Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference -- 28 Nov 2011

<trackbot> Date: 28 November 2011

<jeanne> brainstorming ideas -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0083.html

<jeanne> Alastair's analysis -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0082.html

Jeanne: Not partial to partial

<jeanne> "Limited conformance"

<jeanne> GP: A limited conformance claim could also indicate other tools that could be used to achieve full conformance.

<jeanne> AC: People could make a conformance statement that has the details of what isn't covered.

<jeanne> scribe: AlastairC

Jeanne: Like the concept, want different term for things with 'no' answers. Things that did not meet them, rather than not-applying

alastairc: not sure we need to differentiate between tools that don't meet, and those that don't try to meet.

Jeanne: like the 'don't block' caveat.
... not sure we should proceed without more people?

<jeanne> Jan: There is value in using terms that WCAG 2 uses.

<jeanne> Jeanne: I am concerned that using "Partial" in a different way than WCAG could cause conformance.

Jan: shouldn't we follow the WCAG terminology?

<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.

Greg: reads from http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#conformance-partial
... can use it, but refers to things that could be acheived with 3rd party enablment
... no objection to partial, 'limited' would be ok

Jan: like partial, fairly clear that it isn't full, and we mean in the same way

Greg: WCAG is restrictive, ours is allowance for additive component.

Jan: Important to keep that part about not blocking other tools from making it accessible

Jutta: No objections for full/partial? (None heard)
... two forms of non-full, those making progression, and those that need 3rd party tools.

Greg: corps wouldn't make statements of full intent.

(Sorry, future intent)

Jan: it the comparison of the particulars, the score card that counts.The Yes/No/NA

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.

Jutta: Partial could be used to cover either?

Greg: not confortable with partial having implications for future plans.
... ATAG should show current status, rather than future intent.

Jutta: If I am moving towards conformance, I want to be able to say I cover 39 of the 40 SC (for example)

<Jan> We are trying to call back but getting a bad line...

Jutta: no commitment to anything in the future, just a means of ranking.

<Jan> I wanted to say I agree with Greg ... the indicator of your progress is just the list of SCs with the answers

Jan: No need for extra mechanism, it's based on the SC, the scorecard.

<Jan> Can you hear us?

<Greg> So one is either full or partial

<Greg> correct?

<Jan> Calling back...

<Jan> Right..one is full or partial at the various levles...

<Jan> BUT a buyer could always ask (or a vendor could offer) the details core card of SCs with explanations.

Alastairc: Like an MOT for your car (yearly cert), it only signifies the status at the time

<Greg> Should only be a declaration of current state

<Jan> Agree that it is a sdeclaration of only the current state

<Greg> Good agreed

Jutta: Any concerns with... ? (Don't think so)

<Greg> So what is this progress towards conformance notion?

<Jan> Jutta: Any concerns with going ahead with this high level proposal of full vs partial...

Alastairc: no

<Jan> Jutta: we still need the detailed wording proposal

<Greg> Greg no

<Jan> Jan: no objection + I will wrtite the proposed detailed wording

<Greg> Good to go!

<Jan> Jutta: Let's go on to the next ageda item...

ALastairc: happy with previous wording, just wondering if we need to make sure the scorecard is public for any claim?

<jeanne> +1 for public claims

<Jan> Jan: I think the claim was to be public but that the explanations would be optional...

<Greg> Yes public based on current status of product

<Jan> Jan: Presumably buyers could request the details

AlastairC: but the yes/no/NA is public?

<Greg> I would assume so

<Greg> Like the VPAT, add a provision for comments

good, it might be worth writing in somewhere that is a requirement of a claim

<Greg> Weird sound

<Jan> Jan: So does the group feel the Yes, No, NA should be public with comments/explanation optional?

<Greg> +1

<jeanne> optionally public, or optional to make?

<Greg> Explanation is optional, the whole thing is public

if you make a p[artial claim, the number of SC met (or NA) should be part of the public claim.

Not so concerned with explanations.

<Jan> Jan: Just checked the existing conformance claim text...

<Jan> We already require the Yes/No?NA to tbe part of the public claim with the explanation optional

<Jan> SO we are good.

AlastairC: Ah, sorry, just checking!

<Jan> Jan: Thanks for checking!!! I had to remind myself.

<Jan> Jutta: Great...let's move on.

<Greg> Fantastic

<Jan> AND we are very sorry for the poor Wifi situation

<Jan> Can you hear us?

<Jan> We had to drop off again.

<Jan> We will stop trying to call in.

<Jan> Can we move to item #2?

<Jan> (BTW: Did the MASTER doc I sent go through?)

<Jan> (I don't see it on the AU archives so I'm guessing no)

<Jan> OK the main thing to discuss are the 2 conformanace notes in the email...

<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0087.html

<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...

<Jan> ...conformance claim results should explain that these platform features are missing.

<Greg> Are Jan and Jutta back in Canada next week?

<Jan> Jan is back...Jutta is in WashingDC

<Greg> Okay reliable connections should be restored

<jeanne> Can we postpone to next week? This is very difficult

<Jan> Jan: Yes

<Jan> Jan: OK...

<Jan> Anyway it is 3:57...

<Jan> :)

<Jan> Wait...

<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).

<Jan> I'll write toi the list...

- DRAFT -

Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

28 Nov 2011

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output