IRC log of au on 2011-10-31

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:46:16 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #au
15:46:16 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-au-irc
15:46:22 [Jan]
Zakim, this will be AUWG
15:46:22 [Zakim]
ok, Jan; I see WAI_AUWG(TPAC)11:30AM scheduled to start 16 minutes ago
15:46:32 [Jan]
Meeting: WAI AU
15:46:44 [Jan]
zakim, code?
15:46:44 [Zakim]
the conference code is 28943 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Jan
15:47:00 [Jan]
doh its not...its 28943
15:48:39 [Jan]
jeanne, is this correct? I will send out individual emails!
15:51:32 [jeanne]
Go with individual then. I don't see an error on the list and all the systeam are in Calif.
15:51:40 [jeanne]
Let me try first and see if mine go through
15:53:36 [jeanne]
I dont' see any errors or blocked message in list maintenance.
15:54:03 [Zakim]
WAI_AUWG(TPAC)11:30AM has now started
15:54:10 [Zakim]
+??P4
15:54:19 [Jan]
zakim, ??P4 is really Jan
15:54:19 [Zakim]
+Jan; got it
15:55:58 [W3C]
W3C has joined #au
15:57:17 [Jan]
I just send you a doc that maybe you can post...
15:57:36 [Jan]
plus also can you post the updated agenda I cc'd you on?
15:59:24 [Zakim]
+Jeanne
16:01:36 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
16:01:59 [Zakim]
+??P15
16:02:15 [Jan]
zakim, [Microsoft] is really Cherie
16:02:15 [Zakim]
+Cherie; got it
16:02:30 [Jan]
zakim, ??P15 is really Jutta
16:02:30 [Zakim]
+Jutta; got it
16:02:41 [Jan]
Chair: Jutta Treviranus
16:03:20 [Zakim]
+ +44.117.929.aaaa
16:03:41 [Jan]
zakim, aaaa is really Alastair
16:03:41 [Zakim]
+Alastair; got it
16:04:14 [Zakim]
+Greg
16:05:44 [Jan]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0051.html
16:06:55 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
16:08:04 [Jan]
zakim, [Microsoft] is really Alex
16:08:04 [Zakim]
+Alex; got it
16:12:15 [jeanne]
scribe: jeanne
16:12:26 [jeanne]
Topic: MS2
16:14:16 [Greg]
Greg has joined #au
16:14:18 [Jan]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0045.html
16:16:39 [Tim]
Tim has joined #au
16:17:16 [jeanne]
Jan reviews email of proposal [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0045.html]
16:18:54 [jeanne]
GP: If you review on a 3rd party for checking, e.g. Dreamweaver no longer has a built-in checker, so Adobe can file a claim saying that anyone of these 6 3rd party checkers can be used.
16:19:29 [jeanne]
AL: Microsoft is reluctant to endorse any 3rd party product, so Microsoft would not want to list a built-in checker.
16:19:49 [jeanne]
JR: But since Microsoft doesn't use 3rd party products, it won't be an issue
16:19:52 [Zakim]
+Tim_Boland
16:20:03 [jeanne]
JT: It is a dependency, not an endorsement
16:20:03 [W3C]
W3C has joined #au
16:21:24 [jeanne]
AL: But we don't list any screenreaders in our VPATs, for example, because we can't do that - even if it is dependency, it gets interpreted as an endorsement, so we don't do it.
16:24:34 [Jan]
zakim, who's here?
16:24:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Jan, Jeanne, Cherie, Jutta, Alastair, Greg, Alex, Tim_Boland
16:24:37 [Zakim]
On IRC I see W3C, Tim, Greg, RRSAgent, Zakim, Jan, jeanne, trackbot
16:25:15 [jeanne]
JS: COuldn't we allow a category of accessibility checker, for example?
16:25:41 [jeanne]
JT: But how we then ensure the accessibility checker was ATAG compliant? We need names.
16:27:47 [jeanne]
AL: It is important to make a distinction between the complete product and saying a product can do part of ATAG, but not all
16:28:30 [jeanne]
... the example of the Accessibility Toolbar that does not meeting part A and most of part B.
16:29:07 [jeanne]
JR: AT the last F2F, we discussed having a conformance of ATAG-Ready, which is for limited products, which just states it doesn't break anything.
16:30:39 [jeanne]
JR: This is why we took a workflow approach in the first place. We have a conditional "if your users are not allowed to break WCAG, you don't need a checker".
16:31:03 [jeanne]
AL: If you have a clear yes/no, then you have a more robust ATAG.
16:32:40 [Jan]
Jan has joined #au
16:32:45 [jeanne]
JR: 3rd party checking and repair, Microsoft doesn't want to endorse. But some tools need to have a 3rd party checker. Is there a conditional that would allow us to bridge the lack?
16:34:24 [jeanne]
JT: the initial issue is the collection of tools. The other issue is the option to point to a dependency on an external product, which other companies have expressed a desire to do.
16:34:44 [jeanne]
GP: ATAG complaince CAN address a collection of tools.
16:35:58 [W3C]
Another example using a WYSIWYG editor in a web based CMS.
16:36:28 [jeanne]
JT: there is a reality that there are mashups. THere are very few tools that are monolithic and are not dependent on other tools. We can address the confusion by making clear the bounds of the compliance statement. But we cannot ignore that authoring tools, like other tools, are becoming more dependent on other tools.
16:37:11 [jeanne]
AL: Let's say you have 3 or 4 tools in an authoring environment and each of the tools can have its own claim.
16:37:24 [jeanne]
JT: They could not claim unless they were a collection.
16:37:49 [jeanne]
AL: You are assuming that someone has to meet everything before the author is going to proceed.
16:38:08 [jeanne]
... if I know I need to do X, Y, and Z, I will collect the tools I know.
16:38:49 [Zakim]
+Sueann
16:38:49 [jeanne]
... each part will have a chunk fulfilled by each tool.
16:39:42 [jeanne]
JT: If the authoring function were within the tool, but the checking situation means that the authoring tool may not include.
16:40:03 [jeanne]
AL: then we need the authoring tool to have built-in or aftermarket.
16:41:05 [jeanne]
AC: We need a way from a web-based authoring system to use Tiny-MCE, for instance,
16:41:28 [jeanne]
... If a set of tools doesn't cover all of ATAG, then it shouldn't be open to have a full conformance statement? ]
16:41:49 [jeanne]
JR:
16:42:39 [jeanne]
JR: ATAG is written for a system of authoring tools and features to produce accessible content. We don't want to have to tell 3rd parties what they have to do.
16:43:35 [jeanne]
AL: then ATAG is not requiring a tool to do anything, but get 3rd party products to do all the work.
16:44:39 [jeanne]
JT: So are you saying that 3rd party conformance should be moved to conditional statements in the success criteria.
16:45:10 [jeanne]
AL: I am saying that we need to be more creative.
16:45:28 [jeanne]
... we need rethinking that would come to a better solution.
16:46:02 [jeanne]
JT: What are the functionalities that can be pointed to 3rd parties for? checking and repair, certainly, but are there any others?
16:46:53 [jeanne]
GP: Checking and repair is the primary one. Other than PDF, we are not in the validation business. It's not a one-size-fits-all. We define a workflow, and are fine with recommending other solutions.
16:47:36 [jeanne]
... market forces come to bear, 3rd party vendors come to us and ask to be on our list of recommended tools.
16:48:19 [jeanne]
JT: If it is only checking and repair, then making it conditional to the SC makes sense.
16:48:52 [jeanne]
AC: If Tiny MCE has it's own conformance claim, so that the CMS doesn't have to claim it for it.
16:49:16 [jeanne]
... where you include 3rd party tools can introduce its own accessibility claims.
16:52:10 [jeanne]
... transformation is another area for 3rd party tools.
16:52:46 [jeanne]
JR: we need to have some kind of statement of "plays nicely with others"
16:53:02 [jeanne]
GP: But a checking tool requires you to go back and repair.
16:53:21 [ssnichol]
ssnichol has joined #au
16:57:09 [jeanne]
AL: I think we will have a complex conformance statement. Even with today's version of ATAG, they would have to be addressed in the conformance statement.
16:58:57 [jeanne]
... If the conformance claim makes it clear what it does and what it doesn't do, it makes it easier for the Systems Integrator to assemble the proper collection of tools.
16:59:24 [jeanne]
zakim, who is here?
16:59:24 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Jan, Jeanne, Cherie, Jutta, Alastair, Greg, Alex, Tim_Boland, Sueann
16:59:26 [Zakim]
On IRC I see ssnichol, Jan, W3C, Tim, Greg, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeanne, trackbot
16:59:37 [jeanne]
present+ Jan, Jeanne, Cherie, Jutta, Alastair, Greg, Alex, Tim_Boland, Sueann
17:00:41 [jeanne]
JT: We embed it into the success criteria for Checking & Repair, you can do it by built-in C&R or by 3rd party C&R.
17:01:52 [jeanne]
AL: This is brainstorming that is pretty close to my train of thought.
17:02:58 [jeanne]
AC: This is more general than checking and repair. Some CMS do not include a WYSIWYG editor, a mashup interface creator will want to reocmmend tools to create an accessible interface.
17:03:37 [Jan]
scribe: Jan
17:04:04 [Jan]
AC: Just wondering if in terms of conformance...not the SCs themselves...but how we ask them to perform...
17:04:24 [Jan]
AC: It's the in situ installation that would be asked to conform
17:04:37 [Jan]
AC: Not necessarily the tool itself
17:05:27 [Jan]
JT: The question becomes...does combination compliance statement adress purchaser need to have a tool they can use and that creates accessible content for end users
17:05:48 [Jan]
AC: Yes, tool could say positively what it does do
17:05:56 [Jan]
AC: And what it doesn't try to meet
17:07:17 [Jan]
JT: So if thats the first level who's responsible for full ATAG level
17:07:27 [jeanne]
scribe: jeanne
17:08:22 [jeanne]
AC: If you have an author using Dreamweaver, then you may want to point them to another tool, but in many CMS systems, the people who install or integrate things that assemble the tool collections, not the author.
17:09:10 [jeanne]
JR: That's part of hte ATAG ready --- they play nicely with others -- [publically availble claims] and then those making an ATAG claim can refer to those tools.
17:09:43 [jeanne]
JT: Do we need ATAG-ready if it only covers a small number of functions.
17:10:40 [jeanne]
JR: It is confusing if someone who doesn't have a checker claims it.
17:11:42 [jeanne]
AC: We would take responsible for our system, but it becomes more complex when an aggregator or integrator is making a claim for a configuration of products.
17:11:59 [jeanne]
q+ to suggest we make a list of use cases.
17:12:49 [jeanne]
AL: It is a common scenario to have a mixture of technologies, so you could have a whole complex matrix of technologies to be used to create a conformance claim.
17:13:40 [Jan]
+1 to Jeanne's idea
17:13:42 [jeanne]
ack jeanne
17:13:42 [Zakim]
jeanne, you wanted to suggest we make a list of use cases.
17:15:00 [jeanne]
JT: It would also be useful to test ATAG conformance claim where a developer could make a claim on their own product, and a second conformance option where an integrator can make a claim on a collection of tools.
17:15:51 [jeanne]
.... b) we make use cases to challenge this proposal.
17:16:50 [jeanne]
AL: I have additional questions on MS2: the value chain of authoring tools - would the firmware on the scanner be a part of ATAG? How does one know that one is creating web content these days.
17:18:42 [jeanne]
... if I send a FB message, and you use FB app on phone, it is not web content, but if you use the FB web page, it is?
17:19:48 [W3C]
AC: I have a feeling that it can be solvedin the conformance area rather than re-jigging success criteria, but happy to come up with use-cases
17:19:51 [jeanne]
JT: We will move on to the next issue with MS2 and work on the use cases and scenario proposals for later.
17:20:46 [Jan]
Action: All to send in conformance use cases related to the multi-tool issue
17:20:46 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - All
17:21:26 [jeanne]
action: jan to work with ALL to send in conformance use cases related to the multi-tool issue
17:21:27 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-361 - Work with ALL to send in conformance use cases related to the multi-tool issue [on Jan Richards - due 2011-11-07].
17:22:24 [Jan]
Action: JR to model what it looks like to move 3rd-party dpendency out of conformance claim and into the SCs (checking and repair) - so that compliance statemtn is simpler
17:22:25 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-362 - Model what it looks like to move 3rd-party dpendency out of conformance claim and into the SCs (checking and repair) - so that compliance statemtn is simpler [on Jan Richards - due 2011-11-07].
17:22:26 [jeanne]
JT: it would be good to model to take the dependencies out of the compliance
17:23:03 [jeanne]
Topic: MS2 - scope of web content
17:23:58 [jeanne]
AL: WCAG did not draw a specific boundary around what is web content.
17:24:40 [jeanne]
... if you use Word or Powerpoint, you see an HTML file, not the docx or ppt file you would see if you used the desktop client.
17:25:17 [jeanne]
... for authors, it is very different, it is the same process, it is the recipient who determines if it is web content or not.
17:27:22 [jeanne]
JR: then isn't it up to the tool to decide to use ATAG? The docx document may not have to meet ATAG because it doesn't have to, but then the author says "Save as HTML" and then the output isn't accessible because the tool ddin't put it in when it was being created.
17:28:21 [jeanne]
AL: I don't know what will end up being a web agent. I am not saying that we don't do anything when it isn't intended for web content, because we do.
17:28:35 [jeanne]
... like a fax can be turned into web content.
17:29:44 [jeanne]
JT: We are saying that it is only for web content. You don't need to make a statement for non-web content.
17:30:09 [Jan]
Jan has joined #au
17:30:54 [jeanne]
AL: for Word, for example, the primary function is to create a docx file. If someone chooses to do the conversion, we say you transform at your risk.
17:31:20 [jeanne]
JR: What if tomorrow FIrefox and Safari announce they will support docx format natively?
17:32:02 [jeanne]
AL: that is important to look at, and we will identify it as potentially risky.
17:33:29 [jeanne]
JT: If we pursue that further, that transformation needs to conform to ATAG, and therefore, to support that claim, Word would need to have the ATAG features to support that transformation.
17:34:17 [jeanne]
AL: We aren't going to change the product, just because it has a transformation function. We will probably add a disclaimer that the author transforms at its own risk.
17:34:53 [jeanne]
JT: It is stated corporate policy that Microsoft wants to create accessible document.
17:35:29 [jeanne]
AL: I like to compartmentalize specific products. MS has a long history of creating products and content that is accessible.
17:36:24 [jeanne]
... Word is not a web development tool. I need to draw a line.
17:38:20 [jeanne]
... we have to flesh this out with WCAG working group.
17:40:13 [jeanne]
Action: jeanne to work with Jutta to coordinate with the WCAG WG on the definition of web content and set boundaries of what is included as web content.
17:40:13 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-363 - Work with Jutta to coordinate with the WCAG WG on the definition of web content and set boundaries of what is included as web content. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2011-11-07].
17:43:12 [jeanne]
... because ATAG is being discussed as legal requirements, we have to remove ambiguity. Otherwise Microsoft has to pay many engineers to explain these ambiguities in court.
17:43:29 [Jan]
MS3: Most touch screen devices do not use the keyboard for navigation. Keyboard is only used for text input. The current definition of keyboard interface does not work with the corresponding SC within the context of touch screen devices. Also, please refresh the term PDA. It is no longer in use today.
17:43:55 [jeanne]
Topic: MS3 keyboard interface with touchscreen devices
17:44:23 [Jan]
OLD: An interface used by software to obtain keystroke input. A keyboard interface can allow keystroke input even if particular devices do not contain a conventional keyboard (e.g., a touch screen PDA can have a keyboard interface built into its operating system to support onscreen keyboards as well as external keyboards that may be connected). Keyboard-operated mouse emulators, such as...
17:44:25 [Jan]
...MouseKeys, do not qualify as operation through a keyboard interface because these emulators use pointing device interfaces, not keyboard interfaces.
17:44:42 [Jan]
NEW: Keyboard Interface: An interface used by software to obtain keystroke input. A keyboard interface can allow keystroke input even if particular devices do not contain a conventional keyboard (e.g., a touchscreen-controlled device can have a keyboard interface built into its operating system to support onscreen keyboards as well as external keyboards that may be connected). Keyboard-operated mo
17:44:44 [Jan]
use emulators, such as MouseKeys, do not qualify as operation through a keyboard interface because these emulators use pointing device interfaces, not keyboard interfaces.
17:46:49 [jeanne]
AL: what it it only has keyboard as text and no keyboard navigation?
17:47:36 [jeanne]
JR: Both iOS and Android support keyboard navigation
17:47:54 [jeanne]
AL: The paradigm of keyboard as people with mobility impairments has changed.
17:48:31 [jeanne]
JR: the ability to move focus without activation
17:49:11 [jeanne]
AL: Keyboard interface is no longer the only way for people with blind or mobility impairment to move. This is a change from when WCAG was written.
17:50:41 [Jan]
A.3.1.1 Keyboard Access (Minimum): All functionality of the authoring tool is operable through a keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes, except where the underlying function requires input that depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints. (Level A)
17:50:42 [jeanne]
JR: Do we change the SC to be a more updated term and is there a more updated term?
17:51:11 [jeanne]
JT: can we define the functionality in a less technology specific way.
17:51:39 [jeanne]
AC: there are still things that map to keyboard access on a very basic level that we need to support.
17:52:19 [jeanne]
JR: Could this be addressed by a note? We mean that pointer or touch independent navigation mechinisms.
17:52:30 [jeanne]
AL: I think it could be done by changing the success criteria.
17:53:21 [jeanne]
q+ to say that UAAG is talking about it as supporting keyboard as a most universal input mechanism
17:54:10 [jeanne]
ack jeanne
17:54:10 [Zakim]
jeanne, you wanted to say that UAAG is talking about it as supporting keyboard as a most universal input mechanism
17:56:02 [jeanne]
... not the physical keyboard, but the concept of keyboard.
17:56:22 [jeanne]
... voice input experts strongly support mapping to keyboard.
17:56:45 [Jan]
Action JR: To draft a Note 3 to clarify A.3.1.1 Keyboard Access (Minimum) for keyboard-less devices
17:56:46 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-364 - Draft a Note 3 to clarify A.3.1.1 Keyboard Access (Minimum) for keyboard-less devices [on Jan Richards - due 2011-11-07].
17:57:35 [jeanne]
adjourning until 2:15 EST
17:57:42 [Jan]
Taking break...back at 2:15pm ET
17:59:50 [Zakim]
-Jutta
18:06:41 [Zakim]
+??P22
18:06:48 [Zakim]
-Alastair
18:15:29 [jeanne]
zakim, P22 is Alastair
18:15:29 [Zakim]
sorry, jeanne, I do not recognize a party named 'P22'
18:15:31 [Jan]
zakim, whp's here?
18:15:31 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, Jan.
18:15:35 [Jan]
zakim, who's here?
18:15:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Jan, Jeanne, Cherie, Greg, Alex, Tim_Boland, Sueann, ??P22
18:15:38 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Jan, ssnichol, W3C, Tim, Greg, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeanne, trackbot
18:15:44 [jeanne]
zakim, ??P22 is Alastair
18:15:44 [Zakim]
+Alastair; got it
18:15:58 [jeanne]
rrsagent, make minutes
18:15:58 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-au-minutes.html jeanne
18:16:15 [Greg]
Greg is back
18:16:16 [jeanne]
rrsagent, make logs public
18:18:48 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
18:19:08 [jeanne]
IPcaller is Jutta
18:19:14 [jeanne]
zakim, who is here?
18:19:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Jan, Jeanne, Cherie, Greg, Alex, Tim_Boland, Sueann, Alastair, [IPcaller]
18:19:17 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Jan, ssnichol, W3C, Tim, Greg, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeanne, trackbot
18:19:40 [jeanne]
zakim, IPcaller is Jutta
18:19:40 [Zakim]
+Jutta; got it
18:19:45 [jeanne]
zakim, who is here?
18:19:45 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Jan, Jeanne, Cherie, Greg, Alex, Tim_Boland, Sueann, Alastair, Jutta
18:19:48 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Jan, ssnichol, W3C, Tim, Greg, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeanne, trackbot
18:20:30 [jeanne]
scribenick: W3C
18:20:36 [jeanne]
scribe: Alastair
18:20:40 [Jan]
Topic: 6. IBM1
18:21:34 [Jan]
Proposal at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0046.html
18:22:08 [W3C]
SA: Our biggest issue is that the person who owns the IP should make the claims.
18:22:54 [W3C]
SA: don't need to create separate mechanisms than those that already exist, they aren't fundamental to ATAG, they should be consistent across the W3C recommendations.
18:24:56 [W3C]
Jan: We've covered the multi-tool aspect earlier (generally).
18:26:34 [W3C]
Jan: NB: WCAG doesn't look at who makes the claim, but in general we should follow WCAG's lead.
18:27:53 [W3C]
Jan: Looking at the WCAG conformance claims section, we can drop the first paragraph (web content specific).
18:28:55 [W3C]
Jan: 1-3 are the same, but 4th point (authoring tool information) is different, we need to add that.
18:29:32 [W3C]
Jan: We add platforms on which it is evaluated, important because tools can use UA features.
18:30:44 [W3C]
Jan: Platform on which the platform is evaluated.
18:30:55 [W3C]
SA: Should we specifiy the tools to test with?
18:31:25 [W3C]
Jan: We don't specify that.
18:32:39 [W3C]
Jan: It is from the author point of view
18:32:50 [W3C]
AL: If it is for windows (say), does it matter which version?
18:34:41 [W3C]
Jan: will change to the platforms you are making part of this claim (or similar)
18:35:33 [W3C]
Jan: we have a different perspective on the listing, we are specific about the technology the tool is claiming for.
18:36:39 [W3C]
Jan: We have a not-applicable for some success criteria.
18:37:00 [W3C]
SA: Why should some things be NA? Can't people just say that
18:38:16 [W3C]
SA: Shouldn't we also have comments for No? Why not?
18:39:30 [W3C]
Jan: Someone trying to police a claim, sometimes it isn't obvious, when it isn't obvious, that creates a big question.
18:39:47 [W3C]
AC: Some SC can only be yes/no, some can be NA
18:40:47 [W3C]
SA: From a corproate perspective, if we make a claim, these are conscious answers, so why don't you want more information about 'no'?
18:41:29 [W3C]
AL: going back to collections of tools, think about individual tools. A tool might do 5 applicable success criteria because it is small and descrete.
18:42:01 [W3C]
From an envronment where people are putting together a solution, they need to know which tool does what, and be able to fill the holes.
18:42:52 [W3C]
AL: it is necessary to distinguish yes/no/na. The default answer with NA would be because it does not meet the if/then statement
18:43:42 [W3C]
Jan: Shall we remove that whole point (7), and move it down, out of required?
18:44:14 [W3C]
AL: Do we want to differentiate yes/no/na? Is it in the conformance claim?
18:44:55 [W3C]
Jan: In the draft, it includes something but happy to move down to optional components.
18:45:31 [W3C]
AL: A lot of the specific tools will have a lot of NAs.
18:46:13 [W3C]
AL; Comments should be optional but encouraged?
18:47:31 [W3C]
SA: We ahve to be able to evaluate tool individually, but when doing that, these claims may not have some critical info in order to assess the aggregation.
18:48:47 [W3C]
??: Integrators could be on top of the tool's statements
18:49:25 [W3C]
SA: People putting statements together should be able to gather these usefully, and the solutions are very dynamically created.
18:49:57 [W3C]
SA: People quickly put these tools together, there isn't necessarily one assessment
18:50:32 [W3C]
SA: Someone making a decision about a solution should be able to get the info for the whole picture.
18:51:12 [W3C]
SA: All we can do, at the individual tool level, create an assessment of what the conformance is, and encourage people to be detailed.
18:51:35 [W3C]
??: So all should be commentable?
18:52:27 [W3C]
SA: We should strongly encourage that comments are detailed around non-compliance / applicability.
18:53:41 [Jan]
7.Result for each of the success criteria (Yes, No, Not Applicable)
18:53:47 [W3C]
Jan: Remove the part about explanation for each NA, and propose we replace that with (the above)
18:55:00 [Jan]
An explanation of the success criteria results (Yes, No, Not Applicable) where this may not be obvious.
18:56:23 [Jan]
An explanation of the success criteria results (Yes, No, Not Applicable).
18:59:08 [W3C]
Jan: I'll put it in an appendices at the end.
19:00:11 [W3C]
Jan: removing several things that are WCAG 2 specific
19:00:45 [W3C]
Jan: Added items on editing views.
19:01:37 [W3C]
Jan: Do we need a machine readable version?
19:01:47 [W3C]
People can do that if they want to.
19:02:21 [W3C]
Jan: I'll replace the old conformance claim section with the new documented version.
19:03:20 [W3C]
Jan: WCAG has two other sub-sections we've removed. 1st: 3rd party content, and languages, neither of which are particularly relevent to us.
19:04:46 [Jan]
Topic: MS1
19:05:39 [W3C]
AL: Quite straightforward, we aren't too clear about what automating means, which affects a few SCs.
19:06:00 [W3C]
AL: alternative way would be to determine what isn't automated.
19:06:18 [Jan]
content generation (content authoring, content editing)
19:06:20 [Jan]
The act of specifying the web content to be rendered, played or executed by user agents (also may be referred to as "content authoring" or "content editing"). This may refer to information perceived by end users or to instructions for the user agents. Content may be author generated or automatically generated:
19:06:22 [Jan]
author generated content: When authors are fully responsible for the web content (e.g., typing markup into a source editing-view, writing captions for audio).
19:06:23 [Jan]
automatically generated content: When programming by the authoring tool developer is responsible for the web content (e.g., applying a template, automatically correcting markup errors).
19:06:25 [Jan]
In some cases, responsibility for content generation is shared. For example, an author requests an interactive object be placed on their page (e.g., a photo album), the authoring tool applies a template, but the template requires input from the author to be complete.
19:08:05 [W3C]
Jan: Thought that almost everything was at some time specified by a person (developer), by an if/then statement. E.g. what a browser does when seeing HTML seems automatic.
19:08:41 [Jan]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0049.html
19:08:43 [W3C]
Jan: Take Alex's poitn about people propose:
19:10:24 [W3C]
Jan: it adds a couple of categories for content generation.
19:13:52 [W3C]
AL: heading in right direction, might need some word-smithing.
19:14:55 [Jan]
Topic: 4. MS7:
19:15:12 [Jan]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0048.html
19:16:21 [W3C]
Jan: NB: Some items are separated into A/AA/AAA
19:17:42 [W3C]
Jan: We have the (WCAG) to indicate the levels.
19:18:59 [Jan]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0048.html
19:20:36 [W3C]
AC: Are they mutually exclusive?
19:21:52 [W3C]
Jan: pretty much, they are sort of in order of amount of change though, so the recoding is the most change.
19:23:47 [W3C]
AL: Not sure when some 'accessibility information' can be lost?
19:24:04 [W3C]
AL: where can we draw a boundary around it?
19:24:46 [W3C]
Jan: We could go through WCAG and call-out what we are talking about?
19:25:05 [W3C]
Jan: But where would that be used, the implementation doc?
19:25:31 [W3C]
AL: That's quite important, when you transform something it's easy to loose things, if you have a specific list it helps.
19:25:48 [W3C]
Jan: Should that be informative or normative.
19:27:21 [W3C]
Jan: I'll pull those things out, and we can decide if it's needed.
19:27:43 [Jan]
Action JR: Build table of Accessible Information (WCAG)
19:27:44 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-365 - Build table of Accessible Information (WCAG) [on Jan Richards - due 2011-11-07].
19:28:12 [Jan]
Topic: 5. TL17:
19:28:39 [Jan]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/att-0031/ATAG2-21July2011PublicWD-CommentResponses-rev20111017.html
19:32:21 [jeanne]
zakim, who is making noise?
19:32:31 [Zakim]
jeanne, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Jan (88%), Greg (5%)
19:33:23 [jeanne]
zakim, who is making noise?
19:33:34 [Zakim]
jeanne, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Tim_Boland (15%), Greg (50%), Jutta (96%)
19:34:29 [jeanne]
zakim, mute Tim_Boland
19:34:29 [Zakim]
Tim_Boland should now be muted
19:35:00 [W3C]
Greg: Assuming it guides you into accessible authoring, should it then pop-up if you can't check this?
19:35:14 [W3C]
Jan: May not be dialogues,
19:35:22 [W3C]
greg: What is meant by notify?
19:35:37 [W3C]
Jan: Could be in the help.
19:36:23 [W3C]
Jutta: Original intent: inform authors about consequences of decisions, such that they know what they need to do to create accessible content.
19:37:16 [W3C]
Jan: It would be great, but tools do a lot of things, and we don't want accessibility to be integrated rather than in your face. Assume a tool has HTML & SVG, but they don't have accessibility features for SVG.
19:37:57 [W3C]
Jan: If the tool lets people know that the HTML version will be more accessible, then a notification in the help (or something) should be enough.
19:38:13 [W3C]
Greg: That would be fine, it's the notion of error messages at the time.
19:39:24 [W3C]
AC: 'option of being informed' implies interface aspect.
19:39:50 [Jan]
B.4.1.X Feature Availability Information: If the authoring tool supports production of any web content technologies for publishing for which the authoring tool does not provide support for the production of accessible content, then the authoring tool notifies authors when support for the production of accessible content is not available. [Level AA]
19:39:52 [Jan]
Note: This requirement concerns the presence or absence of support features such as accessibility checkers. It does not concern any intrinsic property of web content technologies.
19:41:05 [W3C]
Greg: Authoring tool notifies...
19:41:16 [W3C]
Jan: that could be repetative
19:41:52 [Jan]
B.4.1.X Feature Availability Information: If the authoring tool supports production of any web content technologies for publishing for which the authoring tool does not provide support for the production of accessible content, then this documented. [Level AA] Note: This requirement concerns the presence or absence of support features such as accessibility checkers. It does not concern any...
19:41:54 [Jan]
...intrinsic property of web content technologies.
19:41:55 [W3C]
Greg: that implies intelligent notifications.
19:41:56 [Jan]
\
19:42:37 [W3C]
Jan: will replace with 'this is documented'
19:44:01 [Jan]
Resolution: All agree with "B.4.1.X Feature Availability Information: If the authoring tool supports production of any web content technologies for publishing for which the authoring tool does not provide support for the production of accessible content, then this documented. [Level AA] Note: This requirement concerns the presence or absence of support features such as accessibility...
19:44:03 [Jan]
...checkers. It does not concern any intrinsic property of web content technologies."
19:45:41 [Jan]
Topic: Comment tl1
19:47:31 [W3C]
Agree that these are guidelines, not interoperability specifications.
19:47:36 [Jan]
Resolution: All "WCAG 2.0 and UAAG 2.0 also do not use RFC words. The reason for this is that these are guidelines and not interoperability specifications."
19:47:52 [Jan]
Topic: Comment tl5
19:48:24 [Jan]
Resolution: All agree to ""Programmatically" is a defined term that is borrowed from WCAG 2.0. This requirement deals with passing text alternative through from the content to assistive technologies."
19:48:24 [W3C]
Agree with response.
19:48:51 [Jan]
Topic: Comment tl7
19:50:26 [W3C]
Jutta: We also want to allow for keyboard access that is not as generic as the OS level, it is specific to the application.
19:52:24 [Jan]
There is an accessibility advantage allowing users to customize keyboard access (e.g. to create keyboard strategies for functions and features unique to the application). This is not absolutely necessary for accessibility, which is why it is listed as AAA.
19:52:33 [W3C]
Jutta: Especially for the complex tools.
19:52:46 [Jan]
Resolution: All "There is an accessibility advantage allowing users to customize keyboard access (e.g. to create keyboard strategies for functions and features unique to the application). This is not absolutely necessary for accessibility, which is why it is listed as AAA."
19:52:53 [Jan]
Topic: Comment tl8
19:53:46 [Zakim]
-Jan
19:54:15 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
19:54:34 [Jan]
zakim, [IPcaller] is really Jan
19:54:34 [Zakim]
+Jan; got it
19:54:47 [Jan]
Right, and it should be available in the user interface, not just by going to a long list of keyboard commands in the help documentation.
19:56:12 [W3C]
Jan: agree with the comment, the wording could be formalised for ATAG.
19:57:28 [Jan]
Reworded: A.3.1.6 Present Keyboard Commands: Provide a way for authors to determine the keyboard commands associated with authoring tool user interface components.
19:58:02 [Jan]
Resolution: All ok with "Reworded: A.3.1.6 Present Keyboard Commands: Provide a way for authors to determine the keyboard commands associated with authoring tool user interface components."
19:58:18 [Jan]
Topic: Comment tl9
19:59:26 [W3C]
Jan: this is the ability to navigate code or markup based on their relationship
20:00:03 [W3C]
Jutta: point is to provide another wayto navigate around the interface
20:00:28 [W3C]
Jan: uncomplied (raw?) code rather than rendered views.
20:01:27 [Jan]
AUWG: The point here is to provide another quick way of moving around the authoring tool user interface, at a AAA level. We are refering to the programmatic relationships that exist in program code and markup (e.g., the ability to find where a variable is defined), not just to structural markup-type features.
20:02:11 [W3C]
Jutta: do we have a definition of that version of programmatic?
20:03:28 [W3C]
Jan: it is pretty clear in the SC, which has examples.
20:04:22 [Jan]
Resolution: All accept: "AUWG: The point here is to provide another quick way of moving around the authoring tool user interface, at a AAA level. We are refering to the programmatic relationships that exist in program code and markup (e.g., the ability to find where a variable is defined), not just to structural markup-type features."
20:04:25 [Jan]
Topic: Comment tl11
20:07:28 [W3C]
AL: Making it allowable that they conflict?
20:08:25 [W3C]
AC: Appears to be a get-out clause, not sure the context of custom-settings is clear
20:09:09 [W3C]
Jutta: It should use CSS style inheritance, that was the intent
20:10:42 [W3C]
AL: Not sure how you fail this SC?
20:11:10 [W3C]
Jan: If you have custom settings it's ok, but if not, you should respect the user settings.
20:13:40 [W3C]
Jan: e.g. high-contrast mode, at level AA that should be respected.
20:14:24 [W3C]
Jeanne: In general, it is like the CSS cascade or other examples where the local override the generic. Rational is because you inherit the generic unless you specific something else.
20:14:52 [Zakim]
-Jutta
20:15:25 [W3C]
Jan: If a tool provides settings to change background/text colour, by having those settings it can be taken as conflicting with the users settings.
20:15:34 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
20:16:55 [W3C]
Jan: should apply platform setting unless the authors overrides.
20:18:28 [W3C]
AC: How about: "unless the author has chosen custom display or control settings"
20:19:12 [Jan]
The authoring tool respects changes in platform display and control settings unless they conflict with the display and control settings of the authoring tool chosen by the author.
20:19:24 [jeanne]
+1
20:19:45 [Jan]
Action JR: Produce a proposal around "A363 The authoring tool respects changes in platform display and control settings unless they conflict with the display and control settings of the authoring tool chosen by the author."
20:19:46 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-366 - Produce a proposal around "A363 The authoring tool respects changes in platform display and control settings unless they conflict with the display and control settings of the authoring tool chosen by the author." [on Jan Richards - due 2011-11-07].
20:19:49 [Jan]
Topic: Comment tl12
20:21:50 [Jan]
If the authoring tool includes display and/or control settings, then the authoring tool provides the option of saving and reloading multiple sets of settings.
20:22:16 [Jan]
If the authoring tool includes display and/or control settings, then the authoring tool provides the option of saving and reloading multiple profiles of settings.
20:22:19 [Jan]
If the authoring tool includes display and/or control settings, then the authoring tool provides the option of saving and reloading multiple profiles of these settings.
20:24:38 [Jan]
If the authoring tool includes display and/or control settings, then the authoring tool provides the option of saving and reloading multiple sets of settings.
20:25:19 [Jan]
A.3.6.4 Multiple Sets: If the authoring tool includes display and/or control settings, then the authoring tool provides the option of saving and reloading multiple sets of settings.
20:25:30 [jeanne]
multiple groups of settings?
20:25:41 [Jan]
Resolution: "A.3.6.4 Multiple Sets: If the authoring tool includes display and/or control settings, then the authoring tool provides the option of saving and reloading multiple sets of settings."
20:27:10 [Jan]
A.3.6.4 Multiple Sets: If the authoring tool includes display and/or control settings, then the authoring tool provides the option of saving and reloading multiple configurations of settings.
20:27:22 [W3C]
AC: "If the authoring tool includes display and/or control settings, then the authoring tool provides the option of saving and reloading the settings."
20:28:02 [Jan]
Resolution: Replace with "A.3.6.4 Multiple Sets: If the authoring tool includes display and/or control settings, then the authoring tool provides the option of saving and reloading multiple configurations of settings."
20:28:04 [W3C]
Jutta: reponse is to say we've proposed the new wording.
20:28:30 [Jan]
JT: Response to TL12 that we are proposing a rewording as follows to address the ambiguity
20:29:09 [Jan]
Topic: Comment ms4
20:30:48 [Zakim]
-Alex
20:33:43 [Jan]
In-Market User Agent: The preview renders content using a user agent that is in in-market
20:34:00 [Jan]
In-Market User Agent: The preview renders content using a user agent that is in-market
20:35:29 [Jan]
(a) In-Market User Agent: The preview renders content using a user agent that is in-market.
20:35:53 [Jan]
Resolution: all agree to "(a) In-Market User Agent: The preview renders content using a user agent that is in-market."
20:36:21 [Jan]
Topic: Comment ms6
20:38:26 [W3C]
Jutta: is that a definition or re-wording of the SC
20:39:55 [W3C]
AC: "for interface features available to authors"
20:40:39 [Jan]
The authoring tool includes documentation for user interface features that are available to authors.
20:41:04 [Zakim]
-Tim_Boland
20:41:17 [W3C]
Jan: let's propose this to Alex, as he started the issue.
20:42:03 [jeanne]
+1
20:42:16 [Jan]
Action JR: To propose "A.4.2.2 Document All Features: The authoring tool includes documentation for user interface features that are available to authors."
20:42:16 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-367 - Propose "A.4.2.2 Document All Features: The authoring tool includes documentation for user interface features that are available to authors." [on Jan Richards - due 2011-11-07].
20:42:43 [Jan]
Topic: Comment tl16
20:44:00 [Jan]
Action JR: Remove ":" in B.2.2.2
20:44:00 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-368 - Remove ":" in B.2.2.2 [on Jan Richards - due 2011-11-07].
20:44:14 [Jan]
Topic: Comment tl18
20:44:14 [W3C]
Jan: TL16 is editorial, let's move on.
20:44:53 [Jan]
Topic: Comment tl19
20:45:00 [W3C]
Jutta: see the response to TL1
20:46:10 [Jan]
Resolution: "AUWG: It is best left to the the developer. For example, if there are only a few accessible choices, it might be better to call them out.. "
20:46:34 [Jan]
Topic: Comment tl20
20:47:03 [Jan]
Resolution: All ok with "AUWG: We are giving a rationale rather than a hard claim. That said, alt use is higher than some less prominent accessibility attributes (e.g., longdesc)."
20:47:08 [Jan]
Topic: Comment tl21
20:48:53 [W3C]
Jeanne: Let's put an example in the implementation doc, and say that in the reponse.
20:49:21 [Jan]
Informing does not have to take the form of a dialog box, this will be made more clear in the implmenting document.
20:49:42 [Jan]
Resolution: "AUWG: Informing does not have to take the form of a dialog box, this will be made more clear in the implmenting document."
20:49:49 [Jan]
Topic: Comment tl22
20:50:40 [Jan]
AUWG: Authors will vary in the degree to which they heed any guidance from their authoring tool. The requirement is on authoring tools, not users of authoring tools.
20:50:55 [Jan]
Resolution: "AUWG: Authors will vary in the degree to which they heed any guidance from their authoring tool. The requirement is on authoring tools, not users of authoring tools."
20:51:06 [Jan]
Topic: Comment tl26
20:51:57 [Jan]
source views: The content is presented in unrendered form (e.g., plain text editors); or
20:53:38 [Jan]
AUWG: We have not been able to find a better term. "raw" and "underlying" don't seem to fit the text editor context. The fact that browsers render things seems to lend support to "unrendered".
20:54:10 [W3C]
Greg: Formated vs formated?
20:54:28 [W3C]
??: Doesn't get to the source aspect though.
20:55:25 [Jan]
AUWG: We have not been able to find a better term. The fact that browsers render things seems to lend support to the use of "unrendered".
20:55:47 [Jan]
Resolution: All ok with "AUWG: We have not been able to find a better term. The fact that browsers render things seems to lend support to the use of "unrendered"."
20:57:17 [Zakim]
-Sueann
20:57:19 [Zakim]
-Cherie
20:57:20 [Zakim]
-Alastair
20:57:21 [W3C]
W3C has left #au
20:57:21 [Zakim]
-[IPcaller]
20:57:28 [Zakim]
-Jan
20:57:30 [Zakim]
-Jeanne
20:58:08 [Jan]
RRSAgent, make minutes
20:58:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-au-minutes.html Jan
20:58:18 [Jan]
RRSAgent, set logs public
20:58:25 [Jan]
zakim, who's here?
20:58:25 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Greg
20:58:26 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Jan, ssnichol, Greg, RRSAgent, Zakim, jeanne, trackbot
21:13:51 [Jan]
Zakim, bye
21:13:51 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were Jan, Jeanne, Cherie, Jutta, +44.117.929.aaaa, Alastair, Greg, Alex, Tim_Boland, Sueann, [IPcaller]
21:13:51 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #au
21:13:56 [Jan]
RRSAgent, bye
21:13:56 [RRSAgent]
I see 9 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-au-actions.rdf :
21:13:56 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: All to send in conformance use cases related to the multi-tool issue [1]
21:13:56 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-au-irc#T17-20-46
21:13:56 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jan to work with ALL to send in conformance use cases related to the multi-tool issue [2]
21:13:56 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-au-irc#T17-21-26
21:13:56 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: JR to model what it looks like to move 3rd-party dpendency out of conformance claim and into the SCs (checking and repair) - so that compliance statemtn is simpler [3]
21:13:56 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-au-irc#T17-22-24
21:13:56 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jeanne to work with Jutta to coordinate with the WCAG WG on the definition of web content and set boundaries of what is included as web content. [4]
21:13:56 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-au-irc#T17-40-13
21:13:56 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: JR to To draft a Note 3 to clarify A.3.1.1 Keyboard Access (Minimum) for keyboard-less devices [5]
21:13:56 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-au-irc#T17-56-45
21:13:56 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: JR to Build table of Accessible Information (WCAG) [6]
21:13:56 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-au-irc#T19-27-43
21:13:56 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: JR to Produce a proposal around "A363 The authoring tool respects changes in platform display and control settings unless they conflict with the display and control settings of the authoring tool chosen by the author." [7]
21:13:56 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-au-irc#T20-19-45
21:13:56 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: JR to To propose "A.4.2.2 Document All Features: The authoring tool includes documentation for user interface features that are available to authors." [8]
21:13:56 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-au-irc#T20-42-16
21:13:56 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: JR to Remove ":" in B.2.2.2 [9]
21:13:56 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-au-irc#T20-44-00