IRC log of au on 2011-11-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

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