<scribe> scribe: Sharron
Shawn: Had talked about doing a
review of what we accomplished, what we would like to
accomplish in 2011.
... since we are not meeting next week there are several things available
<sylvie> Hi! the French bridge does not work anymore, I try to connect again with the boston one
<Zakim> LiamM, you wanted to note the volunteer's limited job
<shawn> outreach opportunity to volunteers
Shawn: Hope to do more promotion
of UAAG and ATAG in 2011.
... one way to do that is to review the placeholder pages for those and Liam will
... volunteer to bring those up to date.
... Jeanne Spelman is with us and we will look at other related pages and get an idea of what our goals will be on these pages.
Shawn: Follow the link in IRC to
a brief intro of these pages.
... remember that we spent a good deal of time on the Accessibility page in 2009, awesome page, good work group and especially Liam.
... look at Browser and Authoring tools pages and that's what we want to work on.
Shawn: the Accessibility page
that we worked on in much more detailed than the others. Look
at alternate pages to see how they are organized and presented
so you can see that we don't need as much depth as we provided
in Accessibility page.
... thi one has just 3 paragraphs essentially.
... We want to get something on these pages to promote accessibility work with the idea that we can later revise it.
All: Yes, clear
Sylvie: It is not clear to me whether we are looking at the content or navigation?
Shawn: Only the content. Navigation is completely set. Current content is just placeholder we will develop.
Jennifer; next steps are to review content developed by Liam?
Liam: I would like the group to help me brainstorm and explore the idea that these pages are gateways to ATAG and UAAG.
Shawn: There is other work related to browsers and authoring tools and I have put out the word to those who may want to contribute. But our focus is accessibility issues related to these.
Liam: Can I see the list?
Shawn: Yes, have at it Liam!
Liam: On each of these pages, I
would like to give people a sense of whay they should care,
resources and then some info on the how-to. Finally if
approapriate, some on who is working on this.
... can we just start with people explaining to me why a reader should bother with UAAG?
Jeanne: From my point of view, many accessibility problems could be solved with more accessible browsers. Things that content developers struggle with could be less problematic with better browsers. My favorite example is keyboard tool tips.
... anything else? You are assuming that the reader already cares about accessibility.
Jeanne: True we must assume that people coming here don't know much about accessibility and are not likely to care. So must explain the bigger picture. having browsers that conform to standards benefit everyone. Interoperability, internationalization and then lead to accessibility.
Liam: Could we explore some examples of how there are benefits to all?
Ian: which user agents are we talking about?
Jeanne: typically we consider major browser makers, host of samller ones and media players.
Liam: While browser makers may
not do a terribly good job, certainly they understand the basic
need for accessibility. Is there a greater reason then to
address to smaller toolmakers?
... the primary audience for this may not be major browser makers.
Shawn: On analysis page is the
idea that we may want to address those who buy these systems,
... developers who may choose and embed a media player may want to consider accessibility features.
Liam: a valuable group but divergent from typical procurement groups.
Ian: is it going too far for the WAI to recommend browsers. I suspect so.
Shawn: We have in the past had comments about conformance by major browsers.
Jeanne: Labor intensive to have that kept current. And to put it on an intro page introduces obsolesence.
Ian: It needs to make sure that accessiiblity is considered when making a decision, but managing browser review may be too much.
Liam: If we can not support that kind of review, then perhaps procurers are not an audience
Shawn: We do have something (outdated) about how to choose an authoring tool, we can suggest that procurers ask vendors how they meet UAAG?
Shawn: RFP language, definitions,
can also say here is what we would like to have.
... here are top priorities.
Sandi: How do extension and
add-on developers fit into compliance framework?
... if they think about accessibility they may influence browser makers.
Sandi: Who are those people responsible to when it comes to confomrance?
Shawn: Most browsers don't have requirements. So, not anybody actually.
Jennifer: I don't think it works like that. There is no way that Mozilla has any clue about accessibility nor do they have the means to chack.
Sandi: But can we influence that group?
Janneifer: I think influening them would be awesome, I just don't think the browser maker will do it.
Liam: If you want to develop for a particular browser, there are specs to halp you get going, etc.
<shawn> e.g., https://developer.mozilla.org/en/gecko_sdk
Liam: there is a page all about each
<shawn> OUTREACH opportunity ! ! ! get them to include pointer to accessibility resources
Jennifer: and people are developing ways to edit within the browser
Sandi: It can be a complete win win - can point developers to the accessiiblity guidelines and it could be quite compelling.
Shawn: I think some of the
browser makers have strict requirements before apps or
extensions are allowed.
... so if we can get accessibility as a suggested feature, it would be progress.
Jennifer: Yes, but none will do validation for accessibility, in my experince.
<shawn> ACTION: shawn - list as an outreach opportunity for UAAG & ATAG to get included in SDKs and such [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/01/07-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Liam: Can inspire additional
audience groups which be great.
... what does special purpose browser mean?
Jennifer: Is assistive tech included?
Jan: yes, a user agent can include a few things - browsers, AT, media players. But sometimes useful to separate them. Interesting new sub-class are ones that convert things to Google docs, web based
Liam: Would UAAG have anything to address this? Do we need to particularize for special purpose browsers?
Jan: Make it clear that other layers in the stack can accomplish other parts of UAAG implementation.
Jeanne: It also goes the other way? Some browsers may want to use plug ins as a way to achieve accessibility conformance.
Liam: how to determine if assitive tech is a user agent?
Jeanne: One of the unintended consequences is that AT usually addresses specifc populations and may not meet all the UAAG requirements.
Sandi: Defined in different ways
Jennifer: Browsers in phones are
considered user agents
... I am thinking about tools that people build that work within browsers. Testing tools are out of scope?
Jan: Considered more of an authoring tool
Shawn: and we will address those soon.
Liam: We have a reasonalbe sense of why and what. I will admit ot only a passing familiarity to UAAG. Since it is in draft, should it be referenced?
Shawn: Point to Overview page.
Both will be progressing to next stages in 2011, so best would
be to leave it open-ended. "UAAG 1 was finalized whenever and
UAAG 2 is in development"...and link to overview.
... usually say something about how it is best to go ahead and use it.
Liam: are we there yet?
Jeanne: It is pretty stable.
Jan: Yes I don't see it changing radically.
Liam: apart from UAAG WG are there other groups to reference?
Shawn: I put WAI ARIA implementation guide from Protocols and
Jan: defeintely from an accessibility perspective. make the point that UA are rendering all the tech that other group's work produces. Want to link to other work.
Shawn: certainly some of the specs have specific guidance and I hope that others will point to it.
Jennifer: Like internationalization?
Shawn: yes and HTML or whatever.
Liam: thanks all, shall we move on?
Shawn: yes and let's develop rough notes in analysis page for documentation.
Jennifer: Media palyers are important to address specifically.
Liam: OK, great!
Shawn: OK, authoring tools - Liam.
Liam: same questions - why should a reader care about authoring tools and why care about ATAG?
Jan: Because authoring tools produce all content. The authoring tools ecosystem is so complex.
Laim: How big is the scope? Is the photo uploader an authoring tool? Wordpress?
Jan: Yes, it is important to include the idea that it is soemthing to be experinced by other people.
Liam: Would Fickr upload and the prompt for alt text be considered an authoring tool?
Jan: Yes, there is a link to the
defininition of authoring tools.
Liam: lots and lots and lots and lots of small developers is the audience
Sandi: and could target Open Source community, an audience more likely to be open to these ideas and could be a good group to target.
Jan: another point is having good ATAG implementation means the small developer would not have to have WCAG on their desk. Good implementation of ATAG means authors are guided and prompted.
Liam: so the how-to stuff is where we have a challenge to meet the needs of a large and diverse group of potential audiences.
Jan: There is useful guidance in
... ties it in to the other recommendations.
Liam: Just like the extension
developers. If there is no reference to accessibility, seem
... is it useful to point a facebook app developer to ATAG?
Liam: is ATAG2 at a stage where you can refer to it?
Jan: tentatively, probably more stable than UAAG
Jeanne: ATAG is in Last Call and so much farther along and referencable.
Liam: Lots of integration with WCAG and UAAG.
Jan: Yes, for sure
Shawn: Developers often refer to WCAG but are unaware of ATAG and UAAG.
Liam: Ruby on Rails and Python - authoring tools?
Ian: No, but I was thinking aobut languages in this context. A good first step is to put your work in a recognizable form rather than coming up with omething propriatory. Is it worth linking to formats that W3C uses?
Liam: that is more about openness than accessibility.
Jan: Have tried to formulate a requirement around formats. Came to idea that there is really no way to define accessible formats. Rather have taken the posiiton of accessibility supports provided for that format?
Jennifer: Hopefully canvas will help.
Ian: the only way to make it acessible is with good authoring tools.
Liam: can we talk about that on
the new page?
... what groups are working on it?
Shawn: Maybe in ARIA? not sure
Jan: no, we just see ARIA as a tool that you may or may not use
Liam: Do you have a list of documentation for authoring tools that reference ATAG.
Jan: we have the overview, implementation documents, etc. We did some reviews previoulsy but obsolesence is a real problem.
<shawn> ******* wording that we used when WCAG 2 was close but not done: "We encourage you to start using WCAG 2.0 now. Until WCAG 2.0 is finalized, WCAG 1.0 is the completed, referenceable version. If your site is required to meet WCAG 1.0, you may choose to develop it to meet both WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0." - we'll need to confirm if we're ready to say that for UAAG. I'm pretty sure that we are for ATAG.
Liam: But there are pages that should be in the related documents section. Good. Anything else?
Shawn: I found the wording from
WCAG2, it's in IRC.
... if you have comments not for discussion, send directly to Liam or to editor's list. Thanks Jeanne and jan. Should we send drafts to both lists or any thoughts on that?
Liam: my first draft will be
quite discussable. will have things that people think should
not possibly be in and start arguemnts.
... are we likely to get many many many replies?
Shawn: a few.
... thanks again!
Shawn: if you haven't looked at these documents, please do. Some are some not ready for copyediting review.
Jennifer: when they are, please feel free to say can you turn this around in 3 days or whatever.
Shawn: There is plenty to review.
With most will do one more pass and then ask for permission to
publish. So please get comments in asap.
... remind Ian of the slidey thing on your to-do list.
... Doyle will not be active in the group for a while so we will need people to take turns minuting. I will set up a rotation schedule.
Shawn: any other news or comments
... have a great new year!
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/ Ian: New job at the BBC at the end of January.// Found Scribe: Sharron Inferring ScribeNick: Sharron Default Present: Shawn, +184.108.40.206.aaaa, Sylvie, Jeanne, Sandi, +1.512.305.aabb, Sharron, Ian, +1.650.348.aacc, Jennifer, LiamM, +33.7.aadd, Jan Present: Shawn Sylvie Sandi Sharron Ian Liam Jennifer Jan_Richards_(from_ATAG_&_UAAG_Working_Groups) Jeanne_Spellman_(from_ATAG_&_UAAG_Working_Groups) Regrets: Andrew Shadi Got date from IRC log name: 07 Jan 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/01/07-eo-minutes.html People with action items: - an as atag for list opportunity outreach shawn uaag[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]