IRC log of au on 2011-08-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:54:19 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #au
19:54:19 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:54:26 [Jan]
Zakim, this will be AUWG
19:54:26 [Zakim]
ok, Jan; I see WAI_AUWG()3:00PM scheduled to start 54 minutes ago
19:54:31 [Jan]
Meeting: WAI AU
19:55:23 [jeanne]
jeanne has joined #au
19:56:12 [Zakim]
WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has now started
19:56:19 [Zakim]
19:56:34 [Jan1]
Jan1 has joined #au
19:58:51 [jeanne]
20:00:03 [Zakim]
20:00:21 [Jan1]
zakim, ??P1 is really Jan
20:00:21 [Zakim]
+Jan; got it
20:00:35 [Zakim]
20:01:07 [Jan1]
zakim, [Microsoft] is really Cherie
20:01:07 [Zakim]
+Cherie; got it
20:04:38 [alastairc]
alastairc has joined #au
20:05:08 [Jan1]
Chair: Jan Richards
20:05:13 [Jan1]
Scribe: jeanne
20:06:56 [Zakim]
20:07:19 [Jan1]
zakim, ??P3 is really Alastair
20:07:19 [Zakim]
+Alastair; got it
20:07:21 [Zakim]
20:07:35 [Jan1]
zakim, ??P4 is really Jutta
20:07:35 [Zakim]
+Jutta; got it
20:07:41 [Jan1]
zakim, who's here?
20:07:41 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Jeanne, Jan, Cherie, Alastair, Jutta
20:07:42 [Zakim]
On IRC I see alastairc, Jan1, jeanne, RRSAgent, Zakim, trackbot
20:07:58 [Jan1]
Chair: Jutta Treviranus
20:09:03 [Jan1]
JT: I'm running a Masters program...there are students in the profram who could make useful contributions
20:09:04 [Zakim]
20:09:23 [Zakim]
20:09:42 [Jan1]
Topic: 1. Issues arising from WCAG-WG's reply to our comment response
20:12:44 [Greg]
Greg has joined #au
20:12:50 [jeanne]
JR: WCAG was concerned with our use of "accessible content". They suggested "WCAG Conformant". I replied that we couldn't use it, because of the WCAG requirement for accessible technologies. We want tools to be able to conform to ATAG even if accessible browsers don't yet exist. Example being SVG.
20:13:44 [jeanne]
Alastair: It is similar to early Flash, where you built accessibility features even though it was not yet supported.
20:14:10 [jeanne]
JR: Suggested "potentially WCAG 2 conformant"
20:16:29 [Zakim]
20:16:50 [Tim]
Tim has joined #au
20:16:56 [jeanne]
JT: I think it should go in the Implementing document
20:17:16 [jeanne]
s/JT: I/JR: I
20:17:33 [jeanne]
JS: We could put it in the home page.
20:17:46 [jeanne]
AC: Could we put it in a wiki?
20:18:41 [jeanne]
JR: We could put it in Implementing Intent, or if it goes beyond, we could make a "hot topics" page on /WAi/AU/
20:18:57 [jeanne]
JT: Are people in agreement with the explanation?
20:19:50 [jeanne]
AC: We want to link to it, instead of having to explain it every time.
20:20:30 [Jan1]
JT: "WCAG-capable"
20:20:32 [jeanne]
JT: WCAG capable content
20:20:56 [Greg]
WCAG Capable sounds good
20:20:57 [jeanne]
TB: We would have to link to the definition and discuss how to test it.
20:22:34 [jeanne]
JR: there are two - developer installed UIs where a company runs a web site where the tool is. They could make a WCAG conformant claim. Then there are developer tools that basically come in a box that gets installed into environments.
20:22:59 [jeanne]
... should the term "WCAG-capable" cover Part A as well.
20:23:23 [jeanne]
AC: That is like a default state - soemthing like Drupal.
20:24:17 [jeanne]
JR: It's not that it is editable, it is rather that in Part A, all the web-based parts of the authroing tool interface must meet WCAG 2.0 except for "accessibility supported".
20:25:20 [jeanne]
... is it worth making a separate statement for web-based authoring tools?
20:25:53 [jeanne]
AC: It is not only about the tools, but it is about the responsibility. It may have caveats about user support, but could make statements about their environment.
20:25:57 [jeanne]
TB: I agree
20:26:18 [jeanne]
JR: I will take an action to write up about WCAG capable content.
20:27:33 [Jan1]
Action JR: Write up a proposal on WCAGcapable for Part A and B
20:27:34 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-353 - Write up a proposal on WCAGcapable for Part A and B [on Jan Richards - due 2011-08-22].
20:28:19 [jeanne]
Topic: Change Proposals
20:29:39 [Jan1]
Topic: 3. Splitting up the work...ideas
20:29:43 [jeanne]
JR: We don't want to make changes to the documents without the bigger picture of all the comments still expected. I suggest marking them in the document
20:29:55 [Sueann]
Sueann has joined #au
20:30:11 [jeanne]
... then making a survey of all of them.
20:30:27 [jeanne]
Topic: Splitting up the work
20:30:35 [Jan1]
New comment response table:
20:30:41 [jeanne]
JR: I have some students who may want to take some of this on.
20:31:19 [jeanne]
20:31:54 [Jan1]
20:34:39 [jeanne]
zakim, who is here?
20:34:39 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Jeanne, Jan, Cherie, Alastair, Jutta, Greg, SueAnn, Tim_Boland
20:34:41 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Sueann, Tim, Greg, alastairc, Jan1, jeanne, RRSAgent, Zakim, trackbot
20:35:49 [jeanne]
JR: It needs updating, even a simple thing like text search, doesn't have a lot of examples, even though we all know products exist.
20:36:18 [Greg]
I was muted unmuted now, Haven't had a chance to evaluate Edge
20:36:24 [jeanne]
JR: It looks good if there are tools that meet a broad range of items
20:36:38 [jeanne]
TB: How many times is it listed.
20:37:34 [jeanne]
JS: Let's keep the table as a regular data table so we can sort it and filter it to meet our needs.
20:37:59 [jeanne]
JT: I think it would be useful to highlight the success criteria that still need implementations.
20:38:19 [Jan1_]
Jan1_ has joined #au
20:39:07 [jeanne]
JR: That is what we are trying to do. I can make a list of the things that need implementations.
20:39:25 [Zakim]
20:39:27 [Zakim]
20:39:29 [jeanne]
... maybe we can make 10 products and make a chart with the 10 columns, would that be easier?
20:39:51 [jeanne]
Topic: Testing Considerations
20:40:33 [jeanne]
JR: I want to write some more examples so that it is more clear what is needed. There is a concern that these things not accidently appear to introduce what seem to be normative requirements.
20:40:55 [Zakim]
20:41:23 [jeanne]
... If the folks that have tools that they are familiar with could work on completing the Implementation report, that would free me up to work more on Testing Considerations.
20:41:26 [Zakim]
20:42:10 [jeanne]
... having separate columns for each tool would give people the ability to say "not applicable" instead of it just not being positively listed.
20:42:29 [jeanne]
... this would give a better idea if the overall tool was accessible.
20:43:21 [jeanne]
JT: Should we all be on the lookout, or should we divide up the success criteria and look for implementations.
20:43:52 [jeanne]
JR: Give me a call or email and let me know the tool that you want a column for?
20:43:53 [Jan1]
GP: Dreamweaver
20:44:05 [jeanne]
Greg: Dreamweaver CS 5.5
20:44:05 [Jan1]
GP: DreamweaverCS5.5
20:45:44 [jeanne]
Cherie: MS Word 2010
20:45:47 [Jan1]
Cherie: Cherie: MS Word 2010
20:46:46 [jeanne]
JS: Is Sharepoint also a likely tool that could be added?
20:46:56 [jeanne]
Cherie: yes
20:46:56 [Jan1]
AC: Sharepoint
20:47:00 [Jan1]
GP: InDesign
20:47:08 [Jan1]
JR: Atutor
20:47:36 [Jan1]
SN: Lotus Connections
20:48:24 [jeanne]
JS: What about IBM Eclipse? Especially because it has a built-in checker
20:48:52 [jeanne]
SN: There are a couple others I want to look into, but I think Eclipse should be on the list.
20:49:28 [Zakim]
20:49:29 [Zakim]
20:50:05 [jeanne]
JS: Add Drupal and Wordpress, even though I don't know yet who will enter the info on them.
20:50:15 [Zakim]
20:50:17 [Zakim]
20:50:17 [Zakim]
20:50:19 [Zakim]
20:50:24 [jeanne]
rrsagent, make logs public
20:50:25 [Zakim]
20:50:29 [jeanne]
rrsagent, make minutes
20:50:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate jeanne
20:50:31 [Zakim]
20:50:36 [Zakim]
20:52:22 [Zakim]
20:52:35 [Zakim]
20:52:39 [Zakim]
20:52:40 [Zakim]
WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has ended
20:52:42 [Zakim]
Attendees were Jeanne, Jan, Cherie, Alastair, Jutta, Greg, SueAnn, Tim_Boland
20:52:56 [jeanne]
rrsagent, make minutes
20:52:56 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate jeanne
20:54:48 [jeanne]
chair: Jutta
20:54:59 [jeanne]
rrsagent, make minutes
20:54:59 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate jeanne
22:55:21 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #au