See also: IRC log
<AnnM> sure thing.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009AprJun/att-0077/20090622.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009AprJun/att-0077/20090622.html
<scribe> Scribe: Jan
The Introduction includes both normative and informative sections, as noted. This section is informative.
<scribe> ACTION: TB to Will look into whether it is ok to mix informative and normative in Introduction section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/22-au-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - TB
All: Approve "addressed by"
... Approve remove ", with the assumption that many authors
will not be familiar with the specific needs of end users with
disabilities"
... Approve "Examples of authoring tools:" handle
... Approve remove ""conventional" "
... Approve remove "Any ATAG 2.0 guideline that require authors
to modify web content in some way, always assumes that the
person has author permission"
... Approve add "Web-based and non-web-based: ATAG 2.0 applies
equally to authoring tools of web content that are web-based,
non-web-based or a combination (e.g., a non-web-based markup
editor with a web-based help system, a web-based content
management system with a non-web-based file uploader
client)."
All" Approve "debugging tools for web content "
JR: Just give thought to:
"Real-time publishing: ATAG 2.0 applies to authoring tools with
workflows that involve real-time publishing of web content
(e.g., some collaborative tools). For these authoring tools,
conformance to Part B of ATAG 2.0 may involve some combination
of real-time accessibility supports and additional
accessibility supports available after the real-time authoring
session...
... (e.g., the ability to add captions for audio that was
initially published in real-time). For more information, see
the Techniques - Appendix E: Real-time content production."
All: Approve "Text Editors: ATAG
2.0 is not intended to apply to simple text editors that can be
used to edit source content, but that include no support for
the production of any particular web content technology. In
contrast, ATAG 2.0 can apply to more sophisticated source
content editors that support the production of specific web
content technologies (e.g., with syntax checking,
markup...
... prediction, etc.). "
... Remove: "sufficient techniques and advisory"
... Approve: Add "As of publishing, WCAG 2.0 is the most recent
W3C Recommendation for web content accessibility. ATAG 2.0,
therefore, makes reference to WCAG 2.0 in order to set the
success criteria for judging the accessibility of web-based
authoring tool user interfaces (in Part A) and for judging the
accessibility of web content produced by authoring tools"
... Approve "Scope of Authoring Tool User Interface"
... Approve "This includes views of the web content being
edited, and features that are independent of the web content
being edited, such as menus, button bars, status bars, user
preferences, documentation, etc."
... Approve "Reflected Content Accessibility Problems: The
authoring tool is responsible for ensuring that the web content
being edited is accessible to authors with disabilities (e.g.,
ensuring that an image label in the web content can be
programmatically determined). However, where an authoring tool
user interface accessibility problem is caused directly by a
web content accessibility...
... problem in the web content being edited (e.g., if an image
in the content lacks a label), then this would not be
considered a deficiency in the accessibility of the authoring
tool user interface."
... approve: Previews: Preview features are exempt from having
to meet the other requirements in Part A, if they meet
Guideline A.3.7. Previews are treated differently than editing
views because authors, including those with disabilities, will
not be well-served if preview features diverge too much from
the actual functionality of user agents.
... Remove "along with their user agents"
... Change to "Rationale: Some authors need access to the
editing view presentation because this may be used to convey
both status information added by the authoring tool (e.g.,
underlining misspelled words) and, within content renderings,
information about the end user experience of the web content
being edited."
... Approve: "A.2.2.2 Access to Text Presentation (Minimum): If
an editing view (e.g., WYSIWYG view) renders any of the
following presentation properties for text, then the properties
can be programmatically determined:"
... Chnage to: Rationale: Some authors need to set their own
display settings in a way that differs from the presentation
that they want to define for the published web content.
... Approve change to: A.2.3.1 Independence of Display: The
author(s) have the global option to specify display settings
for editing views that take precedence over web content
renderings without affecting the web content to be published.
(Level A)
... Approve: Rationale: Some authors with limited mobility or
visual disabilities are not able to use a mouse, and instead
require full keyboard access.
... Approve: A.3.1.4 Customize Keyboard Access: The author(s)
can customize keyboard access to the authoring tool. (Level
AAA)
... Approve "The search can be" wording
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: Jan Inferring ScribeNick: Jan Default Present: AnnM, Jeanne, Jan, AndrewR, Greg_Pisocky, +1.949.542.aaaa, SueannN, Tim_Boland Present: AnnM Jeanne Jan AndrewR Greg_Pisocky +1.949.542.aaaa SueannN Tim_Boland Regrets: Jutta Treviranus Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009AprJun/0075.html Got date from IRC log name: 22 Jun 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/06/22-au-minutes.html People with action items: tb[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]