20:59:11 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #au
20:59:11 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-irc
20:59:36 <Zakim> WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has now started
20:59:43 <Zakim> +jeanne
20:59:58 <Zakim> +??P5
21:00:25 <Zakim> + +1.905.822.aaaa
21:00:50 <JR> zakim, aaaa is really JR
21:00:52 <Zakim> +JR; got it
21:01:23 <jeanne> zakim, ??P5 is really AndrewR
21:01:23 <Zakim> +AndrewR; got it
21:04:41 <jeanne> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20081117/results
21:06:11 <Zakim> +??P0
21:06:34 <jeanne> zakim, ?? is Jutta
21:06:34 <Zakim> +Jutta; got it
21:07:24 <jeanne> zakim, who is here?
21:07:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see jeanne, AndrewR, JR, Jutta
21:07:25 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, jeanne, AndrewR, Zakim, JR, trackbot
21:07:49 <JR> Chair: Jan
21:07:58 <JR> Scribe: Andrew
21:08:36 <AndrewR> topic: Going over the results of the survey
21:08:44 <JR> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20081117/results
21:10:12 <JR> http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/
21:11:08 <AndrewR> the first proposal was to remove the note from principle B.3
21:11:17 <AndrewR> no other principles have notes
21:11:56 <Zakim> +Sueann
21:12:08 <Sueann> Sueann has joined #au
21:12:09 <JR> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20081117/results
21:14:16 <AndrewR> JR - if we create an understanding document it could go in there
21:14:29 <AndrewR> JR - although it doesn't really relate to any checkpoints
21:14:53 <AndrewR> JR - if the accessibility features do not fit in with the rest of the tool it will be detrimental
21:15:26 <AndrewR> JT - could we integrate it into a rationale somewhere?
21:16:11 <AndrewR> JR - if it's not doing any harm can we keep it for now with an editors note to say this isn't the final home for this?
21:16:58 <jtrevir> jtrevir has joined #au
21:17:28 <AndrewR> JR - i've seen tools that have done accessibility in a bad way
21:17:36 <AndrewR> JR - it can be a real "killer"
21:18:44 <AndrewR> Action: JR Try to find a home for the B.3 note within the document
21:18:44 <trackbot> Created ACTION-52 - Try to find a home for the B.3 note within the document [on Jan Richards - due 2008-12-01].
21:19:23 <AndrewR> JS - maybe it belongs in the introduction?
21:19:53 <AndrewR> Topic: Proposed Rewording B.3.1 Rationale
21:21:33 <AndrewR> JR - say the author has to make something bold
21:21:49 <AndrewR> JR - they are likely to use the first way they encounter
21:23:40 <jeanne> +1 to OR
21:23:52 <AndrewR> + 1 to or
21:25:00 <jeanne> action: JS to Add new wording for B.3.1 Rationale to next week's survey. (and changed to or)
21:25:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-53 - Add new wording for B.3.1 Rationale to next week's survey. (and changed to or) [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2008-12-01].
21:25:25 <AndrewR> Topci: Proposed Rewording B.3.1.1
21:27:14 <AndrewR> JR - do we need to tie "accessible outcome" into the WCAG Levels somehow?
21:29:17 <AndrewR> JS - what would be an example where someone would implement this but not adhere to WCAG?
21:29:34 <AndrewR> JS - not sure we need to jump through a lot of hoops to tie it to WCAG
21:29:49 <AndrewR> JS - as long as we're not leaving any big loop holes in the document
21:31:21 <AndrewR> JR - take colour contrast as an example
21:31:36 <AndrewR> JR - there is 5:1 and also 7:1 in WCAG
21:31:49 <AndrewR> JR - a highlight button in a tool could conform to either levels
21:32:38 <AndrewR> JS - i'm concerned this may be too granular
21:34:03 <AndrewR> JR - what about making something a heading?
21:34:22 <AndrewR> JS - the tool should never give the user the option to make something a heading just by making it bold
21:34:35 <AndrewR> JS - the bold tag has been deprecated
21:34:53 <AndrewR> JS - and styling something as bold doesn't communicate any semantic information
21:35:17 <AndrewR> JR - i'm just thinking how users work at the moment
21:37:43 <AndrewR> JR - when there are 2 ways to do something that both make something look the same way, the tool should promote the more accessible way of doing it
21:38:09 <AndrewR> JR - i.e. the idea of "mainstream rendered outcome"
21:39:03 <AndrewR> JS - bold is a bad example
21:39:13 <AndrewR> JS - colour contrast is a better example
21:39:24 <jeanne> color contrast is a good example because there is a choice to the user. 
21:42:49 <AndrewR> Action: JR to propose a rewording for the survey that takes into account WCAG Levels
21:42:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-54 - Propose a rewording for the survey that takes into account WCAG Levels [on Jan Richards - due 2008-12-01].
21:44:24 <AndrewR> Action: JR to propose a rewording for the survey that takes into account WCAG Levels for B.3.1.1
21:44:24 <trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Propose a rewording for the survey that takes into account WCAG Levels for B.3.1.1 [on Jan Richards - due 2008-12-01].
21:44:42 <AndrewR> Topic: Proposed Rewording B.3.2.1
21:45:48 <AndrewR> JR - we used to have something like the proposed new rewording
21:46:08 <AndrewR> JR - comments came back saying "how do we know this is integrated"
21:46:35 <AndrewR> JR - this is why we added the part about the accessibility options being included before the first opportunity to finish
21:49:24 <AndrewR> JS - some large organisations might have a more distributed workflow
21:49:41 <AndrewR> JS - e.g. the person adding an image may not be the person adding the alt text
21:50:35 <AndrewR> JR - there are wizards where the "finish" button is greyed out until all mandatory steps are complete
21:50:47 <AndrewR> JR - but Jeanne has a good point
21:51:04 <jeanne> I like Jutta's wording, because it is inclusive of different workflows
21:53:05 <AndrewR> JS - large companies would never have a visual person writing alt text for example
21:53:59 <jeanne> A CMS designed for large companies would be designed for different departments working on the workflow.  
21:56:15 <AndrewR> JR - i think we need to add some example of workflows to our guideline
21:57:02 <AndrewR> Action: jeanne Propose some example workflows for B.3.2.1
21:57:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Propose some example workflows for B.3.2.1 [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2008-12-01].
21:57:07 <Zakim> -Sueann
21:57:09 <Zakim> -Jutta
21:57:11 <Zakim> -jeanne
21:57:12 <Zakim> -JR
21:57:34 <jeanne> action: JS to draft some examples for B.3.2.1 (insert image: dreamweaver example vs. Fortune 500 CMS system
21:57:34 <trackbot> Created ACTION-57 - Draft some examples for B.3.2.1 (insert image: dreamweaver example vs. Fortune 500 CMS system [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2008-12-01].
21:57:50 <jeanne> close Action-56
21:57:50 <trackbot> ACTION-56 Propose some example workflows for B.3.2.1 closed
21:58:12 <jeanne> rrsagent, make logs public
21:58:17 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
21:58:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes.html jeanne
21:58:21 <AndrewR> close Action-54
21:58:21 <trackbot> ACTION-54 Propose a rewording for the survey that takes into account WCAG Levels closed
21:59:04 <Zakim> -AndrewR
21:59:06 <Zakim> WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has ended
21:59:07 <Zakim> Attendees were jeanne, +1.905.822.aaaa, JR, AndrewR, Jutta, Sueann
22:10:51 <jeanne> AndrewR, if you want to send out the email with the minutes, you can.  Otherwise, I'll do it because Jan asked me to.
22:11:53 <jeanne> No, there's a whole format.  I'll do it, and you can look at it.
22:12:07 <jeanne> And I need to add the attendence and regrets before we send it out. 
22:12:29 <jeanne> zakim, who was here?
22:12:29 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, jeanne.
22:12:35 <jeanne> zakim, who is here?
22:12:35 <Zakim> apparently WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has ended, jeanne
22:12:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see jtrevir, RRSAgent, jeanne, AndrewR, Zakim, trackbot
22:13:43 <jeanne> present: jeanne, AndrewR, JanR, Jutta, Sueann
22:13:52 <jeanne> regrets: TimB
22:14:48 <jeanne> present: Andrew, Jan, Jeanne, Jutta, Sueann
22:14:55 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
22:14:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes.html jeanne
22:15:11 <jeanne> scribeoption: -f
22:15:17 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
22:15:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes.html jeanne
22:16:18 <jeanne> meeting: Authoring Tool Working Group
22:16:23 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
22:16:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes.html jeanne
22:19:42 <jeanne> scribeoptions: -f
22:19:49 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
22:19:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes.html jeanne
22:20:58 <jeanne> scribeoptions:
22:21:04 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
22:21:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes.html jeanne
22:21:21 <AndrewR> AndrewR has joined #au
22:23:29 <jeanne> rrsagent. bye
22:23:34 <jeanne> rrsagent, bye
22:23:34 <RRSAgent> I see 6 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-actions.rdf :
22:23:34 <RRSAgent> ACTION: JR Try to find a home for the B.3 note within the document [1]
22:23:34 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-irc#T21-18-44
22:23:34 <RRSAgent> ACTION: JS to Add new wording for B.3.1 Rationale to next week's survey. (and changed to or) [2]
22:23:34 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-irc#T21-25-00
22:23:34 <RRSAgent> ACTION: JR to propose a rewording for the survey that takes into account WCAG Levels [3]
22:23:34 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-irc#T21-42-49
22:23:34 <RRSAgent> ACTION: JR to propose a rewording for the survey that takes into account WCAG Levels for B.3.1.1 [4]
22:23:34 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-irc#T21-44-24
22:23:34 <RRSAgent> ACTION: jeanne Propose some example workflows for B.3.2.1 [5]
22:23:34 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-irc#T21-57-02
22:23:34 <RRSAgent> ACTION: JS to draft some examples for B.3.2.1 (insert image: dreamweaver example vs. Fortune 500 CMS system [6]
22:23:34 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-irc#T21-57-34