IRC log of au on 2012-02-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:49:45 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #au
19:49:45 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:49:47 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
19:49:47 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #au
19:49:49 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be AUWG
19:49:49 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WAI_AUWG()3:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes
19:49:50 [trackbot]
Meeting: Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
19:49:50 [trackbot]
Date: 13 February 2012
19:49:51 [jeanne]
chair: Jutta
19:49:58 [jeanne]
scribe: jeanne
19:50:04 [jeanne]
rrsagent, make minutes
19:50:04 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate jeanne
19:58:02 [jeanne]
agenda+ Intent-Examples-Resources for B.1.2.2 Copy-Paste Inside Authoring Tool (WCAG)
19:58:02 [jeanne]
19:58:16 [jeanne]
agenda+ Whether to move theses appendices to the Implementing doc?:
19:58:16 [jeanne]
Appendix E: Checklist
19:58:16 [jeanne]
Appendix F: Comparison of ATAG 1.0 guidelines to ATAG 2.0
19:58:50 [jeanne]
agenda+ Finalizing responses to the few remaining outstanding comments.
19:58:58 [jeanne]
agenda+ Last Call planning
19:59:05 [jeanne]
19:59:44 [Zakim]
WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has now started
19:59:51 [Zakim]
20:02:49 [Zakim]
20:03:51 [jeanne]
zakim, ??P1 is Jutta
20:03:51 [Zakim]
+Jutta; got it
20:04:12 [Zakim]
20:04:51 [jeanne]
zakim, Microsoft is Alex
20:04:51 [Zakim]
+Alex; got it
20:09:59 [Zakim]
20:12:28 [Zakim]
20:13:58 [Tim]
Tim has joined #au
20:13:59 [jeanne]
zakim, take up item 1
20:13:59 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Intent-Examples-Resources for B.1.2.2 Copy-Paste Inside Authoring Tool (WCAG)" taken up [from jeanne]
20:14:23 [jeanne]
zakim, take up item 4
20:14:23 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Last Call planning" taken up [from jeanne]
20:14:51 [jeanne]
Since Alex needs to leave early, Jutta requested his input on the topic.
20:15:01 [jeanne]
AL: Why do we even need a checklist?
20:15:20 [Zakim]
20:15:37 [jeanne]
JT: It was in the document for a long time, it hasn't been updated in a long time.
20:15:58 [jeanne]
TB: It has use in providing more information and material to the author.
20:16:29 [jeanne]
AL: I am not opposed to moving the appendixes to the Implementing document
20:16:39 [jeanne]
zakim, take up item 1
20:16:39 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Intent-Examples-Resources for B.1.2.2 Copy-Paste Inside Authoring Tool (WCAG)" taken up [from jeanne]
20:18:36 [jeanne]
20:20:12 [jeanne]
SN: It is somewhat ambiguous, is there other text that provides more guidance?
20:20:43 [jeanne]
... I don't know where anyone else talks about properties of copy and paste? How would you validate and test for it?
20:21:12 [jeanne]
JT: How would you determine if accessibility information survived the copy/paste process.
20:21:26 [jeanne]
... the application may only be intermediary.
20:21:55 [jeanne]
SN: You could only validate that the originating information was sent.
20:22:24 [jeanne]
JT: An example of copy/paste a video or portions of a video and its captions
20:23:04 [jeanne]
... or copy and pasting an image, if the authoring tool also copies the alt text.
20:23:19 [jeanne]
SN: What does WCAG do?
20:24:21 [jeanne]
... this situation can occur outside the tool, not necessarily tool related - mostly happens in the OS.
20:24:40 [jeanne]
JS: I don't think WCAG addresses it, because it is an authoring functions
20:25:44 [jeanne]
TB: I am looking at the guideline and it doesn't address copy-paste -- just within the authoring tool. In the implementing document, we are talking about moving between authoring tools.
20:26:16 [jeanne]
JT: This was written because of questions that the implications of B.1.2.2 included copy-paste.
20:27:02 [jeanne]
... the concern is that B.1.2.2 could be interpreted to include copy-paste, and we needed examples of how copy-paste would be adhered to. That is what led to this text.
20:27:36 [jeanne]
TB: This says the authoring tool doing the copy would also be doing the pasting.
20:29:09 [jeanne]
SN: I don't know what this says, I think it is ambiguous and how do you test for it, how do you test for all the conditions. At some point, someone would have to verify that you could do it.
20:30:23 [jeanne]
JS: I can think of a fairly simple test where you copy an image with alternative text and then paste it back into the document and look to see if the alternative text was copied over.
20:30:38 [jeanne]
SN: So why did we split out copy and paste?
20:31:02 [jeanne]
JT: Because Alex expressed concern about copy-paste and asked for illustrative examples.
20:31:11 [jeanne]
SN: I think it could be a little clearer
20:31:15 [Zakim]
20:31:23 [jeanne]
JT: Could you suggest some changes
20:31:36 [jeanne]
zakim, Microsoft is Cherie
20:31:36 [Zakim]
+Cherie; got it
20:36:57 [jeanne]
zakim, Jutta has Jan
20:36:57 [Zakim]
+Jan; got it
20:40:45 [jeanne]
JS: I see both sides -- WCAG 2.0 deliberately moved away from checklists, but have been criticized for lack of checklist and other people have written checklists.
20:41:13 [jeanne]
TB: If we move it to the Implementing document, people may not see them.
20:41:55 [jeanne]
RESOLUTION: Move the checklist into the Implementing document, but keep a reference to them in the Guidelines document
20:42:04 [jeanne]
zakim, take up item 2
20:42:04 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Whether to move theses appendices to the Implementing doc?:" taken up [from jeanne]
20:42:18 [jeanne]
zakim, take up item
20:42:18 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'take up item', jeanne
20:42:26 [jeanne]
zakim, take up item3
20:42:26 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Finalizing responses to the few remaining outstanding comments." taken up [from jeanne]
20:43:03 [jeanne]
JT: Before he had to leave, Alex reviewed them and had no criticism.
20:43:40 [jeanne]
... we are referencing a Note, the NOte may add more detail into the examples.
20:45:06 [jeanne]
SN: Looks fine to me.
20:45:10 [jeanne]
TB: Fine with me.
20:45:47 [jeanne]
RESOLUTION: Accept the edits to outstanding comments from
20:45:54 [jeanne]
zakim, take it item 4
20:45:54 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'take it item 4', jeanne
20:46:03 [jeanne]
zakim, take up item 4
20:46:03 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Last Call planning" taken up [from jeanne]
20:50:02 [jeanne]
JS: Once we vote for Last Call, it takes two weeks to publish, then I expect to request a 6 week turnaround. Does any company need more than 6 weeks?
20:51:05 [jeanne]
SN: I would be very hard pressed to get feedback in 6 weeks given the major conferences and spring break. There are also deadlines for 508 work that the same people are involved in. I think 8 weeks are more reasonable.
20:51:27 [jeanne]
JR: I think in the big picture, 8 weeks is not unreasonable.
20:52:18 [Zakim]
20:52:21 [Zakim]
20:52:23 [Zakim]
20:52:25 [jeanne]
JS: I think that those reasons are defensible, so I am ok with requesting 8 weeks.
20:52:30 [Zakim]
20:52:34 [jeanne]
rrsagent, make minutes
20:52:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate jeanne
20:52:37 [Zakim]
20:52:38 [Zakim]
WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has ended
20:52:38 [Zakim]
Attendees were Jeanne, Alex, Sueann, Tim_Boland, Cherie, Jan
20:53:03 [Tim]
next week is Presidents Day in U.S. so must send regrets
20:55:42 [jeanne]
zakim, bye
20:55:42 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #au
20:55:51 [jeanne]
rrsagent, make minutes
20:55:51 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate jeanne