there any publishing issues with the other documents?
CMN: No. The publishing process for TR is light. One sends a message to the
interest group asking for responses, revising according to responses, and
publishes.
JR: That would be a good idea.
JT: Should we go towards that?
AGREED: go forward with Wombat documents toward public
draft.
JT: Guideline 7. Should we revisit this?
JR: Yes. If it helps the users.
CMN: I think it should go toward the front.
JT: Microsoft's view?
LNG: I agree. I wouldn't mind seeing it up front.
DG: Agree. For clarity.
AGREED: move Guideline 7 to Guideline 1.
DG: Agreed on Vancouver, BC?
JT: We should go on the assumption that Vancouver on 9/18-19 is a go.
DG: Location?
JT: Probably a hotel in Vancouver, BC.