See also: IRC log
<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0034.html
<Jan> Techniques Draft: http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2009/ED-ATAG20-TECHS-20090814/
<Jan> Scribe: JR
<Jan> Scribe: Jan
TB,JT: Clarify the work items from last week....re: review the techniques draft - assigned pieces
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0035.html
The intent of this success criterion is to address situations in which
an author has either not noticed or ignored opportunities for adding
alternative content and has closed their "authoring session". ATAG 2.0
does *not* require authoring tools to attempt automated repairs in this
situation because doing so risks misleading accessibility checking tools
and end users into the assumption that the alternative content was
provide or approved by a human author. However, if developers are
interested in providing automation to assist end users, this success
criterion acts as a guide. Basically, the success criterion assumes that
basic repairs (e.g., using text content that is readily available to
user agents, such as the file name, text metadata within non-text
objects, the tile of a linked resource, etc.) are best left to user
agents and assistive technologies, since they can more clear about the
fact that the alternative content results from an automatic repair,
rather from a human author. However, in some cases the authoring tool
will have text information, such as contextual information (e.g., the
image is the author's profile picture) that the user agent does not have
equal access to, in which case, the repair can be made by the authoring
tool. In addition, the success criterion does not limit more technically
sophisticated repairs that go beyond simple text processing to
processing images, audio or video. The intent here is encourage, rather
discourage progress in these rapidly advancing areas.
Note: When web content technologies include a mechanism for marking text
alternatives as automatically generated, these mechanisms should be
employed. Also, because these automatic repairs are, by their nature,
second-best measures taken only when authors are no longer available, it
would be preferable for the instances of automated repairs to be flagged
for author attention in any subsequent authoring sessions.
SUCCESS CRITERION:
B.2.4.3 Let user agents repair: After the end of an *authoring session*,
the *authoring tool* does not attempt to *repair* *alternative content*
for non-text content using any text values that are equally available to
*user agents* (e.g., the filename is not used). (Level A)
JT: Some way to segment this
better?
... THis is what authorin tool should do...this what should be
left to the user agent any why...and we want to leave open
innovation in the future
<scribe> ACTION: Segment B2.4.3 proposal with clarifications on the each paragraph [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/24-au-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Segment
<scribe> ACTION: JR to Segment B2.4.3 proposal with clarifications on the each paragraph [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/24-au-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-184 - Segment B2.4.3 proposal with clarifications on the each paragraph [on Jan Richards - due 2009-08-31].
Jutta asks Andrew for any comments on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0035.html
<AndrewR> I agree with the comments on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0035.html. I think we should urge caution for tools developers choosing some arbitrary information to use in place of information that the author omitted.
JT: Great thanks
4-Clearing up the ACTIONS list:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/actions/open
JT's original: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0006.html
JR's message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0036.html
JT: I still believe it fairly
critical...educational
... Need to educate authors , guidance because most people
don't read documentation
... Lot's of our supports are after mistakes are made
... Can be light-weight and in-line with UI...
... An accesasibility advisor giving variety of choices open to
people.
... What are accessibility implications of various things to
embark upon
TB: How expressed?
JT: Depends on UI...if you do
this...you'll need to do X
... Might be "it's easier to be accessible to be with this than
this"
... Looking at different CMS and HTML tools, this is very much
in line with general fuidance on other things
JR: Agress but I think we need to focus a bit more
JT: But might not be HTML, could
be flash etc
... Maybe I could try to draft some techniques and success
criteria for this
<scribe> ACTION: JT to Re-formulate guideline and scuccess criteria for decision support (B.2.1.X) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/24-au-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-185 - Re-formulate guideline and scuccess criteria for decision support (B.2.1.X) [on Jutta Treviranus - due 2009-08-31].
Next Meeting AUg 31
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: JR Found Scribe: Jan Inferring ScribeNick: Jan Scribes: JR, Jan Default Present: Jeanne, Jan, Tim_Boland, +1.416.946.aaaa, Jutta, Andrew Present: Jeanne Jan Tim_Boland +1.416.946.aaaa Jutta Andrew Regrets: SueAnn N. Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0034.html Got date from IRC log name: 24 Aug 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/08/24-au-minutes.html People with action items: jr jt segment WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]