IRC log of au on 2012-01-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:49:16 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #au
19:49:16 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/01/16-au-irc
19:49:30 [Jan]
Zakim, this will be AUWG
19:49:31 [Zakim]
ok, Jan; I see WAI_AUWG()3:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes
19:49:39 [Jan]
Meeting: WAI AU
19:50:04 [Jan]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0008.html
19:50:44 [Jan]
Regrets: Alessandro M, Tim B
20:00:26 [Zakim]
WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has now started
20:00:33 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
20:00:48 [Jan]
zakim, [IPcaller] is really Jan
20:00:48 [Zakim]
+Jan; got it
20:01:40 [Zakim]
+??P7
20:01:55 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
20:02:06 [Jan]
zakim, [IPcaller] is really Andrew
20:02:06 [Zakim]
+Andrew; got it
20:02:18 [Jan]
zakim, ??P7 is really Jutta
20:02:18 [Zakim]
+Jutta; got it
20:02:23 [Jan]
Chair: Jutta Treviranus
20:02:47 [andrewronksley]
andrewronksley has joined #au
20:03:00 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
20:03:39 [Jan]
zakim, [Microsoft] is really Alex
20:03:39 [Zakim]
+Alex; got it
20:05:04 [Zakim]
+Greg
20:06:05 [Zakim]
+ +1.561.582.aaaa
20:06:26 [Jan]
zakim, aaaa is really Sueann
20:06:26 [Zakim]
+Sueann; got it
20:07:08 [Jan]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0008.html
20:07:56 [Jan]
Scribe: Jan
20:08:30 [Jan]
Topic: 1. Tentative "Conformance Requirements" Section - everyone took an action last week to look at this text.
20:08:40 [Jan]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ED-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20120113/#conf-req
20:08:51 [Jan]
JT: People have chance to read?
20:08:58 [Jan]
SN: No chance yet?
20:09:23 [Jan]
JT: We will all now read it http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ED-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20120113/#conf-req
20:09:24 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
20:09:47 [Jan]
zakim, [Microsoft] is really Cherie
20:09:47 [Zakim]
+Cherie; got it
20:16:45 [Jan]
WCAG2: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#conformance
20:17:58 [Jan]
GP: Wonders about "Statement of"
20:18:06 [Jan]
JR: No problem to remove it.
20:18:12 [Jan]
JT: Any objections?
20:18:16 [Jan]
None
20:20:06 [Jan]
note 2 in ATAG 2.0 conformance...ie is confusing
20:20:29 [Jan]
an applicable Level A success criterion has not been met
20:20:38 [Jan]
original: Note 2: If the minimum conformance level (Level A) has not been achieved (i.e., at least one applicable Level A success criterion has not been met), it is still beneficial to publish a statement specifying which success criteria were met.
20:21:20 [Jan]
original: Note 2: If the minimum conformance level (Level A) has not been achieved (i.e., not all applicable Level A success criteria have been met), it is still beneficial to publish a statement specifying which success criteria were met.
20:21:32 [Jan]
NEW: Note 2: If the minimum conformance level (Level A) has not been achieved (i.e., not all applicable Level A success criteria have been met), it is still beneficial to publish a statement specifying which success criteria were met.
20:21:51 [Jan]
AL: Under Success Criteria Satisfaction...NA should be first
20:22:36 [Jan]
JR: +1
20:22:42 [Jan]
JT: Objections?
20:22:48 [Jan]
No objections
20:24:54 [Jan]
AL: Do we need to define "authoring process components"?
20:25:21 [Jan]
JR: I think it is implicit but I can try?
20:25:38 [Jan]
JT: Do we use the phrase elsewhere?
20:25:40 [Jan]
JR: No
20:25:50 [Jan]
JT: Other way to phrase
20:26:32 [Jan]
JR: Sub-system?
20:28:03 [Jan]
AL: Maybe JT: tools or components?
20:28:13 [Jan]
Original: his conformance option may be selected when an authoring tool would require additional authoring process components in order to conform as a complete authoring system. This option may be used for components with very limited functionality (e.g. a plug-in) up to nearly complete systems (e.g. a markup editor that only lacks accessibility checking functionality).
20:28:38 [Jan]
JT: This conformance option may be selected when an authoring tool would require additional tools or components in order to conform as a complete authoring system. This option may be used for components with very limited functionality (e.g. a plug-in) up to nearly complete systems (e.g. a markup editor that only lacks accessibility checking functionality).
20:28:43 [Jan]
No objections
20:28:51 [Jan]
NEW: This conformance option may be selected when an authoring tool would require additional tools or components in order to conform as a complete authoring system. This option may be used for components with very limited functionality (e.g. a plug-in) up to nearly complete systems (e.g. a markup editor that only lacks accessibility checking functionality).
20:29:26 [Jan]
JT: We accept all of the new language with today's three modifications/
20:29:38 [Jan]
No objections
20:30:36 [Jan]
Resolution: Accept new "Conformance Requirements" text with 3 modifications: Rem statement of; NEW: Note 2: If the minimum conformance level (Level A) has not been achieved (i.e., not all applicable Level A success criteria have been met), it is still beneficial to publish a statement specifying which success criteria were met.; NEW: This conformance option may be selected when an authoring...
20:30:37 [Jan]
...tool would require additional tools or components in order to conform as a complete authoring system. This option may be used for components with very limited functionality (e.g. a plug-in) up to nearly complete systems (e.g. a markup editor that only lacks accessibility checking functionality).
20:30:51 [Jan]
2. Part A Conformance Applicability Note: Platform limitations
20:31:14 [Jan]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0001.html
20:31:22 [Jan]
"Statement of Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance - Platform Limitation (Level A, AA, or AAA)
20:31:24 [Jan]
This conformance option may be selected when an authoring tool is unable to meet one or more success criteria because of intrinsic limitations of the platform (e.g., lacking a platform accessibility service). The (optional) explanation of conformance claim results should explain what platform features are missing."
20:31:35 [Jan]
JT: Thoughts?
20:32:41 [Jan]
GP: So 2 flavours of partial for different reasons?
20:32:44 [Jan]
JR: Yes
20:33:03 [Jan]
JR: WCAG2 has 2 flavours of partial as well?
20:33:07 [Jan]
JR: WCAG2 has 2 flavours of partial as well.
20:33:23 [Jan]
No objections
20:33:47 [Jan]
Resolution: Accept new partial conformance type http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0001.html
20:34:01 [Jan]
Topic: 3. Proposals on A.4.2.1 (Explain Accessibility Features) and A.4.2.2 (Explain All Features)
20:34:09 [Jan]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0003.html
20:35:47 [Jan]
A.4.2.1 Explain Accessibility Features: For each authoring tool feature that is used to meet Part A of ATAG 2.0, at least one of the following is true:
20:35:48 [Jan]
(a) Explained in documentation: use of the feature is explained in the authoring tool's documentation; or
20:35:50 [Jan]
(b) Explained in interface: use of the feature is explained in the user interface; or
20:35:51 [Jan]
(c) Platform service: the feature is a service provided by an underlying platform; or
20:35:53 [Jan]
(d) Not used by authors: the feature is not used directly by authors (e.g., passing information to a platform accessibility service)
20:35:55 [Jan]
Note: The accessibility of the documentation is covered by Guideline A.1.1 and Guideline A.1.2.
20:35:57 [Jan]
A.4.2.2 Explain All Features: For each authoring tool feature, at least one of the following is true:
20:36:06 [Jan]
a) Explained in documentation: use of the feature is explained in the authoring tool's documentation; or
20:36:07 [Jan]
(b) Explained in interface: use of the feature is explained in the user interface; or
20:36:09 [Jan]
(c) Platform service: the feature is a service provided by an underlying platform; or
20:36:11 [Jan]
(d) Not used by authors: the feature is not used directly by authors (e.g., passing information to a platform accessibility service)
20:36:12 [Jan]
Note: The accessibility of the documentation is covered by Guideline A.1.1 and Guideline A.1.2.
20:36:21 [Jan]
JT: Thoughts?
20:36:25 [Zakim]
+Jeanne
20:37:31 [Jan]
JT: Are previous concerns addressed?
20:38:24 [Jan]
GP: Description vs explanation?
20:38:46 [Jan]
JR: Explain comes from 508 Refresyh
20:39:28 [Jan]
CE: Agree that describe is better than explain
20:40:09 [Jan]
JR: Described is fine with me
20:40:29 [Jan]
JT: Any objection to "described" in the handle and elsewhere
20:40:37 [Jan]
Resolution: Change explain to describe
20:41:05 [Jan]
Resolution: All accept new A421 and A422 with the change (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0003.html)
20:41:14 [Jan]
Topic: 4. Proposal to remove A.3.6.5 Assistance with Preferences
20:42:26 [Jan]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011JulSep/0107.html
20:42:49 [Jan]
JT: Any concerns with dropping it?
20:43:01 [Jan]
GP: No -Jan make a good case
20:43:54 [Jan]
JT: Do we have other related?
20:44:06 [Jan]
GP: THis is really a usability thing
20:46:03 [Jan]
JT: Maybe this should be added as a note somewhere?
20:46:47 [Jan]
Action JR: Find a place to slot in making user settings usable in intent, examples
20:46:47 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-371 - Find a place to slot in making user settings usable in intent, examples [on Jan Richards - due 2012-01-23].
20:47:09 [Jan]
Resolution: Remove SC A365
20:47:17 [Jan]
Topic: 5. Glossary: Content Generation
20:47:22 [Jan]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0007.html
20:48:12 [Jan]
content generation (content authoring, content editing):
20:48:14 [Jan]
The act of specifying the actual web content that will be rendered, played or executed by the end user's user agent. While the precise details of how content is created in any given system may vary widely, responsibility for the generation of content can be any combination of the following ():
20:48:16 [Jan]
- author generated content: Web content for which authors are fully responsible. The author may only be responsible down to a particular level (e.g., when asked to type a text label, the author is responsible for the text, but not for how the label is marked up; when typing markup in a source editing-view, the author is not responsible for the fact that UNICODE is used to encode the text ).
20:48:18 [Jan]
- automatically generated content: Web content for which developer-programmed functionality is fully responsible (e.g., what markup to output when an author requests to start a new document, automatically correcting markup errors).
20:48:20 [Jan]
- third-party content generation: Web content for which a third-party author is responsible (e.g., community shared templates).
20:50:49 [Jan]
JT: Everyone take 2 minutes to read...
20:52:44 [Jan]
AL: I don't have a problem with it
20:52:48 [Jan]
JT: Anyone else?
20:53:20 [Jan]
JT: No objections heard
20:53:56 [Jan]
Resolution: Accept new den of content genreation (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0007.html)
20:57:37 [Zakim]
-Sueann
20:57:38 [Zakim]
-Alex
20:57:38 [Zakim]
-Jeanne
20:57:39 [Zakim]
-Cherie
20:57:41 [Zakim]
-Greg
20:57:45 [Zakim]
-Andrew
20:57:46 [Zakim]
-Jutta
20:57:47 [Zakim]
-Jan
20:57:47 [Zakim]
WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has ended
20:57:49 [Zakim]
Attendees were Jan, Andrew, Jutta, Alex, Greg, +1.561.582.aaaa, Sueann, Cherie, Jeanne
20:57:52 [Zakim]
WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has now started
20:57:57 [Zakim]
WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has ended
20:57:58 [Zakim]
Attendees were
21:00:23 [Jan]
RRSAgent, make minutes
21:00:23 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/01/16-au-minutes.html Jan
21:00:28 [Jan]
RRSAgent, set logs public
21:00:34 [Jan]
Zakim, bye
21:00:35 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #au
21:00:40 [Jan]
RRSAgent, bye
21:00:40 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/01/16-au-actions.rdf :
21:00:40 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: JR to Find a place to slot in making user settings usable in intent, examples [1]
21:00:40 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/01/16-au-irc#T20-46-47