2006-132 Meeting Minutes
Roll Call
Duff Johnson, DJ Chairperson
Angie Brooks, AB Independent Accessibility Consultant
Joe Clark, JC Independent Accessibility Consultant
Ferass Elreyes, FE Netcentric Technologies
Loretta Guarino-Reid, LGR Adobe Systems
Dick Herring, DH Independent Accessibility Consultant
Greg Pisocky, GP Adobe Systems
Neil Soiffer, NS Design Science
Last meeting before the face to face meeting.
Approval of PDF/UA 2006-131 Agenda
Brooks / Soiffer
Approval of 2006-130 Minutes
Correct the spelling in last meetings minutes.
Herring / Soiffer
Report on / update and discuss PDF/UA - Action Items
Action items deferred until later in the meeting.
Discuss speeding the PDF/UA drafting process
DJ: The document can be versioned, just be aware of not abandoning a position once it is taken. Segment priorities into phases of work.
Phase 1 Plausible as a published document with an understanding that other priorities would be addressed in later versions of the document. Define those items which would constitute PDF/UA 1.0 The tagged PDF section would have many statements similar to the sorts of presecriptive statements which the PDF/UA standard would require. The group should take a look at this particular section [pdf] in that light.
LGR: There is something appealing about having a definition that will be compatible with PDF 1.6. It's clear that that may not be sufficient, such as our discussion of MathML indicates, but it's appealing to be able to layer upon this foundation.
NS: What does it mean to say we do not address certain issues.
DJ: It's not that we would not address, we would make a minimal statement.
GP: Having a straw man out there will also be a way to generate more interest.
FE: The disadvantage of the approach would be that someone follows an incomplete guideline, saying it's PDF/UA compliant, but it's still not accessible. An alternative would be to start something like what the W3C has done along Priority 1, 2, 3 etc. If you make your document priority 1 compliant, it won't be impossible for anyone to read. Prioritize basically our discussion. Working with elements that are instrumental to the access of any one group of people. Ferass then cited examples from the W3C priority definitions.
LGR: The trouble might be there are certain classes of documents where we do not have good solutions today. To be able to say that at a minimal level we would have to extend the tags for MathML.
AB: Using your example, the priority 1 would mean using alt text for math, for priority 2 we would advocate using MathML.
FE: So we could address the minimum requirement for anything. Priority 1. We would then release priority 1 and then say version 2 would address more issues so that we could define how to make multi-media even more accessible. We would address everything (not leave anything unaddressed) and this would be a minimum.
AB: I would like to come out in support of this idea. I think this is an excellent reason to go forward, as it would speed up our progress.
DH: I don't see how it would speed our progress because in addtion to technical issues, we would have to come to agreement on priorities.
AB: I think it would be easy to come to agreement on the priorities.
DH: I think we might be better to avoid that unless we are forced down that path.
DJ: You're suggesting the idea that stating minimal conditions could be done without some sort of reference to a qualification level.
DH: I am thinking we can agree on 10 - 12 things that are core. THey are mandatory and could be the basis for a spec.
DJ: PDF A-1A and PDF A 1B set different conformance levels for content.
AB: I know a lot of people believe that priority levels provide loopholes. But remember, more accessibility means more cost.
FE: No government uses priority 3, but for practical reasons, most standards like Canada and the USA are priority 1 and 2.
NS: Using shall, should, and may is a way of doing this.
JC: The reason no one adopts Priority 3 is that it is essentially impossible. If we are doing priority levels, I believe modules would be a better way of looking at it. We could do mandatory and optional. Those things are broadly identifiable and then we finess them. My counter proposal is mandatory / optional designation.
NS: Arguing about which items are worth which priority can be a long drawn out process itself.
LGR: I think that we should think about this thing as a basis of things we can agree on, then the next version is we, using math as an example, you could use alt or you could use the proper math tagging.
DJ: What about if we declare classes of documents, and say, if your document falls in this class you do these things.
NS: I am thinking about another group where a minimum bar was established and people adopted the attitude, I won't go a step forward because I won't need to go a step forward.
DH: If we make a spec with 10 or 12 items, people won't feel the need to go beyond.
FE: I agree with that. This discussion is taking place as a desire of was wanting to release something. THis would be our standard one.
NS: That's where I would suggest if we want to get something out sooner, we be explicit about what we are not addressing.
GP: What about an "at this time..."
LGR: That goes back to Betsy's statement that you should only go with statements that you would not back off from.
FE: I think priorities give us our ability to have something we don't have to back off from.
FE: You can't say we won't have any solution for math for example. It means equations won't be comprehensible.
NS: I want to put the MathML so that users get an appropriate experience. I am worried about saying alt text is acceptable, because it is easy to produce something you believe is useful and yet actually produce something that is not useful. Look at A over B plus 1 or is it A over the quantity B + 1
Inadvertent disconnect....
Back...
Ferass talking about Section 508 which is priority 1. Let's address those issues that make the document accessible to everyone vs. extremely usable to everyone.
DJ: It seems we have 2 schools of thought.
AB: Another proposal, going back to shall, should, may the way to get this out in a minimilistic sort of way would be to put this out wiht our explanations and backgrounds later, because that is what is holding us up.
DH: I am thinking we coudl be comfortable with 10 to 20 shalls at this point that we won't have to go back on.
DJ: THat is not responsive to Ferass's excellent point. What does it mean to say that we are minimal. It means pretty much any document is understandable at some level to every user. Everything we do has to accomodate everyone.
DJ: Getting people to higher priorities is difficult. If your content includes math, your content drives the necessity of adopting Priority 2.
LGR: THis is a reason for not looking at it as priorities, but a reason for looking at it as modules.
LGR: I assume that at some point the math work that Neil is proposing we will want to have in our spec, if you are going to have math, you must code math this way.
NS: It's the difference between what's useful and what's accessible.
FE: If a properly marked up exists, then use mark up.
JC: I have a suggestion, let's put this on the blog, on the following issue which one of these could be actually put into place in the real world. These are options, which ones are more implementable.
DJ: I am not sure if the blog is exposed still. Angy could you make a note for the action items list?
JC: PDF-UA.blogspot. com is still working.
NS: This could be a source of a face to face discussion item.
DJ: Speaking of which, let's move on to the next agenda item. Let's talk about the face to face meeting.
Discuss Toronto meeting, set detailed agenda
DJ: Milestones and a version 1.0 release and set a target of trying to do it in a span of months not years.
JC: Didn't we have 3 large topics to discuss
DJ: We did. Tagged PDF, tables, and MathML.
DH: Those are mostly technical kinds of things, I am wondering if they will advance a goal of having some sort of intial draft out.
Proposed agenda items.
Characterize and deploy version 1
Discuss options for version 1.0 of PDF/UA spec. Partial draft
Take advantage of Neil's work to come up with the Math proposal.
Math proposal good model for the development of the standard. Afternoon. Neil to develop suggested revision for math to the PDF reference.
Now left with systematic definition of tagged PDF, and tables. Need milestones, resolve the scheme. Last segment of the 1st day.
NS: How about review our working draft?
Now we have the draft for the first day
Admin
Version 1 options
One of the things a strategy for for putting this stuff out.
Tables and tag set.
Tag spec for the morning of day two.
NS: Is there controversy here?
FE: There is a perception that tagging is sufficient, and that is not correct. The order issues have to be addressed.
DJ: Tag definitions are also delineated here.
LGR: Not much in there about the meaning of various tags and how they should be used.
DJ: Perhaps it's about what is not here.
NS: Perhaps tables, tagging, and then a discussion for the afternoon of what we can do to get a version out.
DJ: The issue with tables is there are many kinds of tables for which the existing definitions do not allow us to represent them fairly.
NS: So should something be prepared?
DJ: On the Wiki we already have several candidate recommendations.
DJ: In the morning discuss tables.
NS: 9 to break time then breaktime to noon the tagging issue.
DJ: The updated agenda will be posted to the Wiki.
Tagged PDF and Page Content
To be discussed in Toronto.
Set meeting schedule for the next 4-5 months
To be discussed in Toronto.
Wrapup
That's it for today. Looking forward to Toronto.
Adjourn
Johnson / Soiffer
