00:17:18 Jutta is still here! 00:27:59 Andrew has left #au 00:35:21 RRSAgent, make minutes 00:35:21 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/29-au-minutes.html Jan 00:35:44 RRSAgent, set logs public 00:37:37 RRSAgent, bye 00:37:37 I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/28-au-actions.rdf : 00:37:37 ACTION: Jan will draft a proposal for reasonable augment by 7/28 [1] 00:37:37 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/28-au-irc#T23-19-52 15:54:36 RRSAgent has joined #au 15:54:36 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/07/29-au-irc 15:54:44 Meeting: WAI AU 15:55:09 Chair: Jan 15:57:39 Greg has joined #au 15:57:40 MikeS has joined #au 16:01:41 Greg has joined #au 16:02:53 Andrew_ has joined #au 16:05:49 scribe:reed 16:05:54 AnnM has joined #au 16:06:38 RS: Change B.2.4.2 to reflect capabilities of the product and not force editing of all object types 16:07:07 JR: we already have modify directly above, do we need to repeat? 16:07:30 JR: What does 2.4.2 add? 16:08:15 jeanne has joined #au 16:08:19 JR: 2 scenarios. Author is putting it in, or already exists and author is trying to modify or maintain 16:09:07 JR: I want to flag B.2.4.2 as problematic in some respect 16:12:08 JR: Let's look at some of the wording I typed up last night 16:12:09 can we close issue 84? http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/84 16:12:45 Cynthia has joined #au 16:13:42 Topic: Jan's proposal from last evening 16:13:43 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2008JulSep/0050.html 16:14:27 JR: Tool specifies what it authors and what it can reference 16:15:03 JR: E.g., it can reference flash, but doesn't have to get into flash accessibility 16:17:58 Cynthiha: COnforming alternate versions is a preferred method according to WCAG. As a Microsoft employee, I recognize that it is difficult to implement practically. 16:18:44 Reed: I should only allow conforming alternatives when the technology doesn't allow you to edit it. 16:19:09 Cynthia: Conforming alternatives should only be things like widgets or really complex scripted page. 16:19:35 Reed: Should you try to do it, yes? Should you be required to do it? No. 16:20:31 Jutta: previously we had talked about drawing a cirlce around external tool (repair or checking), part of the objections regarding checking and repaid would be alleviated by including a conformance claim 16:22:52 JR: you can make sure the widget is accessible, provide labeling, infrastrucuture, etc but you only lose control once the newsfeed is there. 16:23:07 CS: But you can provide an accessible API 16:23:19 CS: If you are using an API that has that data, you should be expected to pass that through 16:23:27 CS: choosing the API, is that a tool choice? 16:23:51 JR: it's the widget that gets feed, turns into... 16:24:11 CS: If you want an accessible AD widget, you need iframe with need, script accessible, and you need ads to have alt text 16:25:25 JS: Does this change impact/relevance of applicability section? 16:25:54 Issue raised by Cynthia about Part B - pushing feeds to provide accessible API 16:26:23 JR: I am going to drop these in but with editor notes 16:26:40 Issue: raised by Cynthia about Part B - pushing feeds to provide accessible API 16:26:40 Created ISSUE-154 - Raised by Cynthia about Part B - pushing feeds to provide accessible API ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/154/edit . 16:28:14 JR: focusing B1.1 16:28:42 JR: if the technologies you have chosen to benchmark...those need to be the formats if you are automatically selecting 16:28:56 JR: you should provide prominence to ones with benchmark documents 16:30:01 JR: consider providing benchmark documents for technology that you authoring tool already uses by default or pominently offers as option 16:30:14 CS: why and how does that help make my product accessible? 16:32:21 JR: Since the way in which content can be made accessible in the technologies your tools is outputting will be useful in guiding decisions about... 16:33:01 ...authroign support 16:33:13 JS: I would your tool outputs rather than is outputting 16:33:20 JR: specify instead of understand? 16:35:35 Reed: What if I don't have an authoring tool, and I'm starting to build one? Can this guide my decisions on what technologies to consider? 16:36:04 CS: shouldn't we hope accessible formats are chosen by new devs? 16:36:19 treviranusjutta has joined #au 16:36:59 got knocked off the call. back in a min. 16:37:35 Reed: Where possbile, use existing benchmarks to make decisions on what technologies should be used. 16:38:15 JS: is there a store of benchmark documetns? 16:38:19 JR: nope. 16:39:00 JR: need to convince, all we are doing is letting a company specify the accessibility 16:39:57 JS: for authroign tools, this will mostly be vendors 16:41:04 JR: would you create your own? 16:42:13 JS: waht are we trying to get? 16:42:32 JR: reed goes back to where we were, you may already know what you are doing or you may be fuzzy around what should I use? 16:44:33 JR: and then consider fully benchmarked, give it consideration as output 16:45:47 JS: strong accessibility considerations 16:47:17 JS: need some grammar work here 16:47:44 CS: i would break it into 2 sentences 16:48:12 JR: I am sugesting 2 that were similar before and they should both be level a 16:50:27 JR: this is maybe a wcag thing, how do you decide 16:50:47 CS: there are cases with scenarios where you can make choices 16:52:47 JR: if we give up benchmarks at this point, all of section b is done at this point 16:53:33 JR: we need a way of weighing formats against each other 16:53:56 CS: but for existing tools that's a reasonable approach, for a new tool how do I get help from this document? 16:54:19 JS: let's take Dojo, how would we go from here 16:54:43 JR: are going to pull that in and say how do we compare formats? 16:55:32 CS: svg is a great format but is that what you should choose 16:56:44 JR: this format can't deal with these things 16:56:50 CS: all i say is i have one 16:57:29 JR: no, it stipulates what's in it 16:58:41 JR: if you were only planning on extending to level a, why would you only need a language that has double or triple a 16:59:05 JS: best Benchmark document for the task 16:59:18 JS: can you test it? 16:59:43 JS: who evaluates success criteria 16:59:49 JR: anyone can make a claim for anyone 17:00:08 CS: vendor reads documents in planning for new dev cycle and decides to implement 17:00:40 JS: would tim pass that as testable? 17:00:50 JR: what breaks down for me, is when you say for the task 17:01:33 CS: many of them are going to be task specific 17:02:26 MS: why do we need a benchmark document and WCAG doesn't? 17:02:54 JR: they have techniques, for example a web page could make a conformance claim and they would support at the techniqeus they use 17:03:01 CS: no, techniques are non normative 17:03:09 JR: ok so how prove? 17:03:26 CS: i would talk about how it was built, how i tested 17:03:43 CS: techniques are non normative 17:03:53 CS: a conformance claim says I meet criteria X 17:04:04 MS: techniques may not be part of a claim 17:04:14 MS: why do we need this at all? 17:04:25 JR: otherwise for part B, it's totally ungrounded 17:04:56 B.1.3.1 as an example 17:06:21 MS: i am beginning to side with reed on overhead for tool vendors because of benchmark 17:06:32 CS: what i want is tools that help me meet with WCAG 17:06:41 JR: there is more to conforming to wcag than just meeting 17:06:56 CS: why duplicate in ATAG? 17:07:18 JR: if that's our requirment we have to pick this up let's say template, use of template meets wcag, that means there must be accessibility supported technologies 17:07:28 JR: how does dreamweaver know where it is going to be used? 17:07:54 CS: templates are designed based on where they are going in the end 17:08:00 JR: what about checkers? 17:08:39 AR: it seems more coherent to use wcag with clauses allowing other standards 17:08:53 MS: i still don't get this concept of benchmark documents 17:09:07 MS: i have this spec over and over and it just doesn't seem like uptake 17:10:06 JR: i know there is some verbiage in the BD (BD= benchmark document) 17:10:21 JR: for example, accessibility supported technologies are troublesome 17:10:57 CS: if i were building a tool for that market, what scenarios would my tool be in? 17:13:41 CS: and then you include not level a provisions for guiding users on what technology to use based on environment 17:14:41 CS: we would have incentive to claim ATAG compliance 17:15:17 JS: we should aim for that, uptake and getting people to use ATAG 17:16:22 JR: there are many scenarios in which it won't be WCAG at all... 17:16:49 JR: I am a critical person, I am not convinced you are actually checking for all you need to 17:17:00 JR: you aren't guiding for all I need 17:17:53 CS: you don't believe my checking tools do this? Here is my output, check this. 17:18:07 JR: my output might be strucutured like WCAG checklist or it might just be missing everything 17:19:06 JS: you can't force authors 17:19:28 JR: if somebody says in my experience it doesn't detect faulty headers 17:19:37 JR: doesn't put headers on my tables 17:20:37 CS: if you catch something i miss, they are going to report a bug, and they are going to fix it or not 17:21:09 JR: lay some of the cards on the table before, software isn't perfect 17:24:07 CS: The authoring tool may not have automated tools, but they can guide people to accessible choices. 17:25:27 JR: Do a straw poll to see if the group wants to give up the benchmark construct and have a more direct relationship wthh WCAG. 17:25:39 +1 for giving up benchmark construct and having a more direct relation with WCAG 17:26:11 JR: Do a straw poll to see if the group wants to give up the benchmark construct and have a more direct relationship wthh WCAG. 17:26:35 + 1 for giving up the benchmark 17:26:36 Map to WCAG 17:26:39 +1 to WCAG 17:26:47 AR +1 to WCAG 17:27:02 Reed and AR with clauses for other standards 17:27:41 Resolution, give up benchmark construct and have more direct relation to WCAG 17:27:55 RESOLUTION: Give up the benchmark construct and have more mapped resolution to WCAG. 17:28:38 Map to WCAG with an allowance to other standards. 17:28:50 WCAG 2.0 17:35:38 scribe: MikeS 17:39:03 CS: does it make sense to look at part A? 17:42:26 JT: accessibility-related standards in ISO may become open and we may want to revisit linking to them as a client-side software guideline 17:44:45 JR: move through section A give guidance to those who are already following ISO or related standards 17:45:20 CS: we're assuming due dilligence with respect to other stanards has been done 17:46:28 JR: A.1.1 17:46:37 rrsagent, make logs public 17:46:43 rrsagent, make minutes 17:46:43 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/29-au-minutes.html jeanne 17:47:33 CS: web-based tools meet WCAG, non-web-based tools meet the standard appropriate for the platform 17:50:17 s/A1.1.1/A1.1/ 17:50:30 editors note: to go back through the document and reword "desktop" where necessary. 17:51:22 A1.2 17:55:26 delete A1.3 17:56:51 A2.1 17:59:09 A.2.1.1 is saved 18:00:15 A.2.2.5 is saved 18:01:14 JR: remove A2.3.1 18:01:23 ....remove 2.3.2 18:01:47 A.2.3.3 is saved 18:02:35 A.2.3.4 is saved 18:02:42 ...remove A2.3.5 18:02:52 ...remove A2.3.6 18:03:29 ...save A2.3.7 18:04:31 RS: can 2.4.1 be roold into A2.4.4? 18:05:05 JR: remove A2.4.2-2.4.5 18:06:11 ...remove A2.4.6-2.4.7 18:06:30 ...remove A2.4.8 18:07:22 ...A3.1.1 covered elsewhere 18:09:11 ...same as A3.1.2 18:10:04 ISSUE: Should A.3.1.2 remain in Part A because it relates to the Editing view of the tool or deleted because it is covered elsewhere? 18:10:04 Created ISSUE-155 - Should A.3.1.2 remain in Part A because it relates to the Editing view of the tool or deleted because it is covered elsewhere? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/155/edit . 18:11:09 ...save A3.1.3 18:11:43 ..save A3.1.4 18:12:07 ...remove A3.1.5 18:14:16 ...A3.1.6 now Level A with modification 18:15:07 ...remove A3.1.7 18:15:29 ...remove A3.1.8-A3.1.9 18:18:16 A3.2 18:18:59 RS: not always what users want; consider moving to A3.2.2 18:19:26 ...for A3.2.1 18:20:32 ...basically, change from automatic save to option to save 18:24:26 JT: even acessibility considerations that are part of other guidelines may be emphasized (i.e. included) in the ocntext of an authoring tool 18:26:32 JR: remove A3.2.2-3.2.3 18:27:40 CS: 3.2.3 is actually not covered in WCAG so may want to save 18:28:27 RS: might as well keep it 18:28:38 JR: A3.2.4 removed 18:30:16 from WCAG 2.0: 18:30:21 general flash and red flash thresholds 18:30:21 a flash or rapidly changing image sequence is below the threshold (i.e. content passes) if any of the following are true: 18:30:21 there are no more than three General Flashes and / or no more than three Red Flashes within any one-second period; or 18:30:21 the combined area of flashes occurring concurrently occupies no more than a total of .006 steradians within any 10 degree visual field on the screen (25% of any 10 degree visual field on the screen) at typical viewing distance 18:30:23 where: 18:30:25 A General Flash is defined as a pair of opposing changes in relative luminance of 10% or more of the maximum relative luminance where the relative luminance of the darker image is below 0.80; and where "a pair of opposing changes" is an increase followed by a decrease, or a decrease followed by an increase, and 18:30:29 A Red Flash is defined as any pair of opposing transitions involving a saturated red. 18:30:31 Exception: Flashing that is a fine, balanced, pattern such as white noise or an alternating checkerboard pattern with "squares" smaller than 0.1 degree (of visual field at typical viewing distance) on a side does not violate the thresholds. 18:31:02 JR: keeping 3.3.1 18:31:10 ....option to block 18:31:31 Issue: A.3.3.2 needs add an option to block rendering 18:31:31 Created ISSUE-156 - A.3.3.2 needs add an option to block rendering ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/156/edit . 18:32:18 A3.4 18:32:23 JR: Keeping A3.4.1 18:32:31 ...keeping A3.4.2 18:32:34 rrsagent, make minutes 18:32:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/29-au-minutes.html jeanne 18:33:03 ...keeping 3.4.3 18:33:26 JR: keeping A3.5 18:34:20 JS: 3.6.1-3.6.2 important and worth keeping 18:35:56 JS: A3.7.1 - meets kybd accessibility requirements 18:38:13 ...A3.7.1-A3.7.2 meet A1 18:40:57 JR: remove all of A4.1 18:41:27 ...remove all of A4.2 18:42:58 ...keeping A4.3.1, 4.3.2 18:43:10 ...deleting 4.3.3, 4.3.4 18:43:26 ...keeping A4.3.5 18:43:32 ...remove A4.3.6 18:45:43 Issue A.4.3.6 Error Suggestion: Go back and think about error suggestions that may be specific to the authoring environment. 18:45:59 ..keeping A4.3.7 18:47:04 ...keeping A4.4 18:49:07 http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2008/WD-ATAG20-20080729/WD-ATAG20-20080729B.html 19:36:54 http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2008/WD-ATAG20-20080729/WD-ATAG20-20080729B.html 19:46:50 rrsagent, make minutes 19:46:50 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/29-au-minutes.html jeanne 19:51:50 Cynthia has joined #au 19:57:40 treviranusjutta has joined #au 20:00:03 Greg Now Scribing 20:01:15 Jan read the introduction 20:02:08 Editorial correction by MS 20:02:11 http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/96 20:05:38 added text to address ATAG 2.0's ability to accommodate all disabilities. 20:08:29 can whoever is speaking speak a little louder please? 20:09:38 Cynthia: We would like to encourage the development of authoring tools that address needs of cognitive/learning disabilities. 20:15:50 Issue:A.1.2.2: Should this remain in Part A as it's an exception to following the accessibility platform architectures which we are substituting in for much of Part A. 20:15:50 Sorry, bad ISSUE syntax 20:16:32 Language supporting the need to encourage the development of authoring tools that meet the specialized need of the cognitive language and learning areas was added to the introduction 20:16:48 Issue: A.1.2.2: Should this remain in Part A as it's an exception to following the accessibility platform architectures which we are substituting in for much of Part A. 20:16:48 Created ISSUE-157 - A.1.2.2: Should this remain in Part A as it's an exception to following the accessibility platform architectures which we are substituting in for much of Part A. ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/157/edit . 20:17:19 Issue: A.1.2.2 - Should this remain in Part A as it's an exception to following the accessibility platform architectures which we are substituting in for much of Part A. 20:19:50 Issue: A.1.2.3: Should this remain in Part A as it's an exception to following the accessibility platform architectures which we are substituting in for much of Part A. 20:19:50 Created ISSUE-158 - A.1.2.3: Should this remain in Part A as it's an exception to following the accessibility platform architectures which we are substituting in for much of Part A. ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/158/edit . 20:19:57 scribe:Greg 20:20:53 Issue: A.1.2.4: Should this remain in Part A as it's an exception to following the accessibility platform architectures which we are substituting in for much of Part A. 20:20:53 Created ISSUE-159 - A.1.2.4: Should this remain in Part A as it's an exception to following the accessibility platform architectures which we are substituting in for much of Part A. ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/159/edit . 20:21:59 Remember to address the issue regarding the use of tools in combination to achieve accessible results in part B 20:24:26 Issue: A.3.2.2: Where else will this be covered if we remove it from Part A? Won't WCAG only cover timing in the content produced by the tool and not the tool itself? 20:24:26 Created ISSUE-160 - A.3.2.2: Where else will this be covered if we remove it from Part A? Won't WCAG only cover timing in the content produced by the tool and not the tool itself? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/160/edit . 20:25:06 Issue: A.3.2.4: Where else will this be covered if we remove it from Part A? Won't WCAG only cover timing in the content produced by the tool and not the tool itself? 20:25:06 Created ISSUE-161 - A.3.2.4: Where else will this be covered if we remove it from Part A? Won't WCAG only cover timing in the content produced by the tool and not the tool itself? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/161/edit . 20:29:07 Seeking clarification on the distinctions between level A, AA, and AAA 20:36:38 Topic: Conformance / Partial Conformance 20:37:18 CS: we don't want tools that meet Part A but don't produce accessible output. 20:37:56 JR: Allowing partial conformance in both directions puts the bottom step of the ladder closer to the ground. 20:39:28 issue should there be partial A conformance? 20:40:01 issue: Should there be separate conformance by parts? 20:40:02 Created ISSUE-162 - Should there be separate conformance by parts? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/162/edit . 20:41:28 Considering removing partial conformance criteria from the standard 20:42:55 Reed has joined #au 20:47:33 removed the discussion of accessibility benchmark documents 21:03:09 Review Part A 21:03:31 Address AR's concerns 21:06:04 What happens if A.1.2.2 Accessible Alternative is removed? Is it covered elsewhere? Can it be safely removed? 21:06:07 Topic: Review Part A 21:11:52 preserve notion of functional equivalency 21:14:54 Under review A.1.2.2 Accessible Alternative, A.1.2.3 Deviation from Proper Use, and A.1.2.4 Additional Information 21:19:32 Final disposition is to continue with the removal of A.1.2.2, A.1.2.3, and A.1.2.4 21:21:12 Review A.3.2.2 Time Adjustable if remvoved does not appear to be addressed elsewhere according to AR 21:22:02 Issue-157: Close after discussion. 21:22:02 ISSUE-157 A.1.2.2: Should this remain in Part A as it's an exception to following the accessibility platform architectures which we are substituting in for much of Part A. notes added 21:22:06 Final disposition is to restore A.3.2.2 21:22:57 Issue-160: Closed. The text for A.3.2.2 was restored. 21:22:57 ISSUE-160 A.3.2.2: Where else will this be covered if we remove it from Part A? Won't WCAG only cover timing in the content produced by the tool and not the tool itself? notes added 21:23:38 Issue-158: Closed after discusion. AR is satisfied. 21:23:38 ISSUE-158 A.1.2.3: Should this remain in Part A as it's an exception to following the accessibility platform architectures which we are substituting in for much of Part A. notes added 21:23:56 Issue-159: Close after discussion. AR is satisfied. 21:23:56 ISSUE-159 A.1.2.4: Should this remain in Part A as it's an exception to following the accessibility platform architectures which we are substituting in for much of Part A. notes added 21:24:21 A.3.2.4 No Time Limits was revised and restored 21:25:04 Issue-161: Restored with rephrasing. AR is satisfied. CLOSE. 21:25:04 ISSUE-161 A.3.2.4: Where else will this be covered if we remove it from Part A? Won't WCAG only cover timing in the content produced by the tool and not the tool itself? notes added 21:26:10 PRINCIPLE 1. Follow applicable specifications and conventions 21:26:39 ...From UAAG 21:26:56 Principle A.1 changed from "Authoring tools must facilitate access by asssitive technologies" to "Authoring Tools Must Follow applicable specifications and conventions" 21:31:49 Cynthia: There are different ways that you can handle WYSIWYG in an authoring environment. 21:32:15 JR: A.2.2 can be removed because we covered it in the previous A.2.1 21:35:00 A.2.3.3 was editited to say "if it is misspelled is made available" 21:35:55 JR: How does A.2.3 compare with A.2.2. They are different. 21:37:23 A.2.4.1 can be moved up with other Presentation criteria. Move the rationale, too and then come back and edit them together. 21:38:09 rrsagent, make minutes 21:38:09 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/29-au-minutes.html jeanne 21:58:41 Topic A.3 21:58:49 Topic: A.3 22:00:28 Note 2 under A.3.1 deleted 22:01:24 Issue: Editorial - Should [For the authoring tool user interface] be removed? 22:01:24 Created ISSUE-163 - Editorial - Should [For the authoring tool user interface] be removed? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/163/edit . 22:02:14 A.3.1.2 Keyboard trap was deleted 22:04:57 Issue: Should the preview and editing modes of Authoring Tool be UAAG compliant? Would not be Level A. 22:04:57 Created ISSUE-164 - Should the preview and editing modes of Authoring Tool be UAAG compliant? Would not be Level A. ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/164/edit . 22:06:29 RS has comments regarding ambiguity of A.3.4.3 Navigate Tree Structures 22:09:31 I multi-tasked and made an attempt at the definition of an authoring tool: 22:09:32 “ATAG 2.0 defines an authoring tool as any tool, components of a tool or collection of software components that an author can interact with to create, modify or construct Web content to be used by other people. ATAG applies to the authoring choices the authoring tool presents to the author and the authoring choices under the control of the authoring tool. 22:09:34 This includes creating, modifying or choosing: 22:09:35 Templates, 22:09:37 Stylesheets 22:09:38 Controls 22:09:40 Scripts or applets 22:09:42 Text 22:09:43 Non-Text elements” 22:11:47 Issue: Navigate identical elements 22:11:47 Created ISSUE-165 - Navigate identical elements ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/165/edit . 22:12:01 Issue: Navigate headings 22:12:01 Created ISSUE-166 - Navigate headings ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/166/edit . 22:14:10 AI: RS write up on tree structures and navigation 22:14:30 ACTION: Reed will write a proposal for text for A.3.4.5 22:14:30 Created ACTION-4 - Will write a proposal for text for A.3.4.5 [on Reed Shaffner - due 2008-08-05]. 22:15:16 ACTIOM-4 will also include A.3.4.4 22:17:04 trackbot, comment action-4 This also will include A.3.4.4 22:17:04 ACTION-4 Will write a proposal for text for A.3.4.5 notes added 22:20:29 ACTION: Jan to produce an editor's draft with the new Part A and B. 22:20:29 Created ACTION-5 - Produce an editor's draft with the new Part A and B. [on Jan Richards - due 2008-08-05]. 22:20:54 Topic: Definition of Authoring Tool. 22:21:04 Examine definition of Authoring Tool provided by JT 22:23:46 JT: First, took into consideration the parts of CMS that only apply to author. 22:24:24 JT: using "construct" rather than "aggregate". I'm not completely happy with "construct". 22:26:25 MS: Instead of "tool", "applications" and instead of collection of Software components, collection of software, 22:28:39 MS: component, component of an application, or collection of applications that authors, alone or in collaboration, that interact to create, modify or aggregate Web content to be used by other people. 22:29:26 s/collaboration, that interact /collaboration, interact 22:35:00 A WCMS is a software system used to manage and control a large, dynamic collection of Web material (HTML documents and their associated images). A CMS facilitates document control, auditing, editing, and timeline management. A WCMS provides the following key features: 22:35:00 Automated templates 22:35:00 Create standard output templates (usually HTML and XML) that can be automatically applied to new and existing content, allowing the appearance of all of that content to be changed from one central place. 22:35:00 Easily editable content 22:35:02 Once content is separated from the visual presentation of a site, it usually becomes much easier and quicker to edit and manipulate. Most WCMS software includes WYSIWYG editing tools allowing non-technical individuals to create and edit content. 22:35:06 Scalable feature sets 22:35:09 Most WCMS software includes plug-ins or modules that can be easily installed to extend an existing site's functionality. 22:35:11 Web standards upgrades 22:35:13 Active WCMS software usually receives regular updates that include new feature sets and keep the system up to current web standards. 22:35:16 Workflow management 22:35:19 Workflow is the process of creating cycles of sequential and parallel tasks that must be accomplished in the CMS. For example, a content creator can submit a story, but it is not published until the copy editor cleans it up and the editor-in-chief approves it. 22:35:22 Document management 22:35:24 CMS software may provide a means of managing the life cycle of a document from initial creation time, through revisions, publication, archive, and document destruction. 22:35:27 Content virtualization 22:35:29 CMS software may provide a means of allowing each user to work within a virtual copy of the entire Web site, document set, and/or code base. This enables changes to multiple interdependent resources to be viewed and/or executed in-context prior to submission. 22:35:47 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_content_management_system 22:52:01 CS: ATAG does not apply to: (examples) 22:53:13 ...dragging Word files from Windows explorer to a document sharing system which also happens to have a component that will render the files over HTTP. 22:53:51 ...a portal site that aggregates content from RSS feed. 22:54:45 JR: It does apply to the portal management tool widget that allows the author to choose the RSS feeds 23:00:08 JS: These guidelines apply to the functions in which authoring choice the authoring tool presents to the author or makes on behalf of the author. For example, ATAG does not apply to a component that imports documents into a document share system, or a portal that aggregates RSS feeds. ATAG does apply to the portal management widget that selects the RSS. 23:01:30 an echo has developed, making it really difficult to hear what people are saying 23:01:56 I am, but I've got it muted 23:03:37 Conference callers, please hang up and call back in 23:04:02 Hi Ann 23:05:18 Hi Jutta 23:07:16 Jan_ has joined #au 23:14:25 Greg_ has joined #au 23:15:20 michael_squillace has joined #au 23:18:35 anybody home? 23:18:59 MikeS has joined #au 23:19:13 yup 23:23:27 jeanne has joined #au 23:23:36 These guidelines apply to the functions of the authoring tool that present authoring choices tot he author or makes choices on behalf of the author. For example, in a CMS system managing a portal, the widget that selects the RSS feed would be covered by ATAG, but the data coming in on the RSS feed would not apply. In a large document management system, the components that allowed entry or selection of alternative formats would apply, but the components that displ 23:35:59 AndrewR_ has joined #au 23:41:00 In a large document management system, the components that allowed entry or selection of alternative formats would apply, but the components that displayed dynamic content where there is no editorial control, would not apply. 23:55:41 In defining an authoring tool, we are talking about an author. An author is an agent that makes choices via some process of deliberation or decision-making process. The primary goal of ATAG is to ensure that accessibility is one of the considerations included in that deliberation process.