16:08:58 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #au
16:09:04 <MattSFO> rrsagent, make log world
16:09:11 <JR> Hi Karen, just setting up here.
16:09:15 <auwg_KM> Hi everyone  - phone problems. talked to operator and she said to try again in a few minutes
16:09:17 <Zakim> WAI_AUWG(f2f)12:00PM has ended
16:09:18 <Zakim> Attendees were 
16:09:31 <auwg_KM> 2894 is correct but was rejected
16:09:41 <MattSFO> looking...
16:10:15 <auwg_KM> I think operator is fixing so you can do something else Matt!
16:12:30 <MattSFO> zakim, who's here?
16:12:30 <Zakim> I notice WAI_AUWG(f2f)12:00PM has restarted
16:12:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.415.832.aaaa
16:12:32 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, JR, Zakim, MattSFO, auwg_KM
16:12:42 <MattSFO> zakim, aaaa is f2f
16:12:42 <Zakim> +f2f; got it
16:12:51 <MattSFO> ok, we got in, try again
16:12:54 <JR> We (in SF) are on the bridge.
16:13:15 <auwg_KM> dialing...
16:13:42 <Zakim> +??P7
16:14:03 <MattSFO> zakim, who's making noise?
16:14:08 <Zakim> -??P7
16:14:10 <Zakim> +??P11
16:14:14 <Zakim> MattSFO, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: f2f (53%), ??P7 (7%)
16:14:17 <auwg_KM> darn. that's me
16:14:38 <Zakim> -??P11
16:15:05 <auwg_KM> trying to use Skype. works beautifully to Zakim, even spoke to operator. Type in 2894# and then I hear the ocean waves pounding the rocks :-(
16:15:19 <Zakim> +??P7
16:15:38 <MattSFO> can nobody hear us?
16:15:56 <auwg_KM> should a VoIP work Matt?
16:16:07 <MattSFO> yes. sounds like local difficulties.
16:16:09 <auwg_KM> Or should I go get a regular phone?
16:16:12 <auwg_KM> OK
16:16:23 <Zakim> -f2f
16:16:31 <auwg_KM> uh - local SF or local Denmark?
16:16:38 <Zakim> + +1.415.832.aabb
16:16:39 <Zakim> -??P7
16:17:00 <MattSFO> local sf
16:17:05 <Zakim> +Treviranus
16:17:06 <Zakim> -Treviranus
16:17:07 <Zakim> +Treviranus
16:17:21 <auwg_KM> in the meantime - Jan - did you get my file with ATAG updates?
16:17:55 <Zakim> -Treviranus
16:18:29 <Zakim> +??P5
16:18:30 <Zakim> -??P5
16:18:31 <Zakim> +??P5
16:21:06 <Zakim> +??P7
16:37:23 <MattSFO> zakim, who's making noise?
16:37:36 <Zakim> MattSFO, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P5 (11%), +1.415.832.aabb (84%)
16:38:48 <MattSFO> zakim, mute ??p5
16:38:48 <Zakim> ??P5 should now be muted
16:39:48 <MattSFO> zakim, unmute ??p5
16:39:48 <Zakim> ??P5 should no longer be muted
16:39:52 <MattSFO> zakim, mute ??p5
16:39:52 <Zakim> ??P5 should now be muted
16:40:08 <MattSFO> zakim, who's making noise?
16:40:18 <Zakim> MattSFO, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P7 (37%), +1.415.832.aabb (58%)
16:40:27 <MattSFO> zakim, mute ??p7
16:40:27 <Zakim> ??P7 should now be muted
16:40:34 <MattSFO> zakim, who's here?
16:40:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.415.832.aabb, ??P5 (muted), ??P7 (muted)
16:40:35 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, JR, Zakim, MattSFO, auwg_KM
16:40:45 <MattSFO> zakim, unmute ??p7
16:40:45 <Zakim> ??P7 should no longer be muted
16:47:15 <Zakim> +Tim_Boland
16:50:11 <Zakim> -??P5
16:50:46 <Zakim> +??P3
16:51:28 <MattSFO> br: How does one draw the line as to what is a Web-based authoring tool? Freehand, for example?
16:52:02 <MattSFO> br: There are certain scenarios where this isn't really relevant.
16:52:18 <MattSFO> jr: ATAG needs to be broad enough that it can cover whatever is Web content. Fairly broad.
16:52:58 <MattSFO> jr: Should mean that a tool that is intended to be used for creating web content, can.
16:53:03 <MattSFO> br: Is that in the doc?
16:53:22 <MattSFO> action: jr Work with Bob on boundaries for what is a tool
16:53:37 <MattSFO> jt: Is that really where we wish to address this? In the definition?
16:55:06 <MattSFO> jr: To say that if you use this document, you can help to make content more accessible.
16:55:12 <MattSFO> jt: And help PWDs to use your product.
16:56:34 <MattSFO> jr: keep word "structure" in Indirect Authoring Functions?
16:56:42 <MattSFO> tb: Do we have an idea what structure means?
16:56:57 <MattSFO> jt: It's to point out that the tool should control structure if the author doesn't.
16:57:04 <MattSFO> km: We touch on that in G3.
16:57:44 <MattSFO> tb: Don't know what "structure" adds. What's the intent?
16:58:09 <MattSFO> km: thinking of content management systems. Some users have no clue what to do, and need a rigid structure.
16:59:00 <MattSFO> jt: Mechanism for doing the right thing is to outline structure. Different from user having full control of structure.
17:03:32 <MattSFO> jr: 1.2
17:03:44 <MattSFO> br: Relationship to actual users is really important. Developers don't understand that part of things.
17:06:12 <MattSFO> jr: 1.3?
17:06:24 <MattSFO> wl: XAG doesn't quite fit in there.
17:06:37 <MattSFO> mm: XAG is more about document format than UI ability.
17:09:26 <MattSFO> tb: ISO reference: Don't want to get too far down the road with this if it's a problem in CR.
17:09:43 <MattSFO> mm: We've talked with W3C comm and others about this, no problems raised. Talking again in December.
17:09:52 <MattSFO> jt: remove "high-quality" work?
17:10:16 <MattSFO> wl: "some of" the work. Early on, tool designers were saying this stuff was "taking care of". This was why we went to war.
17:11:07 <MattSFO> jt: Do we want to call it "general purpsoe software interfaces?" ISO covers all HCIs.
17:11:16 <MattSFO> jr: Yes, but for Web-based, we look back to WCAG.
17:19:04 <MattSFO> wl: Is it adequate to say WCAG is enough for Web-based tools? Learning management systems, where content is being created on both sides, for example.
17:19:08 <MattSFO> jt: Agree we need to be cognizant of who's writing and who's reading. Depends on what WCAG says.
17:19:32 <MattSFO> jr: Should go and make sure WCAG realizes there may be Web content that is in fact an authoring interface.
17:20:26 <MattSFO> mm: I've been looking at WCAG 2, and don't see anything that drives a spike between WCAG and ATAG.
17:28:27 <MattSFO> br: What about ISO as a final Standard in 2006?
17:28:37 <MattSFO> mm: Could allow dual conformance with ISO as with WCAG.
17:28:58 <MattSFO> wl: Are we conceding software accessibility to ISO?
17:29:03 <MattSFO> jr: To a large extent, yes/
17:30:59 <MattSFO> mm: But to go the UAAG route and cover everything takes too long, and conflicts with our standards harmonization platform.
17:32:57 <MattSFO> jr: I like Matt's idea of allowing ISO 16071:2006 when available.
17:33:44 <MattSFO> action tb: scope of ISO conformance
17:35:15 <Zakim> -Tim_Boland
17:35:17 <Zakim> -??P3
17:35:19 <Zakim> -??P7
17:50:48 <MattSFO> starting up again...
17:50:49 <JR> restarting.
17:51:02 <auwg_KM> dialling in..
17:52:00 <Zakim> +??P0
17:52:01 <Zakim> -??P0
17:52:02 <Zakim> +??P0
17:53:02 <Zakim> +??P1
17:58:17 <MattSFO> agreed: change G1 to "Make the authoring interface accessible"
18:14:58 <Zakim> +Tim_Boland
18:32:45 <MattSFO> wl: why is the rationale there for 1.1?
18:32:56 <MattSFO> jr: As Bob said, so developers know how to use it.
18:35:15 <MattSFO> jr: "authors with disabilities will likely be unable to use the tool."
18:35:23 <MattSFO> bf: "may find the tool unusable"
18:49:46 <MattSFO> MattSFO has joined #au
18:53:00 <MattSFO> jr: 1.1 is done.
18:56:45 <MattSFO> zakim, gpisocky is now in f2f
18:56:45 <Zakim> I don't understand 'gpisocky is now in f2f', MattSFO
18:57:06 <MattSFO> zakim, f2f now has gpisocky
18:57:06 <Zakim> sorry, MattSFO, I do not recognize a party named 'f2f'
18:57:18 <MattSFO> zakim, who's here?
18:57:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.415.832.aabb, ??P0, ??P1, Tim_Boland
18:57:19 <Zakim> On IRC I see MattSFO, RRSAgent, JR, Zakim, auwg_KM
18:57:23 <MattSFO> zakim, aabb is f2f
18:57:23 <Zakim> +f2f; got it
18:57:30 <MattSFO> zakim, f2f now has gpisocky
18:57:30 <Zakim> +gpisocky; got it
18:57:44 <MattSFO> zakim, f2f now has jrichards, matt, william, barry
18:57:44 <Zakim> +jrichards, matt, william, barry; got it
18:57:53 <MattSFO> zakim, who's here?
18:57:53 <Zakim> On the phone I see f2f, ??P0, ??P1, Tim_Boland
18:57:54 <Zakim> f2f has jrichards, matt, william, barry
18:57:55 <Zakim> On IRC I see MattSFO, RRSAgent, JR, Zakim, auwg_KM
18:58:38 <MattSFO> bf: What if there are non-viewable properties that can be edited? Are we saying that these can't be editable?
18:58:47 <MattSFO> jt: It isn't an accessible interface if it's not viewable.
19:02:21 <auwg_KM> Proposed definition: Editable: Material that an author can correct, revise, or otherwise modify at will
19:02:50 <auwg_KM> Proposed definition. Editable method: A method for correcting, revising, or otherwise modifying material intended for production.
19:03:35 <MattSFO> jr: Rationale: if some authors can edit or view properties with an authoring tool, then all authors must be able to do the same.
19:05:14 <auwg_KM> Re: Definition of display: We use this as both a noun (for some kind of device) and as a verb. Can't we safely assume that both are familiar terms, not used in ATAG-specific ways, and thus don't need a place in the Glossary?
19:12:29 <MattSFO> jt: What is the term for text equivs in WCAG?
19:12:35 <MattSFO> tb: media equivalents.
19:12:49 <MattSFO> jr: Equivalent alternatives is two adjectives stuck together. Weird term.
19:13:39 <MattSFO> bf: Grade level can be an accessibility equivalency. We're looking at the accessibility, and not the flexibility of the content.
19:14:25 <MattSFO> bf: Is it assumed that text is accessible?
19:14:35 <MattSFO> jr: WCAG specifically mentions text because it's transformable.
19:14:49 <MattSFO> bf: Is there a form of text that's inaccessible?
19:14:58 <MattSFO> tb: i18n issues with character encoding.
19:16:35 <MattSFO> jr: Go back to "equivalent alternatives", pointing to text equivalents; media equivalents to time-based presentations, and to graphics replacing other text.
19:18:48 <MattSFO> jr: propose: "all editing views must be able to meet at least: interoperate with platform-wide display settings; allow author to change tool-specific display settings"
19:19:02 <MattSFO> tb: "inherit" rather than "interoperate"
19:26:13 <MattSFO> bf: What about constraining people whose preference is de facto inaccessible: e.g., light blue on dark blue.
19:26:32 <MattSFO> jr: Or someone who is colorblind who wants to publish something that is inaccessible.
19:28:49 <MattSFO> br: WYSIWYG tool with a user's preferences changing the view is no longer WYSIWYG.
19:36:46 <MattSFO> jr: changes for author-level accessibility "must always include an option to keep the display settings of the authoring interface from affecting the markup being edited."
19:43:58 <MattSFO> jr: "All editing views must always include an option to keep the display settings of the authoring interface from affecting the Web content being edited"
19:44:09 <MattSFO> bf: "All" or "at least one"?
19:44:35 <Zakim> -Tim_Boland
19:44:45 <Zakim> -??P0
19:44:49 <Zakim> -f2f
19:44:50 <auwg_KM> good night!
19:44:55 <Zakim> -??P1
19:44:56 <Zakim> WAI_AUWG(f2f)12:00PM has ended
19:44:57 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.415.832.aaaa, +1.415.832.aabb, Treviranus, Tim_Boland, gpisocky, jrichards, matt, william, barry
19:45:21 <auwg_KM> auwg_KM has left #au
20:46:30 <JR> ...restarting in 2 minutes.
22:29:43 <Zakim> Zakim has left #au
22:38:02 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #au
22:38:06 <MattSFO> zakim, this is wai_au
22:38:06 <Zakim> ok, MattSFO; that matches WAI_AUWG(f2f)12:00PM
22:38:08 <Zakim> +??P2
22:38:20 <MattSFO> zakim, ??p2 is jutta
22:38:20 <Zakim> +jutta; got it