W3C

- DRAFT -

WAI AU

14 Sep 2009

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Jan, Jutta, Andrew, +1.416.946.aaaa, Jan_Richards, Tim_Boland, +1.561.582.aabb
Regrets
Jeanne_S., Anne_M., Greg_P.
Chair
Jutta Treviranus
Scribe
Andrew

Contents


 

 

<Jan> Scribe: Andrew

<Jan> Jan is back with a clear connection

<Jan> andrew can you hear Jutta ok?

Yes i can Jutta ok

Andrew's comments

<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0056.html

<Jan> AR: Editorial change in B.1.2.4

<Jan> AR: Also an example for Guideline B.1.3

<Jan> ACTION: AR to Writeup modified example for Guideline B.1.3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/14-au-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-186 - Writeup modified example for Guideline B.1.3 [on Andrew Ronksley - due 2009-09-21].

TIm's Comments

Tim's technique comments

<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0051.html

Looking at Jan's responses to Tim's comments

Agree on meta comments

JR: Suggest changing the techniques document to be called an "understanding" document
... Not sure we have the manpower to produce a full techniques document ourselves

TB: We should try and encourage creativity by allowing people to submit techniques, in-line with WCAG 2.0

JT: This makes a lot of sense.

JR: Very hard to write all encompassing techniques
... Techniques will depend on the nature of the tool

<Jan> ACTION: JR to New explanatory text about what Examples are suppoised to acheive [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/14-au-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-187 - New explanatory text about what Examples are suppoised to acheive [on Jan Richards - due 2009-09-21].

TB: WCAG has an online techniques submission form
... How do we make a decision as to what goes in the techniques / understanding document?

JR: Our common sense

TB: Think we need more of a formal approach to this.
... Are the group going to be endorsing the techniques
... And do we need a disclaimer etc?
... If we do have a techniques form we need to state what we're looking for etc
... Tools can change so we need to be current

JR: Agreed but some stay consistent as time goes by, e.g. text editors

JT: The distinction between intent and rationale isn't that well defined

JR: It's a fine distinction, we may merge them together
... We may move the rationale into the understanding document

JT: Think we'd need to be careful with that
... Only having normative information in the guidelines wouldn't aid understanding

JR: Agrees

<Jan> ACTION: JR to Propose what to so with Rationale - keep in Guideline but maybe word as intent [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/14-au-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-188 - Propose what to so with Rationale - keep in Guideline but maybe word as intent [on Jan Richards - due 2009-09-21].

TB: Querying use of the word "documentation"
... Some documentation can be bad and doesn't aid understanding

<Jan> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2009/ED-ATAG20-TECHS-20090909/#gl-tool-document

JT: Discussing decision support within tools, which is different to providing documentation and help
... When you're choosing a technology, brief guidance about the implications

JR: Dreamweaver. Choosing between HTML and XML. How much would Dreamweaver say?
... Choosing a Flash video for example, there would be a lot of info that might be required
... I.e. captions, audio description etc
... We can't really throw all of WCAG / ATAG at the user
... There needs to be some bounds

<Jan> JT: Maybe define decision support - to mean just a few points

JT: We can explain in the "decision support" definition

<Jan> JT: Tips or short impact statements

JT: And define some short impact statements there

<Jan> Next call Sept 21

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: AR to Writeup modified example for Guideline B.1.3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/14-au-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to New explanatory text about what Examples are suppoised to acheive [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/14-au-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to Propose what to so with Rationale - keep in Guideline but maybe word as intent [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/14-au-minutes.html#action03]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/09/14 21:03:20 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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: Andrew
Inferring ScribeNick: Andrew
Default Present: Jan, Jutta, Andrew, +1.416.946.aaaa, Jan_Richards, Tim_Boland, +1.561.582.aabb
Present: Jan Jutta Andrew +1.416.946.aaaa Jan_Richards Tim_Boland +1.561.582.aabb
Regrets: Jeanne_S. Anne_M. Greg_P.
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0048.html
Got date from IRC log name: 14 Sep 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/09/14-au-minutes.html
People with action items: ar jr

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


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]