See also: IRC log
JS: Haven't talked CS yet...but she wants to change.
JR: Late May?
GP: Last week of May is Memorial
... May 31 is mem day.
<jeanne> JR: The wording in the question in the survey was not correct. I want to just look at the definition in the glossary.
<jeanne> ... the keywords "local" and "global" are no longer used and would be confusing.
<jeanne> ... I am recommending removing local and global and keeping the rest of the definition
Resolution: Use definition of option: When an author is presented with choices.
Resolution: Use rewording of A.3.6.4: PREFERENCES Assistance: The authoring tool includes a mechanism to help the author(s) configure any PREFERENCE SETTINGS related to Part A of this document. (Level AAA)
Resolution: Use rewording of THREE success criteria B.3.1.1,2,3: Accessible Options Prominent (WCAG Level A,AA,AAA): If authors are provided with a choice of authoring actions for achieving the same authoring outcome (e.g., styling text), then options that will result in web content conforming to WCAG 2.0 Level A are at least as prominent as options that will not. (Level A)
Resolution: Accept new "B.2.2.6 Status Report: Authors can receive an accessibility status report based on the results of the accessibility checks. (Level AA) Note: The format of the accessibility status is not specified. For example, the status might be a listing of problems detected or a WCAG conformance level, etc. "
<scribe> ACTION: JR follow up with TB re: issue of testability of new B.2.2.6 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/15-au-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-266 - Follow up with TB re: issue of testability of new B.2.2.6 [on Jan Richards - due 2010-03-22].
Resolution: Remove B.2.2.7 Save Status for Repair
JT: Accepts wording from: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20100305/results#xq4
JR: This gives us enough support to go ahead...
Resolution: B.2.2.8 Metadata
Production: Authors have the option of associating
accessibility checking results with the web content as
metadata. (Level AA) Note: The metadata format that is
implemented will dictate the nature of the associated results
(e.g., low-level check results, high-level conformance claims,
etc.). The INTENT section will include further information
about metadata for...
... resource discovery.
<jeanne> GP: Gives example of a word processer with an image, that gives an error that when the format changes the alt text would be lost. That would be ok. But if it is video captioning, there are so many different ways it can be done, it is too difficult.
<jeanne> JT: But the authoring tool doesn't support captioning in that case. It needs a warning it cannot be captioned in that tool.
<jeanne> GP: so what if the caption cannot be done in that tool, but can be done in another tool. I don't want to see these rules invluence the marketplace so that people are forced to use tools inappropriate to the job.
<jeanne> JR: We don't either. GP:If there are a problems in the workflow in the tools they have chosen, people should be warned. Not every tool does the captioning. Captioning is a downstream production using unknown tools.
<jeanne> GP: Video workflows are not good examples. Video formats are so varied by the purpose.
<jeanne> JR: No, it is what the authoring tool allows you to do with it. If the authoring tool supports quicktime, but not quicktime sprites, it should have a warning.
<jeanne> GP: I would be happy with language that says that if the tool is used to edit video in other formats, then the captioning information will be lost. The language seems to require that the tools be smarter than that.
<scribe> ACTION: Jan, Greg: To reword the decision support proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0117.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/15-au-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Jan,
JS: Want there to be a simpler example...without implication of too much AI
GP: Language around what accessibility supports can be provided and what can't be provided
JS: It's been a while since chaters were inline
JR: Milestones too close?
Resolution: Accept the draft charter at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2010/draft_auwg_charter_09mar10.html
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) Succeeded: s/We don't either. /We don't either. GP:/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: Jan Inferring Scribes: Jan Default Present: Jan, Jeanne, Greg_Pisocky, Jutta, +1.301.987.aaaa Present: Jan Jeanne Greg_Pisocky Jutta +1.301.987.aaaa Regrets: Ann_M. Andrew_R SueAnn_N. Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0119.html Got date from IRC log name: 15 Mar 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/03/15-au-minutes.html People with action items: greg jan jr[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]