See also: IRC log
<Jan> Scribe: Jeanne
<Jan> ACTION: All to Send additions/revisions on ATAG2 Implementation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/02-au-minutes.html#action01]
<Jan> Repository to JR/JS
JT: Legislation draft being presented that ATAG Authoring tools required for Accessibility Act Information Standard
<Jan> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2008/draft_auwg_charter_27may08.html
JS: read from Mike's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2008AprJun/0059.html
MS: It caught my attention that I didn't know what it was.
JT: This is a text base criteria, first do this, then that.
JR: TB has a draft and some material for this.
<Tim> What is topic (I'm only on IRC today)
JT: There were many more if then dependencies in ATAG 1. It could be simplified.
topic is the charter and whether more information on test material is necessary in the charter
<Tim> thanks
JT: It gives us greater flexibility in coordinating with other groups.
RESOLUTION: Keep charter wording loosely worded on the Other Deliverables test materials.
JT: We will also work with EO and collaborate with them in creating an FAQ.
JR: "Other minor supporting documents for ATAG 2.0, e.g. FAQ, as required."
<Tim> do we need to be plugged in to the WAI-AGE TF (out of EO)?
JR: who do we say we have dependency on? With WAI-AGE, we may not have a dependency, but we may want to liaison with them.
<Tim> Also what about TSDTF (test sample development task force)?
<Greg> yes
JS: Do we need to adjust the milestones?
JR: do it.
JS: ACTION: Jeanne will adjust the milestones by two months for the charter.
JT: Getting it done earlier would be wonderful.
JR: Can we send it to WAI CG and Judy?
<Tim> I agree
<scribe> ACTION: Jeanne will make the agreed edits to the charter and send them to Judy. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/02-au-minutes.html#action02]
Mike will attend in person
AnnM needs the hotel details to determine whether she can attend.
Greg has a 90% chance of being there.
Tim is teaching a class and will be attending by phone.
JR: this is a better organization of the
material.
... Should we suggest it to WCAG?
AnnM: It's an improvement in my experience.
JR: Even if WCAG doesn't organize this way,
should we still go ahead with this organization?
... WCAG is now calling it "Time Based Media". It's not a normative change,
just a reordering.
<scribe> ACTION: JR follow up with WCAG to determine if they are willing to change their organization of Guideline A.2.2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/02-au-minutes.html#action03]
JR: We want to use the same terms, except in the places where we call out the differences.
<Jan> http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#glossary
<Jan> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#glossary
JR: To properly harmonize, we need to use WCAG wording.
JS: Being close to WCAG is good enough, I don't like the use of Notes.
JT: If we want to use a different term, we should use a different word.
<Tim> I think we should use same terminology unless we can't and then we should document why we can't
GP: Harmonization means that we can propose better wording to them. We are not subordinent to them.
<Tim> don't disagree with that
MS: We should suggest the better wording to have better usability of the document.
JT: I think we should assess harmonization on a case by case basis to see where there is a better definition.
GP: If harmonization means negotiation and discussion, I agree, but not if harmonization means that WCAG dictates what we can say, no.
<scribe> ACTION: JS and JR will review the ATAG documents and propose changes to the WCAG public comments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/02-au-minutes.html#action04]
<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2008AprJun/0061.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2008AprJun/0061.html
Success Criteria in WCAG that don't have a 1 to 1 match with ATAG.
JR: is risk averse to changing normative text when there were no negative public comments.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2008AprJun/0061.html near the bottom.
JR: ATAG doesn't cover resize of text, Reading level, images of text.
JT: But aren't these related to content rather than the tool?
AM: Is this menu options or chrome, or help text?
JR: both. Nothing is driven by content being
authored.
... We didn't think that it was appropriate to require a tool to lower
reading level for a technical audience, but the general poor quality of help
systems might indicate that there should be some work here.
AM: There needs to be a level of explanation of the jargon.
JR: Can someone take this on? Can someone study whether or not the guidelines being missing is a problem?
GP: had done an earlier mapping that could be revived.
<scribe> ACTION: GP will look at the earlier mapping with WCAG and evaluate if changes need to be made. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/02-au-minutes.html#action05]
Next meeting in two weeks on June 16.