OASIS ODF Accessibility SC Meeting
Attendees
- Malte Timmerman
- Rich Schwerdtfeger
- Dave Pawson
- Pete Brunet
- Steve Noble
- Chieko Asakawa
- Nathaniel Borenstein
- David Clark
- Peter Korn
- Mike Paciello
- Hironobu Takagi
Apologies
- Janina Sajka
- Tatsuya Ishihara
Scribe(s): Dave Pawson
Agenda
Item. Roll Call
Item. TC Status Review & Feedback on ODF 1.1 Accessibility requirements
Item. Planning for ODF 1.2 (time frame, additions, etc.)
Item. Mediaobject proposal from Dave P
Item. RNIB plans for writer conversion to DAISY
Item. Gathering of use cases for Presentations - Associated work going on in Free Standards Group to address presentations
Item. Planning/Discussion Developer Guidelines
Item. Soft/hard page break issue from (Dave P)
Item. Nested list markup issue from Dave P
Item.
1 TC Status Review & Feedback on ODF 1.1 Accessibility
requirements
DISCUSSION: RS. In review. Bruce D'Arcus working on caption with
DaveP. Wants to link with metadata work.
- PK. I sent a report to the list from recent TC
meeting. Concern was that there is no XML spec for soft page
breaks. A schema today or tomorrow please Dave?.
- DP. Use of attribute on existing page break would
suffice.
- PK. Send to main list, as approved by
this group? That way we could move timeline up.
- RS.Could we add this to our existing input? Helps with
product group.
- PK. Is saving a couple of weeks that significant?
- ?? Should it be an incremental change or a new
proposal. This sounds like an addition of a section. TC could
easily consume the difference.
- NB. Anything further? Could we give the document to
implementers?
- DC. Are we OK to give it to
implementers when it's incomplete?
- PK. We say to implementers this is a draft, but to meet
deadlines is very nearly there.
2 Planning for ODF 1.2 (time frame, additions, etc.)
DISCUSSION: NB. Recap on timeframe + goals. TC blessing on 1.2 by June 07. Get our input to them by April 07, that is 10 months work.
- ?? What does TC have for 1.2?
- NB. Interest is in metadata,
- PK. Could we get Bruce on the call? Also relationships
are good for review, e.g. for spreadsheets in 1.2.
- NB. Metadata for broad use. RDF and Bibliographies could
be on the list.
- NB. Rob Weir in IBM is on metadata group. RS will talk
to him.
- NB. Priorities?
- PK. Accessibility guide. Also minutes from Edinburgh as
other material. E.g. Presentations, more table work. May
require more work than our scope alone can cover. E.g. table
work.
- CA. Presentations, diagrams etc. I have a proposal. (CA
- please re-send the proposal to list)
- DC. Use of Dublin Core? What has Accessibility
information embedded?
- DP. Any metadata set could be used if RDF is used.
- RS. Not used in terms of content, but in a way used,
yes. WAI uses role attribute which is a QNAME referring to a
taxonomy. This could be re-used. Current taxonomy is on
subject of GUI and support of AJAX. Possible use on forms, if
dynamic. Taxonomy is on WAI PF page, could go to TR page on
W3C page to make it public. Role attribute currently used,
from XHTML module. States and properties (has its own Schema),
may be added.
- DP. Could extend the current usage, with a new
taxonomy. Makes a good start for 07 timeframe.
- RS. Could a combined effort, metadata and Accessible
web content be used?
- DC. Likely use of dynamic web app in an ODF
application? Yes.
- PK. We can do forms, edit html, do the TC envision more
complex interactive documents?
- CA points to Oasis
wiki
- PK. How complex must it be before its called dynamic?
E.g. a database behind a table, compare with interactive where
web app is updating content.
- MT. This has not yet been seen.
- PK. How much is a result of the document. How much the
application? It is different to a web client.
- RS. If declarative events, javascript in the document,
expanded data model etc, then lots more interactivity.
- NB. Table proposal should be high priority for 1.2.
- RS. Powerpoint file producing rectangles from tables,
needs a lot of work.
- PK. Need to differentiate 'real' tables from graphics,
address real header usage. Good usage of metadata. Never been
realised for spreadsheets. Making complex tables more
useful.
- RS. The Metadata work makes it common with ours.
- NB. process plans need working. How to divide these
into projects to bring back to the committee.
- PK. I like the idea of early input, e.g. it was very
helpful to have CA review. These in support of face to face
meeting. We should have subcommittee type preparation in hand,
rather than a blue sky meeting.
- NB. Prepare proposals for review prior to
meeting?
- PK. Detail, but easier if we can piggyback on an
existing meeting. For budget reasons etc.
- NB. If we settle on a project list for a first pass by
a date, then look for appropriate meeting dates. E.g. late
Sept, early October 06?
- PK. Accessibility Guidelines document. It is key for
our companies, but also for other apps that read and write
ODF. Not specially for end users, but expresses
important things for accessibility.
- NB. Are our developers the audience or end
users?
- RS. We have an opportunity to get ahead, Guideline
document could help people product accessible
documents.
- DC. End users(authors) also need to know how to make
documents accessible, with the help of the implementors and
software manufacturers.
- NB. We also need people to volunteer on some of these
topics. Need leads on these.
- PK. I'd like to use the list and next couple meetings to gather
requirements for guide. We need list of topics. Then get someone to
produce outline.
- RS. Want more information on metadata.
- PK. Want an updated document for requirement one. Also
for implementors. @FIXME - Peter, what was this please?
- PK. Is IBM close to making extensions available for testing? (a-doc).
- CA. Not quite yet.
Action item: Send proposal to list
Who? CA
Due date: ASAP
Summary of Actions
- CA
-
Action item: Send proposal to list
Due date: ASAP
|
Date: 2006-06-15T15:0:00.0Z
Time: 1600Z
Venue: Telcon
Date: 2006-06-16T08:47:35.0Z
Version: 1