Minutes from AUWG telecon, 8 Sep 2003
Attendance
jt Jutta Treviranus
pj Phill Jenkins
jr Jan Richards
tb Tim Boland
Minutes
PARTICIPATION
jt: How do we increase participation?
pj: PJ is talking with someone else at IBM about coming into the group.
tb: IT access board is part of US Gov't. Are other WAI groups having this problem?
jt: WCAG is not, but UA is.
tb: What about pooling resources?
pj: WCAG has added some more industry members.
jt: We are trying to down the same path.
pj: ITAA and ITI are two groups we can canvas for members. There is a European version. Phill has a colleague who can bring this to these groups. They have a weekly call.
jt: Would a "current challenges (What's hot)" document help?
pj: Yes.
ACTION : PJ Talking to another person in IBM about becoming a member.
ACTION : PJ Bring up ATAG with ITAA and ITI.
pj: There is a European group as well (maybe someone else (Judy?) could make the request)
ACTION : JT Ask Judy to bring up ATAG with European group.
jt: What about consumer participants.
jr: What about Janina?
ACTION : JT follow up with Janina.
ACTION : JR follow up with Bob.
REVIEW PROPOSED SUCCESS CRITERIA WORK
jt: Phill have you had a chance to look at it?
pj: Add explanation of the goals of the Success Criterisa text.
jt: How should we get PJ's feedback.
ACTION : PJ Send review of success criteria changes (???)
SOFTWARE GUIDELINES
pj: Everyone is positive, but there is still an internal IBM process to go through.
pj: Still considering submitting it as a joint proposal with other companies.
jt: Is there timeline?
pj: Hoping to have a more definite progress report by F2F in Seattle.
ACTION ITEM REVIEW
pj: When criteria prescribes user testing, we may be on more shaky ground.
jt: Macromedia and MS thought that for companies that already have a usabiity process, it would be helpful to get some guidance on how accessibility could be integrated into testing.
jr: "Typical User" only occurs once -> in 4.1. Could be tested by user testing or "Expert Witness" of developer.
pj: Maybe we can define by the number of interface steps, etc.
pj: Key word is "likely". We need to define it. ex. "No more or fewer steps than other configuration managers"
ACTION : JR Look into that (removing "likley")
pj: Then we could add a general ability to meet checkpoints with usability testing (only makes sense in 3 and 4).
ACTION : JR Look into this too ("usability over-ride")
Ê
F2F
jr: What if WCAG people called into our call.