W3C

- DRAFT -

WAI AU

22 Feb 2010

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Regrets
Ann, M.
Chair
Jan Richards
Scribe
jeanne

Contents


<Jan> Scribe: jeanne

Publishing planning

<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0060.html

JR: Review of the ATAG schedule for the next 8 weeks.

JS: This is a tentative schedule only.

2- Working through survey

<Jan> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20100210/results

<Jan> This success criterion pertains to the rendered properties of text on the screen, even if the properties differ from the web content being edited. For example, when an author has chosen custom display settings (as per Success Criterion A.2.3.1).

<Jan> Resolution: Use "This success criterion pertains to the rendered properties of text on the screen, even if the properties differ from the web content being edited. For example, when an author has chosen custom display settings (as per Success Criterion A.2.3.1). " as 3rd,4th sentences in intent of A222

JS: ok with me as the second paragraph

<Jan> Resolution: Accept text "The first requirement (a) applies only to the authoring tool user interface, which is the part of the authoring tool that developers have the most control over. In this case, there should not be keyboard traps. If authors can move focus to a component using standard keyboard navigation commands (e.g., using the tab key), then they must be able to move focus out of...

<Jan> ...the component in the same way. The second requirement (b) applies to renderings of web content. Because the web content may contain keyboard handlers, the authoring tool may not be able to prevent keyboard traps entirely. Therefore, the requirement is only that the authoring tool be able to restore the keyboard focus to some known location. This known location could be outside of the...

<Jan> ...rendered area (e.g., the menus) or it might be the next rendered element."

<Jan> Resolution: Accept new text "Of course, the editing mechanisms are contingent on the web content containing the appropriate structure. For example, editing by structure would not be very effective in an HTML document composed of plain text in a pre element." in Intent of A341

<Jan> Resolution: to accept Intent of Success Criterion A.3.4.2 text from http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20100210/results

http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2010/ED-ATAG20-20100222/

GP: I didn't know what was being replaced

JR: The question was "what does available mean?" from the commenter.

GP: I am ok with that

<Jan> Resolution: Accept rewording "B.1.2.1 Preserve Accessibility Information (Minimum): Any accessibility information (WCAG 2.0 Level A) recognized in the input to any web content transformation is preserved as accessibility information in the output, if allowed by the web content technology of the output."

<Jan> B.2.1.3 Other Technologies: If the authoring tool enables web content to be inserted that the authoring tool cannot be used to edit, then provide the author(s) can associate accessibility information with that web content. (Level A)

JR: Tim objected (see his survey comments) and Greg asked to reword for clarity.
... What is the difference between Edit and Modify, and can we just say Edit.

<Jan> If the authoring tool can insert web content which it cannot subsequently edit or modify, then the author(s) can associate accessibility information with that web content

GP: Yes.

<Jan> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20100210/results#xq7

TB: "association" has to be demonstrable and evident.

<Jan> If the authoring tool can insert web content which it cannot subsequently edit, then the author(s) can associate accessibility information with that web content

JR: I think it will be easy to demonstrate, for example, a PDF file could have a linked HTML document.

TB: That would be clear for that example.

<Jan> Resuliton: Accept: If the authoring tool can insert web content which it cannot subsequently edit, then the author(s) can associate accessibility information with that web content

<Jan> Resolution: Accept: If the authoring tool can insert web content which it cannot subsequently edit, then the author(s) can associate accessibility information with that web content

<Jan> ACTION: JR to For B.2.1.3 write a sentence explaining associate. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/22-au-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-259 - For B.2.1.3 write a sentence explaining associate. [on Jan Richards - due 2010-03-01].

TB: Is this normative? JR: It is a normative note. Because people know that not all checking can be semi automated or automated checking, it is important to have the note saying that instructions to the author what to check are the minimum. It is hard to draw the line.
... It seems like a loophole.

JR: It is somewhat, but it would be a poor tool that didn't provide some checking.

TR: But we should encourage semi-automated and automated checking.

JR: We have a whole section about this. Can we accept it?

TR: I would like to think about it some more.

<Jan> ACTION: TB to Report back to the group on checking automation thoughts. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/22-au-minutes.html#action02]

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

<Jan> ACTION: TB to Report back to the group on checking automation thoughts (SC B.2.2.1 Check Accessibility) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/22-au-minutes.html#action03]

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

<scribe> ACTION: Boland to Report back to the group on checking automation thoughts (SC B.2.2.1 Check Accessibility) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/22-au-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-260 - Report back to the group on checking automation thoughts (SC B.2.2.1 Check Accessibility) [on Frederick Boland - due 2010-03-01].

<Jan> Resolution: Text accepted: B.2.2.4 Help Authors Locate: For any checks that require author judgment to determine whether a potential web content accessibility problem is correctly identified (i.e., manual checking and semi-automated checking), the relevant web content is identified (e.g., highlight the affected web content, displaying line numbers, etc.) (Level A)

<Jan> B.2.2.7 Save Status for Repair: If repair assistance is not provided during checking, then the author(s) have the option to save a list of web content accessibility problems to facilitate later repair. (Level AA)

No objections

<Jan> Resolution: To accept B.2.2.7 Save Status for Repair: If repair assistance is not provided during checking, then the author(s) have the option to save a list of web content accessibility problems to facilitate later repair. (Level AA)

<Jan> Resolution: Accept New text for Related Resources for Success Criterion B.2.2.8:

<Jan> B.2.2.9 Metadata for Repair: If repair assistance is not provided during checking, then the author(s) have the option to save a metadata listing of the web content accessibility problems to facilitate interoperability with external repair tools. (Level AAA)

GP: I am still not clear.
... ok, no objection.

<Jan> ACTION: JR add some text to intent of B.2.29 explaining that extrenal tools are tools outside the conformance claim [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/22-au-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-261 - Add some text to intent of B.2.29 explaining that extrenal tools are tools outside the conformance claim [on Jan Richards - due 2010-03-01].

TB: Ok with included text that explains that external tool is not part of the conformance claim

<Jan> Resolution: Accept text: B.2.2.9 Metadata for Repair: If repair assistance is not provided during checking, then the author(s) have the option to save a metadata listing of the web content accessibility problems to facilitate interoperability with external repair tools. (Level AAA)

<Jan> Resolution: Accept "Note: While automated repair assistance or more advanced implementations of semi-automated repair assistance may improve the authoring experience, manual repair assistance is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion (as well as success criteria B.2.3.1 and B.2.3.2)."

<Jan> Templates Accessible (WCAG Level A): If the authoring tool automatically selects templates or pre-authored content, then the selections conform to WCAG 2.0 Level A when used. (Level A) Note: Templates may be complicated to check for accessibility due to their inherent incompleteness. The accessibility status of templates is instead measured by the accessibility of web content (in the final...

<Jan> ...web content technology) created when the templates are used properly.

<Jan> Note: Templates may not successfully pass accessibility checks due to their inherent incompleteness. The accessibility status of template should instead be measured by the accessibility of completed web content (in the final web content technology) created when the template is used properly.

<Jan> Note: Templates may not pass accessibility checks due to their inherent incompleteness. The accessibility status of template should instead be measured by the accessibility of completed web content (in the final web content technology) created when the template is used properly.

<Jan> Templates Accessible (WCAG Level A): If the authoring tool automatically selects templates or pre-authored content, then the selections conform to WCAG 2.0 Level A when used. (Level A) Note: Templates may not pass accessibility checks due to their inherent incompleteness. The accessibility status of template should instead be measured by the accessibility of completed web content (in the...

<Jan> ...final web content technology) created when the template is used properly.

no objections

<Jan> ACTION: JR change text to: Templates Accessible (WCAG Level A): If the authoring tool automatically selects templates or pre-authored content, then the selections conform to WCAG 2.0 Level A when used. (Level A) Note: Templates may not pass accessibility checks due to their inherent incompleteness. The accessibility status of template should instead be measured by the accessibility of... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/22-au-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-262 - Change text to: Templates Accessible (WCAG Level A): If the authoring tool automatically selects templates or pre-authored content, then the selections conform to WCAG 2.0 Level A when used. (Level A) Note: Templates may not pass accessibility checks due to their inherent incompleteness. The accessibility status of template should instead be measured by the accessibility of... [on Jan Richards - due 2010-03-01].

<Jan> ...completed web content (in the final web content technology) created when the template is used properly.

<Jan> Resolution: Accept "The intent of this success criterion is to help ensure that authors are as likely to notice and use functions for addressing accessibility problems as functions for addressing other web content issues (e.g., invalid markup, syntax errors, spelling and grammar errors)."

<Jan> Resolution: Accept Removing unused term "abbreviation" from glossary

<Jan> Resolution: Keep Appendix B: How to refer to ATAG 2.0 from other documents

Links to glossary issue

<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0058.html

<Jan> Resolution: Accept this approach http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0058.html

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Boland to Report back to the group on checking automation thoughts (SC B.2.2.1 Check Accessibility) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/22-au-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: JR add some text to intent of B.2.29 explaining that extrenal tools are tools outside the conformance claim [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/22-au-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: JR change text to: Templates Accessible (WCAG Level A): If the authoring tool automatically selects templates or pre-authored content, then the selections conform to WCAG 2.0 Level A when used. (Level A) Note: Templates may not pass accessibility checks due to their inherent incompleteness. The accessibility status of template should instead be measured by the accessibility of... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/22-au-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to For B.2.1.3 write a sentence explaining associate. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/22-au-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: TB to Report back to the group on checking automation thoughts (SC B.2.2.1 Check Accessibility) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/22-au-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: TB to Report back to the group on checking automation thoughts. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/22-au-minutes.html#action02]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/02/22 22:03:08 $

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: jeanne
Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: ARonksley GP Greg Greg_Pisocky IPcaller JR JS Jan Jeanne Note P7 Resuliton Sueann TB TR Tim Tim_Boland aaaa trackbot
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

Regrets: Ann M.
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0061.html
Got date from IRC log name: 22 Feb 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/22-au-minutes.html
People with action items: add boland jr some tb text

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


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]