20:06:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #au
20:06:07 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/28-au-irc
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 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0083.html
20:10:03 <Zakim> +Sueann
20:11:43 <jeanne> brainstorming ideas -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0083.html
20:11:56 <Sueann> Sueann has joined #au
20:12:08 <jeanne> brainstorming ideas -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0083.html
20:12:39 <jeanne> Alastair's analysis -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0082.html
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> +[IPcaller.a]
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 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#conformance-partial
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> -Tim
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> -Jutta
20:38:35 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
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> -Jutta
20:40:17 <Greg> So one is either full or partial
20:40:23 <Greg> correct?
20:40:27 <Jan> Calling back...
20:40:45 <Jan> Right..one is full or partial at the various levles...
20:40:52 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
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> -[IPcaller.a]
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> +1
20:47:06 <AlastairC> +1
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> Fantastic
20:49:52 <Jan> AND we are very sorry for the poor Wifi situation
20:50:10 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
20:50:51 <Jan> Can you hear us?
20:51:32 <Jan> We had to drop off again.
20:51:34 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
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> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0087.html
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> -[IPcaller]
20:57:42 <Jan> Wait...
20:57:42 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
20:57:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/28-au-minutes.html jeanne
20:57:48 <Zakim> -Sueann
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> -Greg
20:57:50 <jeanne> rrsagent, make logs public
20:57:57 <Zakim> -Jeanne
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 http://www.w3.org/2011/11/28-au-minutes.html jeanne
20:58:20 <Jan> OK, be all , sorry again.
21:00:55 <AlastairC> AlastairC has left #au