See also: IRC log
<Jan> JT: Note that not just full disclosure...also progress towards confromance
Jan: Agree that 'authoring tool'
is problematic, but that is the name of the guidelines! We've
defined it to be the whole thing.
... To change, we'd have to rename it to something bigger than the whole document.
AL: Perhaps need a term like authoring environent? Something along those lines.
<Jan> ATAG 2.0 System Conformance or
<jeanne> +1 to the name change
AL: 2 types: envinroment type, other is tool type.
<Jan> ATAG 2.0 Environmet Conformance
Jutta: other perspectives. Could have tool that only authors certain type of content. That tool could be seen as full conformance.
AL: Might need a matrix to define
full conformance from a whole bunch of things.
... one axis: criteria, second axis: technologies.
Jan: Easier to explain that a
simple tool can be a system?
... Note the astriks, noting the claim caveat.
Jutta, at the moment, we have full and partial, but the distinction is based on the accessible authoring features, but that isn't the wording the first one.
Jan: 1st one is end-to-end
... I see, it is 'accessible content' rather than 'web content'.
<Jan> - this conformance option *can* be chosen for authoring tools* that require no additional components to meet ATAG 2.0.
<Jan> - this conformance option *can* be chosen for authoring tools* that require no additional tools to meet ATAG 2.0.
Jeanne: Concerned with tools that only aspire to be focused. Having some 'full' some 'partial', doesn't sound great, sets up a heirarchy.
Jan: Partial in WCAG?
AL: Best idea we could come up with at the time, it was created mostly because system aggregators and user-gen content causes problems.
Jan: So someone could make a
really great checker tool, but a problem elsewhere could mess
... Full level, just failed a couple of criteria,
AC: How can you make a 'full' claim but not meet certain criteria, wouldn't that be a partial claim.
Jan: Sueann's example from VPAT:
Say a tool is v accessible, but can't be installed
... This text is going into the conformance levels area of the doc.
AL: Another site meets WCAG 2.0
A, plus a few AA but not enough to claim double A. They should
be able to mark that down.
... Never really A/AA/AAA, there are in-betweens.
AC: Then why have partial?
Jan: Partial - the "no"s are ignored in terms of conformance.
Greg: Starting to segment tools
... Two tier conformance, you've got tool makers who can, but then you've got authors who can glue together different tools.
... Create conformance claim as an author.
AL: Authors don't have to make conformance claims.
J: Wordpress is an example, will want to claim, but don't include a checking and repair tool.
AL: That's why we get rid of "partial" and use component.
Jutta: Notion of ingrator/aggregator could pull tools together, how would they construct such a claim?
Jan: VPATs work by flowing through, they get it from developer, same thing here.
AC: Having no-level for Full conformance is ok if you have "component" rather than "partial" conformance as the other level.
<Jan> WHat about Full System Conformance vs. Sub-System Conformance?
Jeanne: Need to be sensistive to people with tools that are missing small parts of ATAG.
AL: We wouldn't claim for a
system, we'd claim for specific tools.
... Why system vs sub? Why not system vs tools.
Jan: Tools can be whole or a small part.
J: 1 could be claimed by a very
small tool, but because it meets all the requirements it can
claim full conformance.
... 2 could be claimed by a large tool that covers everytype of content, but doesn't try to have checking and repair.
... Pointing to size/complexity, rather than what accessible conformance it makes.
AL: Big systems wouldn't try for 1, just 2.
J: Worried that size of the tool / system as opposed to the degree to which it takes responsibility for accessible authoring practices.
AL: Most tools out there don't intend to do everything.
J: The largest thing is not
always the thing that chooses to do all the accessibility
... 1. do it all yourself, where 'all' is differently defined. All may not be a lot.
... Suggesting 1 is 'system' and 2 'tool' conformance. But that implies it isn't how much of the accessible authoring practices it involves.
... What is really the distinction between 1 & 2, because it isn't whether it's a system or a tool.
AC: What about a workflow based differentiation?
Jutta: accessible workflow.
Jan: Let's hash outon the list.
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) No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: AlastairC Inferring Scribes: AlastairC Default Present: Jeanne, +1.571.765.aaaa, Greg, Jan, Jutta, Alex, AlastairC, Cherie, Tim_Boland, +1.561.582.aabb, Sueann Present: Jeanne +1.571.765.aaaa Greg Jan Jutta Alex AlastairC Cherie Tim_Boland +1.561.582.aabb Sueann Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0078.html Got date from IRC log name: 14 Nov 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/11/14-au-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]