<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2009/ED-ATAG20-20090615/atag20_pubWD_21may2009_comment_responses.html

<scribe> Chair: Jan Richards

1- Techniques review check-in

TB: TB started...something in 2 weeks

SN: A3.3-A3-1 Has started - not quite done

JS: A1...started but not completed

Proposed SC B.2.1.X

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0041.html

JT: Basically we had further discusion...
... ATAG Part B always about 5 strategies...
... Anything tool does automatically is accessible
... (2) to provide author with info and decision support
... prior to things being inserted, decided
... Argument for is that this is the least coslty and the most inobtrusive
... Greatest educational opportunity
... (3) checking
... (4) repair
... (5) integrated
... When we did the last go-through of Part B we eliminated things from (2)....
... Good reasons due to developers doing good work in checking...
... But I still don't think it is good to eliminate decision support
... Big challenge...how do you know you have done itt?
... Success critieria...
... Fairly context dependent .... needs to follow (5) very closely
... We would either be very specific or very general....but extreme specifity is brittle...we need to be more generic
... Question of how you know you have passed...most likely to be stated in an "at minimum" manner...
... We want to encourage but won't be minutely testable
... Won't be able to have a test to meet the full spirit
... TYpes of things I'm thinking...
... things that answer questions: what are the accessibility implications of making this choice? what will i need to do to make this technology/markup/element/component accessible?
... what accessibility support does this technology/markup/element/component provide?

JTL In a Web App development toolkit this may be met by an indication of

which components or component sets offered include ARIA markup.

In a generic Web content development tool this may be met by

indicating how captions can be included in Flash vs. Quicktime vs.

Real etc.

In a Wiki editing tool this may be met by indicating that the html

based styling mechanisms are more accessible.

JT: At the moment I'm trying to come up with wording for measurable success criteria
... TB thoughts?

B.2.1.X Decision Support: If the authoring tool presents choices to the author(s), provide information to assist the author in making choices that enable the content to conform to WCAG 2.0. (Level A)

TB: So tool must inform the author, prior to choice of accessibility implications?

JT: Yes could be very unobtrusive

JR: Concerned about scope if applies to all choices

JT: Maybe at minimum...there are sso many advisories etc.
... Hopefully some developers take it to heart so that strict testability not that important
... At minimum there ae 2 advisories, etc.

JR: What about piggybacking on top of other advice given

JT: Difficulty here is that it is generic...intended to cover all choics...

JR: Maybe we could split into a minimum and and extended success criteria

JT: I'd prefer at this point a trial ballon using "granularity of choice"....
... Also thinking of limiting it to WCAG

JR: One possible thing we've picked is alternative content

JT: already used that a lot
... One excuse often given is that "we are using technology X"...
... and it's not easy to do accessibility in X...so I should be excused.
... So advising people before they do that would have a large impact

JR: We used to have a peice about "inaccessible techs"

JT: I don't want to say "accessible or inaccessible tech"....I want to talk about "how easy", etc.

JR: What about letting the author know about the support that tool perovides for accessibklity authorong in that tech

JT: Maybe

TB: Ok

JT: But I think we want to capture situations where accessibility is also provided externally

JR: OK - easier to formaulate an "OR" if there is an easy choice and harder ones

<scribe> ACTION: JR, JT to have a new formulation of the decision support success criteria [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/31-au-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - JR,

B.2.4.3

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0042.html

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 text values that are equally available to user

agents (e.g., the filename is not used). (Level A)

Note: If a web content technology includes a mechanism for marking

alternative content as automatically generated, then that mechanism is

employed to mark any repairs performed after the end of an authoring

session.

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)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Jan
Inferring Scribes: Jan
Default Present: Jeanne, Jan, Tim_Boland, SueAnnN, Jutta
Present: Jeanne Jan Tim_Boland SueAnnN Jutta Sueann Tim
Regrets: Andrew R.
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0040.html
Got date from IRC log name: 31 Aug 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/08/31-au-minutes.html
People with action items: jr jt

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.