IRC log of au on 2011-11-28

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:06:07 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #au
20:06:07 [RRSAgent]
logging to
20:06:09 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
20:06:09 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #au
20:06:11 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be AUWG
20:06:11 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see WAI_AUWG()3:00PM already started
20:06:12 [trackbot]
Meeting: Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
20:06:12 [trackbot]
Date: 28 November 2011
20:08:14 [jeanne]
brainstorming ideas ->
20:10:03 [Zakim]
20:11:43 [jeanne]
brainstorming ideas ->
20:11:56 [Sueann]
Sueann has joined #au
20:12:08 [jeanne]
brainstorming ideas ->
20:12:39 [jeanne]
Alastair's analysis ->
20:15:11 [AlastairC]
Jeanne: Not partial to partial
20:15:13 [jeanne]
"Limited conformance"
20:16:10 [jeanne]
GP: A limited conformance claim could also indicate other tools that could be used to achieve full conformance.
20:16:29 [jeanne]
AC: People could make a conformance statement that has the details of what isn't covered.
20:16:54 [jeanne]
scribe: AlastairC
20:17:55 [AlastairC]
Jeanne: Like the concept, want different term for things with 'no' answers. Things that did not meet them, rather than not-applying
20:19:12 [AlastairC]
alastairc: not sure we need to differentiate between tools that don't meet, and those that don't try to meet.
20:19:49 [AlastairC]
Jeanne: like the 'don't block' caveat.
20:20:15 [jeanne]
zakim, who is here?
20:20:15 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [IPcaller], Jeanne, Greg, +1.301.330.aaaa (muted), Sueann
20:20:18 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Sueann, Zakim, RRSAgent, Greg, jeanne, AlastairC, trackbot
20:20:47 [Zakim]
20:20:57 [jeanne]
zakim, aaaa is really Tim
20:20:57 [Zakim]
+Tim; got it
20:21:00 [AlastairC]
Jeanne: not sure we should proceed without more people?
20:21:08 [jeanne]
zakim, IP.caller.a is Jutta
20:21:08 [Zakim]
sorry, jeanne, I do not recognize a party named 'IP.caller.a'
20:21:45 [jeanne]
zakim, [IPcaller.a] is really Jutta
20:21:45 [Zakim]
+Jutta; got it
20:21:54 [jeanne]
zakim, Jutta also has Jan
20:21:54 [Zakim]
+Jan; got it
20:22:07 [jeanne]
zakim, who is here?
20:22:07 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [IPcaller], Jeanne, Greg, Tim (muted), Sueann, Jutta
20:22:09 [Zakim]
Jutta has Jutta, Jan
20:22:10 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Sueann, Zakim, RRSAgent, Greg, jeanne, AlastairC, trackbot
20:23:25 [jeanne]
Jan: There is value in using terms that WCAG 2 uses.
20:24:06 [jeanne]
Jeanne: I am concerned that using "Partial" in a different way than WCAG could cause conformance.
20:24:14 [AlastairC]
Jan: shouldn't we follow the WCAG terminology?
20:25:12 [jeanne]
Jan: WCAG has two cases: pages that have outside material that doesn't meet, and therefore break conformance. Also pages that aggregate outside sources.
20:25:43 [AlastairC]
Greg: reads from
20:27:24 [AlastairC]
Greg: can use it, but refers to things that could be acheived with 3rd party enablment
20:28:06 [AlastairC]
Greg: no objection to partial, 'limited' would be ok
20:28:45 [AlastairC]
Jan: like partial, fairly clear that it isn't full, and we mean in the same way
20:29:13 [AlastairC]
Greg: WCAG is restrictive, ours is allowance for additive component.
20:30:22 [AlastairC]
Jan: Important to keep that part about not blocking other tools from making it accessible
20:31:51 [AlastairC]
Jutta: No objections for full/partial? (None heard)
20:32:17 [Jan]
Jan has joined #au
20:32:26 [Zakim]
20:32:28 [AlastairC]
Jutta: two forms of non-full, those making progression, and those that need 3rd party tools.
20:32:50 [AlastairC]
Greg: corps wouldn't make statements of full intent.
20:33:04 [AlastairC]
(Sorry, future intent)
20:33:40 [AlastairC]
Jan: it the comparison of the particulars, the score card that counts.The Yes/No/NA
20:35:00 [AlastairC]
Alastairc: ATAG should provide the scorecard, it's upto companies to say whether they are still working on things or need a 3rd party tool.
20:35:14 [AlastairC]
Jutta: Partial could be used to cover either?
20:36:00 [AlastairC]
Greg: not confortable with partial having implications for future plans.
20:36:26 [AlastairC]
Greg: ATAG should show current status, rather than future intent.
20:37:05 [AlastairC]
Jutta: If I am moving towards conformance, I want to be able to say I cover 39 of the 40 SC (for example)
20:37:50 [Zakim]
20:38:35 [Zakim]
20:38:37 [Jan]
We are trying to call back but getting a bad line...
20:38:54 [jeanne]
zakim, [IPcaller.a] is really Jutta
20:38:54 [Zakim]
+Jutta; got it
20:39:04 [jeanne]
zakim, who is here?
20:39:04 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [IPcaller], Jeanne, Greg, Sueann, Jutta
20:39:05 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Jan, Sueann, Zakim, RRSAgent, Greg, jeanne, AlastairC, trackbot
20:39:06 [AlastairC]
Jutta: no commitment to anything in the future, just a means of ranking.
20:39:14 [jeanne]
zakim, Jutta also has Jan
20:39:14 [Zakim]
+Jan; got it
20:39:17 [Jan]
I wanted to say I agree with Greg ... the indicator of your progress is just the list of SCs with the answers
20:39:51 [AlastairC]
Jan: No need for extra mechanism, it's based on the SC, the scorecard.
20:40:02 [Jan]
Can you hear us?
20:40:05 [Zakim]
20:40:17 [Greg]
So one is either full or partial
20:40:23 [Greg]
20:40:27 [Jan]
Calling back...
20:40:45 [Jan] is full or partial at the various levles...
20:40:52 [Zakim]
20:41:05 [Jan]
BUT a buyer could always ask (or a vendor could offer) the details core card of SCs with explanations.
20:41:13 [AlastairC]
Alastairc: Like an MOT for your car (yearly cert), it only signifies the status at the time
20:41:42 [Greg]
Should only be a declaration of current state
20:42:09 [Jan]
Agree that it is a sdeclaration of only the current state
20:42:25 [Greg]
Good agreed
20:42:34 [AlastairC]
Jutta: Any concerns with... ? (Don't think so)
20:42:43 [Zakim]
20:42:58 [Greg]
So what is this progress towards conformance notion?
20:43:18 [Jan]
Jutta: Any concerns with going ahead with this high level proposal of full vs partial...
20:43:30 [AlastairC]
Alastairc: no
20:43:31 [Jan]
Jutta: we still need the detailed wording proposal
20:43:35 [Greg]
Greg no
20:43:57 [Jan]
Jan: no objection + I will wrtite the proposed detailed wording
20:44:09 [Greg]
Good to go!
20:44:15 [Jan]
Jutta: Let's go on to the next ageda item...
20:44:15 [AlastairC]
ALastairc: happy with previous wording, just wondering if we need to make sure the scorecard is public for any claim?
20:44:39 [jeanne]
+1 for public claims
20:45:03 [Jan]
Jan: I think the claim was to be public but that the explanations would be optional...
20:45:17 [Greg]
Yes public based on current status of product
20:45:19 [Jan]
Jan: Presumably buyers could request the details
20:45:37 [AlastairC]
AlastairC: but the yes/no/NA is public?
20:45:48 [Greg]
I would assume so
20:46:14 [Greg]
Like the VPAT, add a provision for comments
20:46:17 [AlastairC]
good, it might be worth writing in somewhere that is a requirement of a claim
20:46:42 [Greg]
Weird sound
20:46:51 [Jan]
Jan: So does the group feel the Yes, No, NA should be public with comments/explanation optional?
20:47:02 [Greg]
20:47:06 [AlastairC]
20:47:28 [jeanne]
optionally public, or optional to make?
20:47:59 [Greg]
Explanation is optional, the whole thing is public
20:48:01 [AlastairC]
if you make a p[artial claim, the number of SC met (or NA) should be part of the public claim.
20:48:13 [AlastairC]
Not so concerned with explanations.
20:48:15 [Jan]
Jan: Just checked the existing conformance claim text...
20:48:48 [Jan]
We already require the Yes/No?NA to tbe part of the public claim with the explanation optional
20:48:57 [Jan]
SO we are good.
20:49:05 [AlastairC]
AlastairC: Ah, sorry, just checking!
20:49:18 [Jan]
Jan: Thanks for checking!!! I had to remind myself.
20:49:26 [Jan]
Jutta: Great...let's move on.
20:49:33 [Greg]
20:49:52 [Jan]
AND we are very sorry for the poor Wifi situation
20:50:10 [Zakim]
20:50:51 [Jan]
Can you hear us?
20:51:32 [Jan]
We had to drop off again.
20:51:34 [Zakim]
20:51:45 [Jan]
We will stop trying to call in.
20:52:08 [Jan]
Can we move to item #2?
20:52:38 [Jan]
(BTW: Did the MASTER doc I sent go through?)
20:53:17 [Jan]
(I don't see it on the AU archives so I'm guessing no)
20:53:53 [Jan]
OK the main thing to discuss are the 2 conformanace notes in the email...
20:54:02 [Jan]
20:54:19 [Jan]
Taking this first: 1. Proposed New Part A Conformance Applicability Note: Platform limitations: When Part A success criteria depend on specific platform features, such as the presence of a platform accessibility service, keyboard interface, or keyboard shortcuts, these success criteria are "not applicable" on platforms that do not include these features. The (optional) explanation of...
20:54:20 [Jan]
...conformance claim results should explain that these platform features are missing.
20:55:59 [Greg]
Are Jan and Jutta back in Canada next week?
20:56:38 [Jan]
Jan is back...Jutta is in WashingDC
20:56:57 [Greg]
Okay reliable connections should be restored
20:56:58 [jeanne]
Can we postpone to next week? This is very difficult
20:57:05 [Jan]
Jan: Yes
20:57:20 [Jan]
Jan: OK...
20:57:30 [Jan]
Anyway it is 3:57...
20:57:33 [Jan]
20:57:38 [Zakim]
20:57:42 [Jan]
20:57:42 [jeanne]
rrsagent, make minutes
20:57:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate jeanne
20:57:48 [Zakim]
20:57:48 [Jan]
2. Proposed New Part A Conformance Applicability Note: Unrecognizable content: When success criteria require authoring tools to treat web content according to semantic criteria (e.g. is a text alternative, is an image, etc.), the success criteria only apply when the semantics are present (e.g., not in the the case of scripted content lacking WAI-ARIA information).
20:57:50 [Zakim]
20:57:50 [jeanne]
rrsagent, make logs public
20:57:57 [Zakim]
20:57:58 [Zakim]
WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has ended
20:58:00 [Zakim]
Attendees were [IPcaller], Jeanne, Greg, +1.301.330.aaaa, Sueann, Tim, Jutta, Jan
20:58:04 [Jan]
I'll write toi the list...
20:58:15 [jeanne]
rrsagent, make minutes
20:58:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate jeanne
20:58:20 [Jan]
OK, be all , sorry again.
21:00:55 [AlastairC]
AlastairC has left #au