See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: Jan
AC: 1. A web-based product (e.g.
Wordpress) that can be used as a complete system in
... I've seen people have interest within the community
... Essentially creating bugs against ATAG
2. A web-based product (e.g. Defacto) that is sold as a product or service.
AC: Drew this out due to third
... Could be evaluated seperately...but integration is important
... First one is fairly easy...there can be one person made responsible
... Get more complicated in use cases 3, 4, 5
... Web-based services almost by defn have to meet all of ATAG
... THings like dreamweaver may not
... Prob the fourth scenario...large content management system in conjunction of lots of other systems...most complex case
... Media access mgmt seperate tool, document asset mgmt seperate tool...maybe as well google maps, ordinance survey maps
... Reason I drew this out as a case, is that it doesn't come together until all the pieces are in place
JR: I think #1 and #2 do square with our new thinking about IP
JT: Approx a year ago we didn't have the phrase about IP
JR: We don't have any official language yet
GP: Manufacturers wanted to make sure others didn't make claims on our behalf
SN: We don't want to encourage others who don't own IP to make claims
AC: Tricky in my case number 4
... WCAG test pages
... We want to be testing what the author uses
JT: What we are using with the
guidelines is just a testing guideline
... Is there going to be an official notion of bonafide claims
... In a repository
... Lots of schools doing WCAG evaluations of content they don't have IP for
SN: They are not making an
... If someone claims Target is not accessible...it is up to Target to claim
AC: I don't think it could work
that way...a lot of CMSs don't come with authoring tools
... Needs to be testing of the tool as it is used by authors
JT: If we go back to what we
discussed last week....
... Simple conformance claim re: what is under own control + with ability to point to external checking and repair tool....
... Next level is an integrator (not primary developer - OP owner)
... Is there other functions beyond checking and repair where the feature could be external?
SN: Are you saying manufacturer claims conformance at one level and then a re-seller level conformance?
JT: Not exactly - they would not
be talking about the same aggregation
... They would be talking about their own mashup
AC: Sounds like we almost need a
... For each SC, this tool can meet this SC (or not) then the integrator can pick that up and pull in 3rd party tools
SN: But you are aggregating a set
of manufacturers claims...
... So just putting 3 existing things together
JT: No but new stuff is
... For example in Drupal you can do a lot to make CMS more or less accessible.
SN: Right - you can say that
about a lot of different products
... So talking about a particular instance for sa particular customer?
SN: So if you are a service provider with contract to create accessible solution...almost becomes an implementation? What's point of exercise?
JT: Point is to simplify
conformance section....to create a simple
conformance....removing notion that you have to declare
something about other tools.
... 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
... That's what we are discussing now.
... Then have another class of conformance statements to be made by aggregators or integrators
SN: Having worked on a few
aggregated product reponses I'm not sure how you can come up
with a single approach for this
... Comes down to the set of products and how they operate
JT: At the moment we are treating every claim as an integratore
SN: Not sure why you would want to do that?
JT: THat's what we are
... We are trying to crreate that simple notion....
JR: There may be things beyond checking and repair that can do this
JT: What is proposed is to move meeting the checking and repair SCs into those SCs
<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.
SN: So now we seem to be setting
functional reqs into ATAG that we dont want to do
... If I don't have checking and repair should just say not applicable
JS: Something as important as
checking and repair is needed for tools....
... Important that checking+repair is needed for atag but schould allow small vendors to allow 3rd pary implmentation of those
SN: Confusing these things...no
doyubt that checking and repair is critical....
... But then the developer says it is not applicable...
GP: We used to have it baked in Dreamweaver but we found that people wanted it external for various reasons
JT: Right...but currently we
include pointing to 3rd party in conformance....
... We just want to move the implmentation to SCs of checking and repair
... Not dictating authoring functions for each toool
... But you need to include checking+repoair or point to 3rd pary tool to conform
... Otherwise can't conform to atag
SN: Why gettig so hung up....how point to it?
JT: More than pointing to it....DW needs to determine the 3rd party tools
GP: We won't be endorsing short list of checking and repair in public
SN: When you point to other
people's code, you have to test it.
... It's not going to happen
... If IBM has lincesned it from third party then yes we will make the claim but we woulkd never license
... If IBM has lincesned it from third party then yes we will make the claim but we woulkd never make claim without license
JT: Right so thats what we have now
SN: If you are going to be an
aggregator, you are a service....
... If I am going to reselll aI need to be a business partner with the developer
... I really don't think this level is needed
... ATAG should just say...tell us what your tool does which is input to an aggregator
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)
GP: Conversely checking and repair people don't want much to do with authoring
AC: In my email I think it should be ok for a tool to say it doesn't meet an SC withoput prejudice
JR: That was exactly what my proposal was: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0062.html
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).
AC: I'd be happier with this a
... Than calling out checking and repair in particular
JR: There are other things that could be offloaded: transformations, templates
JT: But if you didn't do those,
it would not be accessible
... I have not yet heard of any other functionality that can be separated like checking and repiar can
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)
JT: Good, I can think of others
SN: I think its complicated and I don't see the need for the different versions
<scribe> ACTION: JR to betterformulate http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0062.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/07-au-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-369 - Betterformulate http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0062.html [on Jan Richards - due 2011-11-14].
JT: And thanks AC for the use case
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) Found Scribe: Jan Inferring ScribeNick: Jan Default Present: [Microsoft], Jan, Alastair, Jeanne, Jutta, +1.561.582.aaaa, Sueann, +1.571.765.aabb, Greg Present: [Microsoft] Jan Alastair Jeanne Jutta +1.561.582.aaaa Sueann +1.571.765.aabb Greg Regrets: Alex Li Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0065.html Got date from IRC log name: 07 Nov 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/11/07-au-minutes.html People with action items: jr WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]