15 Aug 2011

See also: IRC log


Jeanne, Jan, Cherie, Alastair, Jutta, Greg, SueAnn, Tim_Boland



<Jan1> Scribe: jeanne

<Jan1> Chair: Jutta Treviranus

<Jan1> JT: I'm running a Masters program...there are students in the profram who could make useful contributions

1. Issues arising from WCAG-WG's reply to our comment response

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.

Alastair: It is similar to early Flash, where you built accessibility features even though it was not yet supported.

JR: Suggested "potentially WCAG 2 conformant"
... I think it should go in the Implementing document

JS: We could put it in the home page.

AC: Could we put it in a wiki?

JR: We could put it in Implementing Intent, or if it goes beyond, we could make a "hot topics" page on /WAi/AU/

JT: Are people in agreement with the explanation?

AC: We want to link to it, instead of having to explain it every time.

<Jan1> JT: "WCAG-capable"

JT: WCAG capable content

<Greg> WCAG Capable sounds good

TB: We would have to link to the definition and discuss how to test it.

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.
... should the term "WCAG-capable" cover Part A as well.

AC: That is like a default state - soemthing like Drupal.

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".
... is it worth making a separate statement for web-based authoring tools?

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.

TB: I agree

JR: I will take an action to write up about WCAG capable content.

<Jan1> ACTION: JR to Write up a proposal on WCAGcapable for Part A and B [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/08/15-au-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-353 - Write up a proposal on WCAGcapable for Part A and B [on Jan Richards - due 2011-08-22].

Change Proposals

3. Splitting up the work...ideas

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
... then making a survey of all of them.

Splitting up the work

<Jan1> New comment response table: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011JulSep/att-0055/ATAG2-21July2011PublicWD-CommentResponses-rev11aug2011.html

JR: I have some students who may want to take some of this on.


<Jan1> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011JulSep/att-0047/ATAG2-21July2011PublicWD-ImplementationReport-rev11aug2011.html

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.

<Greg> I was muted unmuted now, Haven't had a chance to evaluate Edge

JR: It looks good if there are tools that meet a broad range of items

TB: How many times is it listed.

JS: Let's keep the table as a regular data table so we can sort it and filter it to meet our needs.

JT: I think it would be useful to highlight the success criteria that still need implementations.

JR: That is what we are trying to do. I can make a list of the things that need implementations.
... maybe we can make 10 products and make a chart with the 10 columns, would that be easier?

Testing Considerations

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.
... 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.
... having separate columns for each tool would give people the ability to say "not applicable" instead of it just not being positively listed.
... this would give a better idea if the overall tool was accessible.

JT: Should we all be on the lookout, or should we divide up the success criteria and look for implementations.

JR: Give me a call or email and let me know the tool that you want a column for?

<Jan1> GP: Dreamweaver

Greg: Dreamweaver CS 5.5

<Jan1> GP: DreamweaverCS5.5

Cherie: MS Word 2010

<Jan1> Cherie: Cherie: MS Word 2010

JS: Is Sharepoint also a likely tool that could be added?

Cherie: yes

<Jan1> AC: Sharepoint

<Jan1> GP: InDesign

<Jan1> JR: Atutor

<Jan1> SN: Lotus Connections

JS: What about IBM Eclipse? Especially because it has a built-in checker

SN: There are a couple others I want to look into, but I think Eclipse should be on the list.

JS: Add Drupal and Wordpress, even though I don't know yet who will enter the info on them.

<scribe> chair: Jutta

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: JR to Write up a proposal on WCAGcapable for Part A and B [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/08/15-au-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/08/15 20:57:44 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/JT: I/JR: I/
Found Scribe: jeanne
Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne
Default Present: Jeanne, Jan, Cherie, Alastair, Jutta, Greg, SueAnn, Tim_Boland
Present: Jeanne Jan Cherie Alastair Jutta Greg SueAnn Tim_Boland
Got date from IRC log name: 15 Aug 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/08/15-au-minutes.html
People with action items: jr
[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]