[Accessibility] Draft Minutes 6/1 Accessibility teleconf.

john goldthwaite jgoldthwaite at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 9 09:07:30 PDT 2005


I haven't been able to access the recording yet to
finalize. I thought I'd distribute this now as I'm
will be out in the woods until sunday.


June 1, 2005 Accessibility meeting

Gunnar Schmidt
Olaf Schmidt
Bill Hanaman		
Janina Sajka
Matthew Wilcox
John Goldthwaite
Larry Weiss	
George Kraft
Pete Burnet
Andreas Gonzales	 
Earl Johnson			

George posted minutes this morning.  Will hold
approval until all have had opportunity to review
them.  If no objections within 48 hours, they will be
considered approved and will be posted.  We had a good
session last week.  Sessions will be recorded starting
today.

Activity on the ISO working group which as proposed a
gap analysis.  There are additional documents on their
website.  
Bill- do we have a contact with that workgroup?
Janina- I am the formal contact and I believe I will
attend their meeting in Toroto.
Bill- the current state of things is not documented
well enough for anyone outside the developer community
to do a gap analysis.  They may make assumptions ..
Janina- I will make sure they get that message.
Bill- even if they come up with a gap analysis without
consulting us, it will be at best confusing. If they
are in agreement that’s okay but if it is divergent it
is a problem.

Earl- is this the INCITS group headed by Connie Myers?
Janina- yes but it is the JTC 1.

George- if you are in the national body you can review
and comment.
Janina- we can comment as FSG.  After the Singapore
meeting, FSG can submit directly to JTC.  
Bill- if we are productive in our current gap analysis
activity, we should feed that information to JTC.
Olaf
Earl- I thought it was a gap analysis about
accessibility standards and not OS.
- some time people see only AT written with a
particular tootkit. But these are complementary.
Janina- I believe they are at a level above API at
this point.  They are more at the level of Section 508
has x ,,
Bill- then it’s a harmonization activity?
Janina- yes, its to make sure that accessibility is
planet wide and not different in various political
areas.  Industry doesn’t want to meet different spec’s
in each political region.  The group is new, it has
only had one member.  The next will be at the
University of Ontario, E. Trevanious will be hosting. 
You are limited as a member of a national body about
what you can say. There is assumption that the members
of a national body will come to a consensus before
speaking.

Earl- On the keyboard spec the goal was to have it
completed in June.  I’m working on adding some test
assertions.  The June date won’t be met but we should
make July for finalization.  I’ll be on vacation from
next week until July 11.   I’ll be working on it but
its taking longer than I anticipated.
Janina- better to get it right than to meet a
particular date.  We have some outstanding issues - we
owe NSF a report and we still need to complete the
transcripts.  We hope to have the transcripts in June.
 We may be able to spend some additional 

We had a deep dive with Bill last week on AT SPI..  
What are the next steps?  We are going to have more
complex doc’s.  Its better to build it in than to add
it on as Peter said. 		

Bill- If it is the case that we have visited a
significate part of the area around documents, we
could propose a strawman extension or set of
extension.  Not necessarily to advocate them but to
use to discuss them as to whether they are adequate or
necessary.  
Olaf- I think it is also a good idea.  We can discuss
whether it needs to be extended.	

Bill- I everyone agrees, I would take an action to
create an extension to AT SPI to address some of the
issues that have arrise. .. Will address as many as
possible, t

Time frame?
Bill- I think I could have a draft proposal by our
next meeting.
Janina- since we are in agreement, do we have an idea
of how we will test whether this meets the needs for
complex documents?   If the we have t
Bill- if something is expressible in an API we may
have to do that as a paper excercise, may not have to
write software.  Where there are performance issues,
we will have no choice but to test it with software. 
We have to demonstrate that there is a performance
problem and then quantify it.  On other fronts, it
could be a paper excercise.
Olaf- I very much agree with that.  If we are looking
at what needs to be extended, its .. To have a
complete solution.

Janina- will come back to this topic with Bill’s straw
man.  If takes too much time we may need to have a
separate call.   I’ll be on a plane at this time next
week

Bill- this may be best for the mail list for review
and discussion.

Janina- Certification - the keyboard will b
Bill- when we publish the first draft, we should
provide some guidance for readers.
Janina- Earl- can you see who as been cc’d on the FSG
email.   We’ve had a response from the FSG board on
guidance.  They are not first time problems, they were
encountered by LSB and internationalization.  It turns
out that while it has been addressed in the past, they
are currently reviewing it. We’re providing a level of
service for accessibility, we’d add to it as will work
on the roadmap.  Jim Zemlin has returned from China
and has requested that we set up a meeting including
Janina, Earl, Janet Sun, Arthur Tide, Amanda
McPherson.
Janina- Amanda is a PR person.
Matthew- I remember Mr. Tide from Linux Care? and I’m
unhappy that they have chosen to hire him.   				

Janina- date of meeting will be at earliest next
Friday.  It seemed most meaningful to start here.
Earl- Did you say that they don’t have any precident
for this situation?
Janina- they said that they were re-writing their
processes so they don’t have one right now.  We need
some rough text. 
Earl- that requires manual as opposed to automatic
testing.
Bill- what is implied by conformance.  Our mission
gives use a broad idea of what we are doing a why. 
But we have always had a idea of practicality.  We
need to justify the trade off and make the limitation
explicit.
Janina- we want to be clear for people that read it so
that they don’t get unrealistic expectations.  We
don’t want to demean the standards efforts but it is
critical that users understand the what is necessary
for accessibility in the OS and application.
Bill- by certifing to a low standard, a higher
standard will be impaired
Earl- it’s a minimum but the state of the art is
further along.
Bill- state of the art is too strong, perhaps best
practise.  One thing we want is the abuse of the
certification process by vendors.  There should be
limits on what the vendors can say based on
certification.

Janina- the service provided are ... but a dependent
on x using them appropriately.
Bill- it would be worth it to see how the FSG handles
this in other areas, to limit vendors over
agrandizement.
Janina- W3C is an example.  Most sites are going with
level 1 and Section 508 and not going on to higher
levels.  
Bill- these are moving targets.  If we as a group try
to specify end to end accessibility, I don’t think
we’ll publish a spec or validation suite.
Earl- achievability is a major
Bill- we plan it to grow.  Version 2.0 will require
more.  There is the potential for providing
continually improving accessiblity.
George- example- FSG will say we are creating a access
- Keyboard access 1.0 this is what it means, what it
doesn’t mean.  If some marketing person say xxx, you
send them a note.  If they continue you slash dot
them. One xx some marketing person said y and we slash
dot’d them.

Your certification gets pulled for non-compliance. 
You have some many days to fix the problem or to
challenge.  I haven’t seen anything about people
making extra claims.  You’d have to be very explicit
about what they can say in claims.  If you interated
all the claims, you could get it into the
certification.

Earl- is certification a black and white thing or are
there levels like W3C?
George- it is black and white.  If you had levels,
they would be different products.  The board would not
want to have multiple levels since it would have more
administrative costs.  

Earl - is there a risk then.  I thought we could
specify more than might be supported by current
technology.  If they say they don’t have the
technology on the platform, they could say the 
Olaf- it would pass if your system has no support for
keyboard.  Once you have a keyboard, you have to do
the testing.

Bill- at the moment we accommodate systems that don’t
pointers or mice.  The
Olaf- it would be possible to change it for a PDA or
phone if peo
Bill- if we did that it would weaken the spec for
desktops.
Olaf- if it was a standard keyboard you could say..
Bill- if a system has a shift key then hitting it 5
times starts sticky keys

Janina- based on what we’ve said., will this model
serve us with other spec’s in our pipeline.  Will it
work of SPI or doc?
Bill- keyboard is a functional spec, these other are
behavioral specs   Purpose of ABI spec is to insure
that clients can work.  If someone wrote a AT that
required a library to be present, and the library was
changed, it AT wouldn’t run.   

Janina- that’s enough to get started.  I’ll volunteer
to start on that with Earl.  We will let you know when
the FSG meeting occurs.  Can we skip next week?  Okay
our next meeting will be on the 15th.  Thanks very
much everyone.






__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 




More information about the Accessibility mailing list