18:52:46 RRSAgent has joined #au 18:52:46 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/10/24-au-irc 18:53:07 Zakim, this will be AUWG 18:53:07 ok, Jan; I see WAI_AUWG()3:00PM scheduled to start in 7 minutes 18:59:07 WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has now started 18:59:14 +Jeanne 18:59:29 jeanne has joined #au 18:59:31 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0038.html 18:59:51 Scribe: Jan 19:00:06 Chair: Jutta Treviranus 19:00:13 Chair: Jan Richards 19:00:31 Regrets: Jutta T. 19:00:53 +[Microsoft] 19:01:16 +[IPcaller] 19:01:18 zakim, Microsoft is Alex 19:01:18 +Alex; got it 19:02:19 zakim, [IPcaller] is really Jan 19:02:19 +Jan; got it 19:03:22 + +1.571.765.aaaa 19:03:36 zakim, aaaa is Greg 19:03:36 +Greg; got it 19:05:07 Greg has joined #au 19:05:20 Hello Zakim 19:05:41 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results 19:05:45 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024 19:06:32 +Sueann 19:09:57 scribe: jeanne 19:10:32 Topic: 1. Last call comments (due Sept 15) 19:11:32 Topic: 2. Actions arising from last week: 19:11:42 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results 19:11:55 Topic: reversible actions 19:11:58 Jan: PF accepted our changes to the last draft in responses to their cvomments 19:12:04 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq9 19:13:14 A reversible authoring action is an authoring action that can be immediately and completely undone by the authoring tool upon a cancel request by an author. Examples of cancel requests include: "cancel", "undo", ("redo" when it used to reverse "undo"), "revert", "roll-back". 19:13:19 Greg: If there is revert or rollback, that should also be included 19:15:01 ... the revert is to a last saved point, so it would not be a sequential reverse of actions. 19:15:27 JR: At the minimum level, it can be a revert. At the AAA it is a sequential reversal. 19:16:21 AL: But the SC hasn't changed? 19:16:24 Sueann has joined #au 19:16:34 JR: The SC has changed. The notes have moved to the definition 19:18:06 +Tim_Boland 19:20:12 RESOLUTION: Accept the above wording 19:20:39 Resolution: All accept reversible actions changes from "http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq9" with added examples, revert etc 19:20:54 Topic: term "authoring action" in to the preview defn note 19:21:00 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq10 19:21:31 Tim has joined #au 19:22:36 JR: changed to discriminate between editable authoring actions and testing author action 19:22:59 Views in which no authoring actions are provided. Typically, the purpose of previews is to present content as it would appear to end-users of user agents. In these cases, previews may be implemented using existing user agents or they may attempt to emulate some user agent functionality. 19:24:40 Views in which no authoring actions are provided (i.e., the view is not editable). Typically, the purpose of previews is to present content as it would appear to end-users of user agents. In these cases, previews may be implemented using existing user agents or they may attempt to emulate some user agent functionality. 19:25:07 JS: I think we should keep "editable" because some people may consider testing a preview page as an authoring action 19:25:08 Resolution: All accept: Views in which no authoring actions are provided (i.e., the view is not editable). Typically, the purpose of previews is to present content as it would appear to end-users of user agents. In these cases, previews may be implemented using existing user agents or they may attempt to emulate some user agent functionality. 19:25:21 programmatically determined 19:25:27 Topic: programmatically determined 19:25:36 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq11 19:27:24 JR: I added the note. 19:27:30 AL: That looks fine to me. 19:27:39 Resolution: All accept "Note: In ATAG 2.0, some success criteria require authoring tools to make certain information programmatically determinable. In cases where the platform lacks a platform accessibility service, these success criteria are to be considered "not applicable". Conformance claims are optional, but any claim that is made must record the platform and the fact that the platform... 19:27:41 ...does not include a platform accessibility service. " 19:27:52 Topic: A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status Information 19:27:59 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq4 19:30:49 AL: looks ok to me 19:34:41 SN: Seems reasonable 19:34:50 Resolution: All agree with "A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status Indicators: If an editing-view adds status indicators to the content being edited, then the status messages being indicated can be programmatically determined. Note: Status indicators may indicate errors (e.g. spelling errors), tracked changes, hidden elements, or other information. " 19:35:08 Topic: 3. Conformance claim harmonization with WCAG (SN's issue): 19:36:34 http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/ED-ATAG20-20111014/#conf-claim 19:36:43 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#conformance-claims 19:38:08 [comparison with WCAG] 19:39:55 JR: who can make the claim is different. WCAG is completely open. We allow collections of software components to conform. We also allow the claimant to state the technologies they are making the claim against. ATAG also asks the platform, but WCAG does not. 19:42:25 Sueann: Claims should be made by the entity that owns the intellectual property. This is a blocking issue. 19:42:48 SN: "Developer" is too loose 19:42:56 ... developer is not appropriate when we are discussing intellectual property. These are quasi-legal statements. 19:44:09 JR: Authoring tool provide 19:44:14 GP: Publisher? 19:44:19 GP: Licensor? 19:45:24 JS: What about open source group? 19:45:32 SN: No different..someone licenses it 19:45:45 JS: True...but who has the authority 19:47:45 JR: Authoring tool representative? 19:48:10 SN: It's the company...open source org, software company... 19:48:24 GP: The entity that controls the intellectual property 19:49:28 SN: Likes what Alex just said.. 19:49:50 AL: Basically entities that do not have IP ownerhsip claim on a product cannot make claims 19:49:58 The entity who does not have control of the inteelectual property cannot make a claim on behalf of the product. 19:51:40 SN: Why this "At least one version of the conformance claim must be published..." 19:52:38 JR: Came from here UAAG1: http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-USERAGENT/conformance.html#conformance-claims 19:52:54 JS: Important for people out there to get this info 19:53:48 SN: Why multiple versions? 19:54:05 JS: different versions of the product 19:54:16 GP: those would be different claims 19:56:00 GP: Let's not confuse versions with renditions 19:56:11 -Tim_Boland 19:56:22 JR: This refers more to file formats. 19:56:48 JR: I will take an action to review the conformance claim and update the language. 19:56:50 -Alex 19:56:51 -Sueann 19:56:55 -Greg 19:57:18 Action JR: To review the conformance section and propose and issues for a survey. 19:57:19 Created ACTION-360 - Review the conformance section and propose and issues for a survey. [on Jan Richards - due 2011-10-31]. 19:57:25 zakim, who's here? 19:57:25 On the phone I see Jeanne, Jan 19:57:26 On IRC I see Greg, jeanne, RRSAgent, Zakim, Jan, trackbot 20:11:28 -Jan 20:11:33 -Jeanne 20:11:35 WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has ended 20:11:37 Attendees were Jeanne, Alex, Jan, +1.571.765.aaaa, Greg, Sueann, Tim_Boland 20:11:55 rrsagent, make logs public 20:12:00 rrsagent, make minutes 20:12:00 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/24-au-minutes.html jeanne 20:12:21 rrsagent, make logs public 20:12:34 Meeting: AUWG 20:13:01 rrsagent, make minutes 20:13:01 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/24-au-minutes.html jeanne 20:13:24 rrsagent, bye 20:13:24 I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/24-au-actions.rdf : 20:13:24 ACTION: JR to To review the conformance section and propose and issues for a survey. [1] 20:13:24 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/24-au-irc#T19-57-18