<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

Top to bottom review

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