Authoring Tool Working Group

<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20081117/results

<JR> Scribe: Andrew

Going over the results of the survey

<JR> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20081117/results

<JR> http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/

the first proposal was to remove the note from principle B.3

no other principles have notes

<JR> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20081117/results

JR - if we create an understanding document it could go in there

JR - although it doesn't really relate to any checkpoints

JR - if the accessibility features do not fit in with the rest of the tool it will be detrimental

JT - could we integrate it into a rationale somewhere?

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?

JR - i've seen tools that have done accessibility in a bad way

JR - it can be a real "killer"

<scribe> ACTION: JR Try to find a home for the B.3 note within the document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-52 - Try to find a home for the B.3 note within the document [on Jan Richards - due 2008-12-01].

JS - maybe it belongs in the introduction?

Proposed Rewording B.3.1 Rationale

JR - say the author has to make something bold

JR - they are likely to use the first way they encounter

<jeanne> +1 to OR

+ 1 to or

<jeanne> ACTION: JS to Add new wording for B.3.1 Rationale to next week's survey. (and changed to or) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes.html#action02]

<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].

Topci: Proposed Rewording B.3.1.1

JR - do we need to tie "accessible outcome" into the WCAG Levels somehow?

JS - what would be an example where someone would implement this but not adhere to WCAG?

JS - not sure we need to jump through a lot of hoops to tie it to WCAG

JS - as long as we're not leaving any big loop holes in the document

JR - take colour contrast as an example

JR - there is 5:1 and also 7:1 in WCAG

JR - a highlight button in a tool could conform to either levels

JS - i'm concerned this may be too granular

JR - what about making something a heading?

JS - the tool should never give the user the option to make something a heading just by making it bold

JS - the bold tag has been deprecated

JS - and styling something as bold doesn't communicate any semantic information

JR - i'm just thinking how users work at the moment

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

JR - i.e. the idea of "mainstream rendered outcome"

JS - bold is a bad example

JS - colour contrast is a better example

<jeanne> color contrast is a good example because there is a choice to the user.

<scribe> ACTION: JR to propose a rewording for the survey that takes into account WCAG Levels [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-54 - Propose a rewording for the survey that takes into account WCAG Levels [on Jan Richards - due 2008-12-01].

<scribe> ACTION: JR to propose a rewording for the survey that takes into account WCAG Levels for B.3.1.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes.html#action04]

<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].

Proposed Rewording B.3.2.1

JR - we used to have something like the proposed new rewording

JR - comments came back saying "how do we know this is integrated"

JR - this is why we added the part about the accessibility options being included before the first opportunity to finish

JS - some large organisations might have a more distributed workflow

JS - e.g. the person adding an image may not be the person adding the alt text

JR - there are wizards where the "finish" button is greyed out until all mandatory steps are complete

JR - but Jeanne has a good point

<jeanne> I like Jutta's wording, because it is inclusive of different workflows

JS - large companies would never have a visual person writing alt text for example

<jeanne> A CMS designed for large companies would be designed for different departments working on the workflow.

JR - i think we need to add some example of workflows to our guideline

<scribe> ACTION: jeanne Propose some example workflows for B.3.2.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Propose some example workflows for B.3.2.1 [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2008-12-01].

<jeanne> ACTION: JS to draft some examples for B.3.2.1 (insert image: dreamweaver example vs. Fortune 500 CMS system [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes.html#action06]

<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].

<jeanne> close Action-56

<trackbot> ACTION-56 Propose some example workflows for B.3.2.1 closed

close Action-54

<trackbot> ACTION-54 Propose a rewording for the survey that takes into account WCAG Levels closed