20:51:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #au
20:51:12 <m3mSEA> zakim, this will be wai_auwg
20:51:12 <Zakim> ok, m3mSEA; I see WAI_AUWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
20:56:38 <Zakim> WAI_AUWG()4:00PM has now started
20:56:45 <Zakim> +[IBM]
20:59:18 <m3mSEA> zakim, call matt-bos
20:59:18 <Zakim> I am sorry, m3mSEA; I don't have the necessary resources to dial out right now
20:59:27 <m3mSEA> zakim, call matt-bos
20:59:27 <Zakim> I am sorry, m3mSEA; I don't have the necessary resources to dial out right now
20:59:41 <Zakim> +Matt
20:59:42 <Zakim> +??P1
20:59:59 <m3mSEA> zakim, ??P1 is Karen
20:59:59 <Zakim> +Karen; got it
21:00:03 <Zakim> +[IBM.a]
21:00:18 <m3mSEA> zakim, [IBM] is Barry
21:00:18 <Zakim> +Barry; got it
21:00:28 <m3mSEA> zakim, [IBM.a] is Kip
21:00:28 <Zakim> +Kip; got it
21:01:27 <Zakim> +Treviranus
21:03:34 <Zakim> +Greg_Pisocky
21:05:56 <m3mSEA> agenda+ Proposed new definitions
21:06:08 <m3mSEA> agenda+ Remaining open issues
21:06:17 <m3mSEA> agenda+ Further guideline prep for TR
21:06:22 <m3mSEA> agenda+ charter revisions
21:06:26 <m3mSEA> zakim, who's here?
21:06:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see Barry, Matt, Karen, Kip, Treviranus, Greg_Pisocky
21:06:27 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, m3mSEA
21:06:58 <m3mSEA> regrets: Tim Boland
21:08:08 <m3mSEA> zakim, take up agendum 1
21:08:09 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Proposed new definitions" taken up [from m3mSEA]
21:08:23 <m3mSEA> jt: Has everyone followed the definitions on the list?
21:09:51 <m3mSEA> km: list of definitions:
21:09:58 <m3mSEA> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JanMar/0051.html
21:10:51 <m3mSEA> jr: Accessibility Problem, Accessible Content, etc. all have to hang together.
21:11:18 <m3mSEA> jt: You're proposing that the msg sent by Jan on Sunday should be the ones?
21:11:44 <m3mSEA> km: Yes, through "accessible authoring tool interface"
21:12:03 <m3mSEA> http://www.w3.org/mid/1076256021.40265d1535c0d@webmail.utoronto.ca
21:12:37 <m3mSEA> s/authoring tool interface/authoring practice/
21:12:56 <m3mSEA> km: "Accessible web content" and "accessible AU interface" are cyclical.
21:13:21 <m3mSEA> jt: Equivalent alternative information...
21:13:31 <m3mSEA> jr: There's equivalent and there's alternative. Two different things.
21:13:50 <m3mSEA> jr: Someone had an issue with referencing disability in terms of accessibility.
21:14:37 <m3mSEA> jr: Jon Hanna brings up the issue that accessibility may not mean just to disability.
21:14:47 <m3mSEA> mm: But that's out of scope for WAI's definition of accessibility.
21:15:20 <m3mSEA> The World Wide Web Consortium's (W3C) commitment to lead the Web to its full potential includes promoting a high degree of usability for people with disabilities.
21:15:49 <m3mSEA> jt: Jon supports making it clear that this is explicitly so.
21:16:54 <m3mSEA> jt: In the staged approach, you'd refer back to WCAG for "accessibility problem"?
21:16:57 <m3mSEA> jr: Yes.
21:17:14 <m3mSEA> km: You define accessible Web content as Web content without accessibility problems.
21:17:41 <m3mSEA> jr: WCAG specifically says Web content.
21:18:10 <m3mSEA> km: So, change accessible content to accessible Web content?
21:18:22 <m3mSEA> jr: I don't mind removing the word Web.
21:18:30 <m3mSEA> jt: Karen is proposing we keep it.
21:19:24 <m3mSEA> jt: Agreed to replace accessible content with accessible Web content and removing def. for accessible content?
21:22:19 <m3mSEA> jt: Thoughts on the term accessibility?
21:22:25 <m3mSEA> jr: I'm fine with what's there.
21:23:44 <m3mSEA> ACCESSIBILITY (some of the old text could go in the introduction)
21:23:45 <m3mSEA> Within these guidelines, the concept of accessibility has two senses:
21:23:45 <m3mSEA> - *accessible web content* refers to the content produced by tools being 
21:23:45 <m3mSEA> accessible by people regardless of disability, and
21:23:45 <m3mSEA> - "accessible authoring tool interface" refers to the tools, themselves, being 
21:23:45 <m3mSEA> accessible by people regardless of disability.
21:26:01 <m3mSEA> jt: How do we handle this between ATAG and WCAG?
21:26:09 <m3mSEA> km: I think this can go in Accessibility Problem.
21:26:19 <m3mSEA> jr: I think this goes into the Note on how ATAG and WCAG go together.
21:26:39 <m3mSEA> km: From ATAG References to WCAG?
21:26:41 <m3mSEA> jr: Yes.
21:26:49 <m3mSEA> jt: Does that make it clearer?
21:27:29 <m3mSEA> jr: That talks about our relative priority checkpoints.
21:29:08 <m3mSEA> jt: Other proposed definitions?
21:29:18 <m3mSEA> jr: We then have terms that we're still working on.
21:29:37 <m3mSEA> jr: There's new work being done further down.
21:30:07 <m3mSEA> jr: Applicable WCAG Requirements:
21:30:16 <m3mSEA> JR: Those WCAG checkpoints that could reasonably to applied to the web content 
21:30:16 <m3mSEA> produced by an authoring tool. A WCAG checkpoint is "not applicable" only if 
21:30:16 <m3mSEA> the authoring tool lacks the capability to produce content that could fail the 
21:30:16 <m3mSEA> checkpoint. However, the inability of an authoring tool to pass a checkpoint 
21:30:16 <m3mSEA> does not make the checkpoint "not applicable".
21:30:50 <m3mSEA> jr: So if you have a checkpoint that couldn't possibly fail, then it's n/a. But if it couldn't add alt text, that's not enough to say n/a.
21:31:53 <m3mSEA> jr: I think it's important to say "if you can fail it, then you can't claim n/a"
21:31:59 <m3mSEA> km: Agree.
21:33:05 <m3mSEA> jr: Authoring Tool Interface:
21:33:22 <m3mSEA> originally: The means by which an authoring tool is operated by an author.
21:33:31 <m3mSEA> new: The means by which an author operates an authoring tool and receives 
21:33:31 <m3mSEA> information on the state of the tool.
21:33:51 <m3mSEA> km: Unsure if state covers everything.
21:33:58 <m3mSEA> jt: More like communication.
21:34:33 <m3mSEA> jr: Volunteers?
21:34:55 <m3mSEA> km: I can try to see if I can convey something more than state.
21:35:36 <m3mSEA> action: jutta work on definition of Authoring Tool Interface (state)
21:35:50 <m3mSEA> jr: Checking:
21:36:08 <m3mSEA> was: The process by which web content is searched for accessibility problems.
21:36:26 <m3mSEA> new: (includes "check for") The process by which web content is searched for accessibility problems. This 
21:36:26 <m3mSEA> applies to searches performed automatically or with assistance from the 
21:36:26 <m3mSEA> author. The search may be performed at specific times or be performed on an 
21:36:26 <m3mSEA> continuous basis as Web content is modified. For more information on checking, 
21:36:26 <m3mSEA> see ATAG checkpoint 3.2.
21:37:17 <m3mSEA> gp: Would using "search" in other areas of accessibility affect this? Is it really a search process? Scan?
21:37:28 <m3mSEA> jr: I could go with scan.
21:38:18 <m3mSEA> mm: "Evaluated" goes with W3C terminology.
21:39:00 <m3mSEA> jr: The process by which web content is evaluated for accessibility problems. This applies to evaluations performed automatically...
21:39:05 <m3mSEA> [agreed]
21:39:33 <m3mSEA> jr: Check for would go away:
21:40:31 <m3mSEA> "as used in 4.1, check for can refer to 3 types of checking: 1) automatically (validity, testing content of a link); 2) Needing help from the author; 3) Must rely mostly on the author and can only ask the author to check.
21:40:33 <m3mSEA> "
21:40:54 <m3mSEA> jr: This includes a lot of junk that doesn't belong here.
21:41:51 <m3mSEA> km: I'm okay with deleting "check for"
21:41:59 <m3mSEA> mm: Is there anything that can go anywhere else?
21:42:10 <m3mSEA> jr: It's already there. There's nothing here that needs to be there.
21:42:23 <m3mSEA> km: I'll check the techniques to see if anything is lost.
21:42:32 <m3mSEA> jr: Repairing:
21:42:40 <m3mSEA> The process by which web content, identified as an accessibility problem, 
21:42:40 <m3mSEA> is modified (corrected, completed, or deleted) so that no accessibility 
21:42:40 <m3mSEA> problem remains.
21:42:56 <m3mSEA> new: The process by which Web content is modified to solve accessibility 
21:42:56 <m3mSEA> problems. This applies to modifications performed automatically or with 
21:42:56 <m3mSEA> assistance from the author. For more information on repairing, see ATAG 
21:42:56 <m3mSEA> checkpoint 3.3.
21:44:24 <m3mSEA> jt: "Repairing"
21:44:28 <m3mSEA> jr: ok.
21:44:33 <m3mSEA> jr: Workflow:
21:45:16 <m3mSEA> jt: My thoughts on this is that since we're defining workflow, most of my comments are in how we're using the term. I would propose changing the wording a bit.
21:45:27 <m3mSEA> jr: "familiar or customary sequence of steps"
21:46:02 <m3mSEA> km: I like customary.
21:46:56 <m3mSEA> jr: Agreed, using "customary" instead of "required"?
21:46:59 <m3mSEA> [agreed]
21:47:04 <m3mSEA> jr: That's all of 'em.
21:47:06 <m3mSEA> agenda?
21:47:17 <m3mSEA> zakim, next agendum
21:47:17 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Remaining open issues" taken up [from m3mSEA]
21:47:54 <m3mSEA> jt: Concept of a usability study override
21:48:02 <m3mSEA> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/issues.html
21:49:10 <m3mSEA> jt: Concept was to allow someone who thought of a better way and could run a real usability study could use that to make a claim. We haven't decided as a group whether this is a good or bad thing.
21:51:19 <m3mSEA> mm: I'm worried that this is a loophole. Might be better to allow a manual override that we could approve.
21:52:16 <m3mSEA> jr: If we had a number of questions, would there be an issue if we handled MS first, etc.? What if we wind down the group?
21:52:27 <m3mSEA> jr: Is there an ISO standard for usability standards?
21:53:01 <m3mSEA> gp: There's an ISO 9241: Usability metrics.
21:55:52 <m3mSEA> km: Is the whole idea superfluous? 
21:56:20 <m3mSEA> jt: This came from developer members of the group, who felt we couldn't come up with rules that were as good as theirs.
21:59:36 <m3mSEA> mm: I don't know where we can draw a line for this.
22:00:02 <m3mSEA> jt: We have objective measures in success criteria, but it's hard to have all cases in there.
22:00:20 <m3mSEA> mm: Also hard to ensure that all usability tests will cover everything.
22:02:08 <m3mSEA> zakim, close this agendum
22:02:08 <Zakim> agendum 2 closed
22:02:09 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
22:02:10 <Zakim> 3. Further guideline prep for TR [from m3mSEA]
22:02:11 <m3mSEA> zakim, take up agendum 4
22:02:11 <Zakim> agendum 4. "charter revisions" taken up [from m3mSEA]
22:03:24 <m3mSEA> mm: I'll put out a new draft charter today or tomorrow.
22:03:40 <m3mSEA> action mm: New charter draft
22:04:51 <Zakim> -Barry
22:04:54 <Zakim> -Greg_Pisocky
22:04:55 <Zakim> -Treviranus
22:04:56 <Zakim> -Matt
22:04:57 <Zakim> -Kip
22:04:57 <Zakim> -Karen
22:04:58 <Zakim> WAI_AUWG()4:00PM has ended
22:04:59 <Zakim> Attendees were Matt, Karen, Barry, Kip, Treviranus, Greg_Pisocky
22:05:03 <m3mSEA> zakim, bye
22:05:03 <Zakim> Zakim has left #au
22:05:06 <m3mSEA> rrsagent, bye
22:05:06 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items:
22:05:06 <RRSAgent> ACTION: jutta work on definition of Authoring Tool Interface (state) [1]
22:05:06 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/02/09-au-irc#T21-35-36
22:05:06 <RRSAgent> ACTION: mm to New charter draft [2]
22:05:06 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/02/09-au-irc#T22-03-40