19:48:15 RRSAgent has joined #au 19:48:15 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/07-au-irc 19:48:20 Zakim, this will be AUWG 19:48:20 ok, Jan; I see WAI_AUWG()3:00PM scheduled to start in 12 minutes 19:48:24 Meeting: WAI AU 19:48:41 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0065.html 19:48:54 Chair: Jutta Treviranus 19:49:02 Regrets: Alex Li 19:55:11 jeanne has joined #au 19:56:18 AlastairC has joined #au 19:59:31 WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has now started 19:59:38 +??P5 20:00:15 +[Microsoft] 20:00:18 +??P7 20:00:36 zakim, ??P7 is really Jan 20:00:36 +Jan; got it 20:00:47 zakim, ??P5 is really Alastair 20:00:47 +Alastair; got it 20:05:03 +[IPcaller] 20:05:26 +Jeanne 20:05:54 zakim, [IPcaller] is really Jutta 20:05:54 +Jutta; got it 20:06:32 scribe: Jan 20:07:36 Topic: 1. Discuss and extend Alastair's Use Cases: 20:07:42 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0059.html 20:08:52 AC: 1. A web-based product (e.g. Wordpress) that can be used as a complete system in itself. 20:08:57 + +1.561.582.aaaa 20:09:06 AC: I've seen people have interest within the community 20:09:25 AC: Essentially creating bugs against ATAG 20:09:31 2. A web-based product (e.g. Defacto) that is sold as a product or service. 20:09:50 AC: Drew this out due to third party editor. 20:10:04 Sueann has joined #au 20:10:08 AC: Could be evaluated seperately...but integration is important 20:10:20 zakim, aaaa is really Sueann 20:10:20 +Sueann; got it 20:11:11 + +1.571.765.aabb 20:12:17 AC: First one is fairly easy...there can be one person made responsible 20:12:32 AC: Get more complicated in use cases 3, 4, 5 20:12:48 AC: Web-based services almost by defn have to meet all of ATAG 20:12:49 Geg has joined #au 20:12:58 AC: THings like dreamweaver may not 20:13:13 zakim, aabb is really Greg 20:13:13 +Greg; got it 20:14:05 AC: Prob the fourth scenario...large content management system in conjunction of lots of other systems...most complex case 20:14:47 AC: Media access mgmt seperate tool, document asset mgmt seperate tool...maybe as well google maps, ordinance survey maps 20:16:46 AC: Reason I drew this out as a case, is that it doesn't come together until all the pieces are in place 20:16:59 JR: I think #1 and #2 do square with our new thinking about IP 20:17:30 JT: Approx a year ago we didn't have the phrase about IP 20:18:22 JR: We don't have any official language yet 20:18:46 GP: Manufacturers wanted to make sure others didn't make claims on our behalf 20:18:48 CE: Right 20:19:05 SN: We don't want to encourage others who don't own IP to make claims 20:19:22 AC: Tricky in my case number 4 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0059.html) 20:19:29 AC: WCAG test pages 20:19:41 AC: We want to be testing what the author uses 20:20:01 JT: What we are using with the guidelines is just a testing guideline 20:20:18 JT: Is there going to be an official notion of bonafide claims 20:20:26 JT: In a repository 20:20:52 JT: Lots of schools doing WCAG evaluations of content they don't have IP for 20:21:01 SN: They are not making an official claim 20:21:23 SN: If someone claims Target is not accessible...it is up to Target to claim 20:21:53 AC: I don't think it could work that way...a lot of CMSs don't come with authoring tools 20:22:14 AC: Needs to be testing of the tool as it is used by authors 20:22:33 JT: If we go back to what we discussed last week.... 20:23:18 JT: Simple conformance claim re: what is under own control + with ability to point to external checking and repair tool.... 20:24:00 JT: Next level is an integrator (not primary developer - OP owner) 20:24:25 JT: Is there other functions beyond checking and repair where the feature could be external? 20:24:53 SN: Are you saying manufacturer claims conformance at one level and then a re-seller level conformance? 20:25:14 JT: Not exactly - they would not be talking about the same aggregation 20:25:26 JT: They would be talking about their own mashup 20:25:38 AC: Sounds like we almost need a prototype claim... 20:26:20 AC: For each SC, this tool can meet this SC (or not) then the integrator can pick that up and pull in 3rd party tools 20:26:50 SN: But you are aggregating a set of manufacturers claims... 20:27:16 SN: So just putting 3 existing things together 20:27:25 JT: No but new stuff is happening 20:28:06 JT: For example in Drupal you can do a lot to make CMS more or less accessible. 20:28:21 SN: Right - you can say that about a lot of different products 20:28:42 SN: So talking about a particular instance for sa particular customer? 20:28:44 AC: Yes 20:29:16 SN: So if you are a service provider with contract to create accessible solution...almost becomes an implementation? What's point of exercise? 20:30:06 JT: Point is to simplify conformance section....to create a simple conformance....removing notion that you have to declare something about other tools. 20:31:10 JT: Proposal was that way to do that....is that rather than large conformance statement...that add notion to chcking and repair can be sepearte to the relevant SCs 20:31:30 JT: That's what we are discussing now. 20:32:15 JT: Then have another class of conformance statements to be made by aggregators or integrators 20:32:48 SN: Having worked on a few aggregated product reponses I'm not sure how you can come up with a single approach for this 20:33:00 SN: Comes down to the set of products and how they operate 20:33:29 JT: At the moment we are treating every claim as an integratore 20:33:54 SN: Not sure why you would want to do that? 20:34:05 JT: THat's what we are doing/ 20:35:17 JT: We are trying to crreate that simple notion.... 20:36:40 JR: There may be things beyond checking and repair that can do this 20:37:07 JT: What is proposed is to move meeting the checking and repair SCs into those SCs 20:37:14 It comes down to two goals - 1) that checking and repair is provided, and 2) that we don't lock out of ATAG, the products that need a 3rd party. 20:37:39 SN: So now we seem to be setting functional reqs into ATAG that we dont want to do 20:37:57 SN: If I don't have checking and repair should just say not applicable 20:38:16 JS: Something as important as checking and repair is needed for tools.... 20:39:11 JS: Important that checking+repair is needed for atag but schould allow small vendors to allow 3rd pary implmentation of those 20:39:30 SN: Confusing these things...no doyubt that checking and repair is critical.... 20:39:58 SN: But then the developer says it is not applicable... 20:40:25 GP: We used to have it baked in Dreamweaver but we found that people wanted it external for various reasons 20:40:53 JT: Right...but currently we include pointing to 3rd party in conformance.... 20:41:14 JT: We just want to move the implmentation to SCs of checking and repair 20:41:25 JT: Not dictating authoring functions for each toool 20:41:51 JT: But you need to include checking+repoair or point to 3rd pary tool to conform 20:41:59 JT: Otherwise can't conform to atag 20:42:18 SN: Why gettig so hung up....how point to it? 20:42:38 JT: More than pointing to it....DW needs to determine the 3rd party tools 20:43:00 GP: We won't be endorsing short list of checking and repair in public 20:43:19 SN: When you point to other people's code, you have to test it. 20:43:29 SN: It's not going to happen 20:44:01 SN: If IBM has lincesned it from third party then yes we will make the claim but we woulkd never license 20:44:10 SN: If IBM has lincesned it from third party then yes we will make the claim but we woulkd never make claim without license 20:44:24 JT: Right so thats what we have now 20:44:47 SN: If you are going to be an aggregator, you are a service.... 20:45:06 SN: If I am going to reselll aI need to be a business partner with the developer 20:45:19 SN: I really don't think this level is needed 20:45:40 SN: ATAG should just say...tell us what your tool does which is input to an aggregator 20:46:44 JT: Right...the primary point of disagreement is that checking and repair could be not applicable...but it is integral...can't say its not applicab le (like captions would be if don't produce video) 20:47:10 GP: Conversely checking and repair people don't want much to do with authoring 20:48:00 AC: In my email I think it should be ok for a tool to say it doesn't meet an SC withoput prejudice 20:49:12 JR: That was exactly what my proposal was: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0062.html 20:49:31 4. "Partial" Component-Only Conformance: Content Production (A, AA, AAA) - individual tool is evaluated against Part B SCs. Meets all the SCs or the tool is designed such that as part of an authoring process another tool could meet the SC. It is recommended (but not required) that a URI for a conformance claim be provided for the other tool(s). 20:52:17 AC: I'd be happier with this a generic approach 20:52:43 AC: Than calling out checking and repair in particular 20:54:41 JR: There are other things that could be offloaded: transformations, templates 20:54:59 JT: But if you didn't do those, it would not be accessible 20:56:29 JT: I have not yet heard of any other functionality that can be separated like checking and repiar can 20:57:34 JR: B.2.3.4 Save for Reuse: When authors enter programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content, both of the following are true: (Level AAA) 20:57:42 JT: Good, I can think of others 20:58:57 SN: I think its complicated and I don't see the need for the different versions 20:59:17 Action: JR to betterformulate http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0062.html 20:59:17 Created ACTION-369 - Betterformulate http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0062.html [on Jan Richards - due 2011-11-14]. 20:59:30 JT: And thanks AC for the use case 21:00:38 -Sueann 21:00:44 -Greg 21:00:56 -Jutta 21:00:58 -[Microsoft] 21:00:58 -Alastair 21:01:11 zakim, who's here? 21:01:11 On the phone I see Jan, Jeanne 21:01:13 On IRC I see Geg, AlastairC, jeanne, RRSAgent, Zakim, Jan, trackbot 21:04:00 AlastairC has left #au 21:07:06 -Jan 21:07:08 -Jeanne 21:07:09 WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has ended 21:07:11 Attendees were [Microsoft], Jan, Alastair, Jeanne, Jutta, +1.561.582.aaaa, Sueann, +1.571.765.aabb, Greg 21:07:24 RRSAgent, make minutes 21:07:24 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/07-au-minutes.html Jan 21:07:29 RRSAgent, set logs public 21:07:34 Zakim, bye 21:07:34 Zakim has left #au 21:07:40 RRSAgent, bye 21:07:40 I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/07-au-actions.rdf : 21:07:40 ACTION: JR to betterformulate http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0062.html [1] 21:07:40 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/07-au-irc#T20-59-17