WAI AU -- 09 Mar 2009

<JR> * Zakim, this will be AUWG

<JR> Scribe: Greg

F2F Planning

TPAC face to face planning

<JR> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JanMar/0060.html

Does AWUG intend to participate in the meeting in Santa Clara, California USA

November 2 - 6 2009

Final decision to be made next Monday. Jean will put it on a survey

<jeanne> ACTION: JS to put question on attending TPAC on next week's survey [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/09-au-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-125 - Put question on attending TPAC on next week's survey [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-03-16].

ARIA review

<JR> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JanMar/0049.html

ARIA Review - ARIA has a last call, ATAG should take a look just to satisfy itself. The new deadline is April 17, 2009

<JR> New deadline April 17

Reviews to the group by April 6, 2009 looking at ARIA through the lens of ATAG.

Complete the glossary review

Finish (hopefully) the glossary review

<JR> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JanMar/att-0055/ATAG2_Glossary_Review__Rev11_.doc

<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20090227/results

assistive technology

<JR> assistive technology [adapted from WCAG 2.0]

<JR> Software (or hardware), separate from the authoring tool, that provides functionality to meet the requirements of users with disabilities. Some authoring tools may also provide direct accessibility features.

<JR> Examples of assistive technologies include, but are not limited to, the following:

<JR> • screen magnifiers, and other visual reading assistants, which are used by people with visual, perceptual and physical print disabilities to change text font, size, spacing, color, synchronization with speech, etc. in order to improve the visual readability of rendered text and images;

<JR> • screen readers, which are used by people who are blind to read textual information through synthesized speech or braille;

<JR> • text-to-speech software, which is used by some people with cognitive, language, and learning disabilities to convert text into synthetic speech;

<JR> • speech recognition software, which may be used by people who have some physical disabilities;

<JR> • alternative keyboards, which are used by people with certain physical disabilities to simulate the keyboard (including alternate keyboards that use head pointers, single switches, sip/puff and other special input devices);

<JR> • alternative pointing devices, which are used by people with certain physical disabilities to simulate mouse pointing and button activations.

<JR> direct accessibility features

<JR> Features of an authoring tool that provide functionality to meet the requirements of users with disabilities (e.g., keyboard navigation, zoom functions, text-to-speech). Additional or specialized functionality may still be provided by external assistive technology.

<jeanne> ACTION: JS to update glossary with the new wording of the first paragraph of Assistive Technology [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/09-au-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-126 - Update glossary with the new wording of the first paragraph of Assistive Technology [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-03-16].

<jeanne> +1

<JR> All: No problem wqith either defn

<jeanne> ACTION: JS to update glossary with new definition of direct accessibility features [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/09-au-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-127 - Update glossary with new definition of direct accessibility features [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-03-16].

equivalent alternative vs. altenative content

<JR> Content that is used in place of other content that a person may not be able to access. An equivalent alternative fulfills essentially the same function or purpose as the original content. Examples include text alternatives for non-text content, captions for audio, audio descriptions for video, sign language for audio, media alternatives for time-based media. See WCAG for more information

<JR> All: Agree on "Alternative Content"

<JR> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JanMar/0062.html

<jeanne> ACTION: JS to update glossary with the term "alternative content" deleting "equivalent". Inside the definition as well. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/09-au-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-128 - Update glossary with the term \"alternative content\" deleting \"equivalent\". Inside the definition as well. [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-03-16].

Prominence

<JR> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JanMar/0062.html

<JR> prominence

<JR> A heuristic measure of how likely users are to notice items (controls or

<JR> groups of controls) in a user interface that they are operating.

<JR> Prominence is affected by numerous factors, including: the number of

<JR> navigation steps required, the reading order position, visual properties

<JR> (e.g., size, spacing, colour), and even the modality of use (e.g., mouse

<JR> vs. keyboard use). For purposes of conformance to ATAG 2.0, item A is

<JR> considered to be *at least as prominent* as item B if:

<JR> * (a) both items occur in the same item container (e.g., menu for menu

<JR> items, list for list items, dialog box for text boxes)

<JR> * (b) item A is highlighted if item B is highlighted.

<JR> * (c) item A occurs higher in the reading order or immediately follows

<JR> item B.

<JR> JS: I noticed our examples talk about text

<JR> JS: Like to see text, controls, groups of controls

<JR> (2a) Rewording B.1.1.2, B.1.1.4, B.1.1.6 for clarity:

<JR> B.1.1.2 Author Choice of Technologies (Level A): If the authoring tool

<JR> provides authors with Web content technology options, THEN ANY

<JR> *ACCESSIBLE technology* (WCAG Level A) options THAT ARE SUITABLE FOR THE

<JR> TASK ARE *AT LEAST AS PROMINENT* AS ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS. (Level A)

<JR> (2b) Add this sentence to the end of the definition of "Technology":

<JR> An *accessible technology* is a technology that may be used in a way

<JR> that is "accessibility supported" (For more information on

<JR> "accessibility supported", see WCAG 2.0).

<JR> (3) Rewording B.2.1.1, B.2.1.2, B.2.1.3:

<JR> B.2.1.1 Guide Accessible (Level A): If authors are prompted for any

<JR> information as content is being added or updated (e.g., by an image

<JR> modification dialog), then:

<JR> (a) PROMPTS ARE INCLUDED for any accessibility information required for

<JR> that content to meet WCAG Level A (Level A)

<JR> (b) THE ACCESSIBILITY PROMPTS ARE *AT LEAST AS PROMINENT*.

<JR> ACTION: JR to Modify proposal for Rewording B.2.1.1, B.2.1.2, B.2.1.3 to not use "At least as prominent" but to use some workflow typoe language instead [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/09-au-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-129 - Modify proposal for Rewording B.2.1.1, B.2.1.2, B.2.1.3 to not use \"At least as prominent\" but to use some workflow typoe language instead [on Jan Richards - due 2009-03-16].

<JR> (4) Rewording B.2.5.3:

<JR> B.2.5.3 Template Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a

<JR> template selection mechanism, then (Level A):

<JR> (a) the selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of

<JR> templates (if known), AND

<JR> (b) any accessible template options ARE *AT LEAST AS PROMINENT* AS other

<JR> TEMPLATE options.

<JR> (5) Rewording B.2.5.7:

<JR> B.2.5.7 Pre-Authored Content Selection Mechanism: If authors are

<JR> provided with a selection mechanism for pre-authored content other than

<JR> templates (e.g., clip art gallery, widget repository, design themes),

<JR> then (Level AA):

<JR> (a) the selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of the

<JR> pre-authored content (if known), AND

<JR> (b) any accessible options ARE *AT LEAST AS PROMINENT* AS other

<JR> PRE-AUTHORED CONTENT options.

<JR> (7) Rewording B.3.1.1:

<JR> B.3.1.1 Accessible Options Prominent : If authors are provided with

<JR> multiple options for an authoring task, options that will result in

<JR> content conforming to *WCAG* Level A ARE *AT LEAST AS PROMINENT* AS

<JR> OPTIONS THAT WILL NOT. (Level A)

<JR> (8) Minor edit to B.3.3.4:

<JR> B.3.3.4 At Least as Prominent: Accessible content support features are

<JR> *at least as prominent* [DEL] as comparable features related to other

<JR> types of Web content problems (e.g., invalid markup, syntax errors,

<JR> spelling and grammar errors). (Level AA)

<JR> (6) Rewording the rationale of B.3.1:

<JR> Guideline B.3.1 Rationale: When authors are learning a new authoring

<JR> tool, they may find and learn to use the first authoring action they

<JR> encounter that achieves their intended outcome. Since they may be

<JR> unaware of the issue of accessibility, it preferable that accessible

<JR> content be an additional unintended outcome, rather than inaccessible

<JR> content.

<JR> NEXT CALL Mar 23

- DRAFT -

WAI AU

09 Mar 2009

Attendees

Contents