08:11:17 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #au
08:11:22 <MattCPH> rrsagent, make log world
08:11:25 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #au
08:11:30 <MattCPH> zakim, this will be wai_au
08:11:30 <Zakim> ok, MattCPH; I see WAI_AUWG(f2f)4:00AM scheduled to start 11 minutes ago
08:17:40 <MattCPH> jr Proposed modifying success criteria for 1.1: Previously said conforms to ISO 16071. Suggested that be changed to "interfaces that are also Web content must conform to WCAG"
08:20:19 <Greg> Greg has joined #au
08:22:37 <Greg> Success criteria 2 of Checkpoitn 3.1 has been deleted
08:23:17 <km> km has joined #au
08:23:48 <Greg> JR: Checkpoint 3.5 Provide funcgtionality for managing  editing and reusing equivalent alternatives for multimedia objects
08:34:13 <Greg> Greg has joined #au
08:35:45 <Greg> Technique 3.5.2 passed
08:36:14 <Greg> Technique 3.5.3 
08:36:49 <Greg> CMN I would take out the italics and then add the term Strongly Suggested. We can't figure out how you meet the checkpoint if you don't do this
08:37:34 <Greg> JR: This is our success criteria so perhaps strongly suggesting it here may not be appropriate here. You're right it should be strongly suggested
08:37:48 <Greg> KM: Note italiczed?
08:37:59 <Greg> Technique 3.5.4
08:39:32 <Greg> JR: THe reference to 3.4 should be ATAG 2.6. Added pre-packaged authored content (see ATAG 2.6)  
08:39:39 <Greg> GP: May for might
08:39:57 <Greg> Technique 3.5.5
08:40:53 <Greg> LN: May for might
08:41:23 <Greg> JR: Is strongly suggested needed for 3.5.3
08:41:31 <Greg> CMN: Okay to delete it
08:41:34 <Greg> It was deleted
08:41:42 <Greg> Checkpoint 3.6
08:42:22 <Greg> Technique 3.6.1
08:42:29 <Greg> CMN: in for within
08:43:55 <Greg> CMN: recommended added Technique 3.6.3 EARL can be used to store accessibility status information
08:44:01 <Greg> JR: Fair to say?
08:44:05 <Greg> CMN: Yep
08:44:55 <Greg> GP: Please define EARL?
08:45:11 <Greg> CMN: Evaluation and Repair Language
08:45:23 <Greg> JR: Should we mention interoperability as a part of that?
08:45:33 <Greg> CMN: Why?
08:45:42 <Greg> JR: Well we do mention technique
08:46:36 <Greg> 3.6.3 amended to read Evaluation and Repair Language [EARL] can be used to store accessiblity status information in an interoperable form.
08:47:00 <Greg> ATAG Checkpoint 3.7 
08:49:13 <Greg> Technique 3.7.2 amended to read Provide direct links to context sensitive help on how to operate the features.
08:51:17 <Greg> CMN: 3.7.3 might actually belong in 3.8
08:54:40 <Greg> Editors note added remove references to can and replace with "do"
08:55:07 <Greg> Technique 3.8.1 Include relevant accessible authoring practices in examples [STRONGLY SUGGESTED]
08:56:13 <Greg> Old 3.8.1 now 3.8.2
08:57:43 <chaalsCPH> chaalsCPH has joined #au
09:00:26 <Greg> JR and CMN engaged in discussion of how to reconcile both techniques 3.8.1
09:00:48 <Greg> New numbering scheme (updated) imposed
09:01:04 <Greg> Technique 3.8.3
09:03:27 <Greg> Technique 3.8.3 Amended to read In the documentation, provide at least one model of each accessibility practice in the relevant WCAG techniques document for each language supported by the tool. Include all levels of the accessibility practices.
09:03:43 <Greg> Technique 3.8.4
09:04:00 <Greg> JR: Is this really necessary?
09:05:23 <Greg> Technique 3.8.4 Amended to read Plug-ins that updagte the accessiblity features of a tool should also update the documentation examples.
09:05:35 <Greg> Technique 3.8.5
09:08:04 <Greg> Technique 3.8.5 deleted
09:08:46 <Greg> New 3.8.5 [formerly] 3.8.6
09:09:36 <Greg> 3.8.5 amended to read Implement context-sensitive help for accessibility terms as well as tasks related to accessibility
09:10:10 <Greg> Technique 3.8.6 amende to read Provide a tutorial on checking for and correcting accessibility problems
09:10:26 <Greg> Technique 3.8.7 passed
09:10:36 <Greg> Techniques 3.8.8
09:10:48 <Greg> passed
09:11:40 <Greg> Technique 3.7.3 was moved to  become Technique 3.8.9
09:11:48 <Greg> Checkpoint 3.9
09:12:27 <Greg> Technique 3.9.1 
09:12:29 <Greg> passed
09:12:40 <Greg> Technique 3.9.2
09:15:39 <Greg> amended to read Explain the importance of accessibility for a wide range of content consumers, from those with disabilities to those with alternative viewers
09:15:58 <Greg> Technique 3.9.3
09:24:17 <Greg> amended to read Avoid referring to accessibility as being exclusively for particular groups (e.g. for blind authors). The sentence "Consider emphasizing points in "Auxialiary Benefits of Accessibility featues" a W3C-WAI resource was moved to 3.9.2
09:28:39 <Greg> Technique 3.9.4 amended to read In addition to including accessibility information throghout the documentation provide a dedicated accessibility section.
09:42:18 <Greg> Greg has joined #au
09:43:31 <Greg> success criteria 2 now changed to read For tools that lack a particular accessibility-related feature, the workflow description must include a workaround for the missing feature.
09:46:36 <Greg> The note was amended to read Meeting this success criteria will not suggice to meet the checkpoints related t the missing accessibility-related feature
09:47:07 <Greg> 15 minute break at 11:45
10:11:36 <Greg> Greg has joined #au
10:13:31 <Zakim> Zakim has left #au
10:14:47 <Greg> Technique 4.1.1
10:25:42 <Greg> Checkpoint 4.2
12:42:56 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #au
12:43:08 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #au
12:43:16 <MattCPH> zakim, this will be wai_au
12:43:16 <Zakim> WAI_AUWG(f2f)4:00AM has been moved to #au by MattCPH
12:43:17 <Zakim> ok, MattCPH; I see WAI_AUWG(f2f)4:00AM scheduled to start 283 minutes ago
12:52:12 <Zakim> WAI_AUWG(f2f)4:00AM has now started
12:52:19 <Zakim> +Barry
12:53:29 <Zakim> +Helle_Bjarno
13:01:22 <Zakim> +Treviranus
13:38:05 <Zakim> -Barry
13:46:38 <MattCPH> icon discussion:
13:48:05 <MattCPH> jr My thinking was that if you can see color, it's easier to consume.
13:48:24 <MattCPH> mm Think there should be spacers when a given thing is off.
13:52:54 <Zakim> -Helle_Bjarno
13:52:55 <Zakim> -Treviranus
13:52:56 <Zakim> WAI_AUWG(f2f)4:00AM has ended
13:52:57 <Zakim> Attendees were Barry, Helle_Bjarno, Treviranus
14:21:08 <MattCPH> ln Do we have it in us to work on getting metadata into WCAG?
14:21:11 <MattCPH> jt Yes.
14:21:28 <MattCPH> jr Prompting & assisting for doc structure : Greg, Barry?
14:21:40 <MattCPH> jr P&A for style sheets: Tim
14:21:45 <MattCPH> zakim, this is wai_au
14:21:45 <Zakim> ok, MattCPH; that matches WAI_AUWG(f2f)4:00AM
14:21:51 <MattCPH> zakim, who's here?
14:21:51 <Zakim> On the phone I see Helle_Bjarno, Treviranus
14:21:52 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, chaalsCPH, km, MattCPH
14:22:38 <MattCPH> jr P&A for device-independent handlers: Matt
14:27:54 <MattCPH> jr making minor changes to ATAG: Matt, Jan
14:31:07 <MattCPH> jr general reformatting of techniques, Matt, Jan
14:34:25 <Zakim> +Tim_Boland
14:45:31 <MattCPH> tb Should we discuss another TR draft before last call?
14:46:02 <MattCPH> mm Only benefit would be more comments from IG. Very few (~0) received last time.
14:46:10 <MattCPH> tb Does WCAG schedule affect ours?
14:46:12 <MattCPH> mm No.
14:51:42 <MattCPH> tb Thinking about how to reuse WCAG tests. They have a test matrix under consideration. Good to be consistent if possible.
14:52:41 <MattCPH> tb How to proceed?
14:52:56 <MattCPH> jr Was going to ask you the same question. What steps can we put down as how to progress?
14:53:20 <MattCPH> tb I was thinking about putting down templates for evaluation.
14:55:46 <MattCPH> tb I wrote a draft of the process based on QA template. Non-normative handbook on WG QA process.
14:56:39 <MattCPH> tb Should consider this doc for our testing.
14:57:44 <MattCPH> tb Would WG build tests, or acquire them? XML group was able to acquire test materials. Most of CSS tests have been developed by module owners.
14:57:49 <MattCPH> jr Something to investigate.
14:58:51 <MattCPH> tb Testing capability would be a requirement before exiting CR.
15:00:20 <MattCPH> jr If we go in and say we can't create a test suite for every type of tool, etc., but we can create a test suite for one that produces XHTML.
15:03:28 <MattCPH> cmn Asking staff contact to discuss this with W3C team, the decision-makers are going to be able to answer what is needed.
15:05:48 <MattCPH> tb Would be good to get feedback.
15:06:16 <MattCPH> cmn WG has to convince Tim Berners-Lee that the spec has been tested and can be implemented. He's hard to pin down on that.
15:07:07 <MattCPH> cmn People do project reviews with team members to present work and argue about it. Given how to test stuff is an issue, it's a good way to get feedback.
15:07:58 <MattCPH> cmn My guess is that after CR, you'd want to have reviews of several (4-5) tools because of the difficulty of writing a big test suite. Having examples gives people something to follow and a good template.
15:08:38 <MattCPH> cmn In practice, you can't rely on WCAG 2, or more detail out of WCAG 1. So there's a coordination issue.
15:09:45 <MattCPH> cmn I think the only way to get Tim's opinion is project review.
15:10:45 <MattCPH> jt I don't think we'll get a test suite that will cover all the dimensions.
15:11:16 <MattCPH> jr Type of tool, format it outputs, platform it runs on.
15:12:21 <MattCPH> jt If we use a high degree of human judgement, we can created a guided evaluation tool.
15:13:02 <MattCPH> jr I like the idea of a project review.
15:14:08 <MattCPH> jr How long would that take?
15:14:11 <MattCPH> mm Over a month.
15:14:19 <MattCPH> tb I'd be happy to help.
15:27:11 <MattCPH> tb feedback from i18n?
15:27:24 <MattCPH> mm We can ask them. Not sure what kind of response we'd get.
15:32:24 <MattCPH> tb At some point, we'll have to point out how to claim conformance.
15:32:53 <MattCPH> jr Could ATAG refs to WCAG be normative?
15:33:05 <MattCPH> mm I think it could be an appendix to ATAG 2.
15:34:10 <MattCPH> cmn It points to what is available abstractly.
15:38:01 <MattCPH> cmn If you want to make it a note, it should be trivial. All the note means is, here's some stuff we were thinking about.
15:41:21 <MattCPH> mm Or could split them up, release WCAG 1 doc with ATAG 2, release WCAG 2 with ATAG 2 when it gets to Rec, and point to it from a document outside of TR.
15:42:09 <MattCPH> cmn Have to have a way to say you can conform with WCAG 1 now. And even with the latest draft version, if you choose.
15:42:49 <MattCPH> cmn Whether you slice out multiplexer as a separate document, you have to have a complete set for conformance.
15:43:17 <MattCPH> cmn RDF is a spec with 12 documents. You can say, we want to make ATAG 2.01 which updates mapping to WCAG 2.
15:44:14 <MattCPH> jt What if we pull this back into the document, and publish 2.01 where all we change is WCAG 2?
15:44:19 <MattCPH> s/jt/jr/
15:44:33 <MattCPH> jt That's not as clean as what we had. I like the way we're cleanly referencing this external document.
15:46:37 <MattCPH> tb Somewhere in the process it needs to be specified precisely what version of WCAG the conformance is made against.
15:47:28 <MattCPH> jr Can we have multiplexer as a Note?
15:47:29 <MattCPH> mm Yes.
15:47:44 <MattCPH> cmn Can't have a Note as a normative reference.
15:48:11 <MattCPH> cmn Conformance must be in Recommendation as to how to conform.
15:48:51 <MattCPH> cmn You can put this stuff into a normative document, either as ATAG, or as a separate piece designed to change, and when WCAG 2 comes out, update the second Rec.
15:49:42 <MattCPH> cmn As long as we can keep this reference document chiseled in stone.
15:49:46 <MattCPH> s/cmn/jr/
15:51:52 <MattCPH> cmn There's a link to Mapping ATAG Recommendation, and that points to the latest version.
15:59:50 <Zakim> -Helle_Bjarno
15:59:51 <Zakim> -Tim_Boland
15:59:52 <Zakim> -Treviranus
15:59:53 <Zakim> WAI_AUWG(f2f)4:00AM has ended
15:59:54 <Zakim> Attendees were Helle_Bjarno, Treviranus, Tim_Boland
16:13:45 <MattCPH> zakim, bye
16:13:45 <Zakim> Zakim has left #au
16:13:49 <MattCPH> rrsagent, bye
16:13:49 <RRSAgent> I see no action items