<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0148.html

<Jan> Scribe: jeanne

B.2.1.1 Decision Support

<Jan> Amended version: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0147.html

<Jan> JR: Not could be dropped

JR: I saw an example of this today in Open Office where I wanted to create a pdf, and I didn't know which one to use. Tagged pdf was an option, but I didn't know that it was the most accessible version.

<Jan> Jeanne: Doesn't like phrase "excluded web content tech"

<Jan> JR: Better wording?

<Jan> Greg: Something like fully support, partial support....

GP: "fully supported" or partially supported.
... the example of producing video captions. One might be accessible for web, but a different option would be needed for DVD and the accessible option (for web) wouldn't work.

JR: The problem is that "partially" goes down to 1%.

<Jan> JT: "Supported"...no....

<Jan> Jeanne: "Accessibility Supported" became so complex...

<Jan> Gre: Fully inclusive, partially inclusive, non-inclusive,....

<Jan> JT: OK with normative concept for amended: B.2.1.1 Decision Support

<Jan> All: Agree on this for 2nd sentence "The success criterion makes no assumption about the

<Jan> accessibility or inaccessibility of any particular web content

everyone is ok with dropping "absolutely" from the second paragraph

<Jan> technologies, because any technology can be made accessible. For

<Jan> example, a technology with no intrinsic accessibility features can be

<Jan> made accessible in conjunction with another technology (e.g., bitmap

<Jan> images may be made more accessible via HTML text labels)."

3rd sentence of the example - While there is

nothing intrinsically "inaccessible" about any of the video formats,

when the option to save is presented,

change "any of the" -> "these"

<Jan> All: Agree to "A video authoring tool allows authors to save into several video file

<Jan> formats. However, the authoring tool includes a built-in closed-caption

<Jan> editor that only works with one of the file formats. While there is

<Jan> nothing intrinsically "inaccessible" about any of these video formats,

<Jan> when the option to save is presented, the formats that are not supported

<Jan> by the authoring tool's own closed-caption editor include warnings that

<Jan> caption support is not provided. In the warning's explanation, the video

<Jan> format that is supported by the closed-caption editor is identified."

JS: I think these are editorial changes. No meaning changes

<Jan> ACTION: JR to add these changes to Intent and Examples to the doc - call for objections by others not on call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/29-au-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-267 - Add these changes to Intent and Examples to the doc - call for objections by others not on call [on Jan Richards - due 2010-04-05].

<Jan> Resolution: OK with new intent and examples at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0135.html

<Jan> Resolution: OK to use new intent and examples: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0136.html except use "summary" instead of "high-level" and "specific" instead of "low-level"

<Jan> ACTION: JR to add these changes (B.2.1.1) Intent and Examples to the doc - call for objections by others not on call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/29-au-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-268 - Add these changes (B.2.1.1) Intent and Examples to the doc - call for objections by others not on call [on Jan Richards - due 2010-04-05].

<Jan> JR: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0147.html

<Jan> ACTION: JR to Add a couiple sentences saying it is ok to pare down list for (b) in B.2.1.1 Decision Support [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/29-au-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-269 - Add a couiple sentences saying it is ok to pare down list for (b) in B.2.1.1 Decision Support [on Jan Richards - due 2010-04-05].

If the authoring tool provides a choice of different technologies for accomplishing a task desired by the author, the tool provides guidance or advice which technology will provide the most accessible outcome.

If the authoring tool provides a choice of different methods for accomplishing a task desired by the author, the tool provides guidance or advice which choice will provide the most accessible outcome.

If the authoring tool provides a choice of different methods for accomplishing a task desired by the author, the tool provides guidance or advice which choice will provide the most accessible outcome based on the abilities and features of the authoring tool.

<Jan> Greg: Covered/Not Covered

<Jan> JR: I could see covered

IF an authoring tool is capable of creating an array of formats, the tool provides BOTH:

IF an authoring tool is capable of creating an array of formats, and the format the author chooses does not have th capability of being made accessible, then the tool provides BOTH:

GP: An example of a TIFF document.

JR: Would you give the warning before or after the choice?

GP: A warning dialog box?
... I could live with once a user has made a decision, warning him that it was not the most accessible choice.

<Jan> Decision Support: If the authoring tool provides the option of

<Jan> producing a web content technology for publishing that the authoring

<Jan> tool does provide accessiblity authoring support for, then both

<Jan> of the following are true (Level A):

<Jan> Decision Support: If the authoring tool provides the option of producing a web content technology for publishing that the authoring tool does NOT provide accessiblity authoring support for, then both of the following are true (Level A):

<Jan> JR, Jeanne, and Greg agree on "provides accessiblity authoring support" vs. "does not provide accessiblity authoring support"

<Jan> "provides support for authoring accessbile content"

<Jan> Provides support for the production of accessible content

<Jan> Provides support for the production of accessible content VS. Does not provide support for the production of accessible content

<Jan> Resolution: Use Provides support for the production of accessible content VS. Does not provide support for the production of accessible content

<Jan> ACTION: Reword the proposal using "Use Provides support for the production of accessible content VS. Does not provide support for the production of accessible content" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/29-au-minutes.html#action04]

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

<Jan> ACTION: JR Reword the proposal using "Use Provides support for the production of accessible content VS. Does not provide support for the production of accessible content" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/29-au-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-270 - Reword the proposal using "Use Provides support for the production of accessible content VS. Does not provide support for the production of accessible content" [on Jan Richards - due 2010-04-05].

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
Default Present: Jeanne, Jan, +3aaaa, Jutta, +3aabb, Greg
Present: Jeanne Jan +3aaaa Jutta +3aabb Greg
Regrets: Andrew_R. SueAnn_N. Tim_B. Jutta_T._(for_last_half)
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0148.html
Got date from IRC log name: 29 Mar 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/03/29-au-minutes.html
People with action items: jr reword