Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

13 Feb 2012

See also: IRC log


Jeanne, Alex, Sueann, Tim_Boland, Cherie, Jan


<trackbot> Date: 13 February 2012

<scribe> scribe: jeanne


Appendix E: Checklist

Appendix F: Comparison of ATAG 1.0 guidelines to ATAG 2.0

Since Alex needs to leave early, Jutta requested his input on the topic.

AL: Why do we even need a checklist?

JT: It was in the document for a long time, it hasn't been updated in a long time.

TB: It has use in providing more information and material to the author.

AL: I am not opposed to moving the appendixes to the Implementing document

Intent-Examples-Resources for B.1.2.2 Copy-Paste Inside Authoring Tool (WCAG)


SN: It is somewhat ambiguous, is there other text that provides more guidance?
... I don't know where anyone else talks about properties of copy and paste? How would you validate and test for it?

JT: How would you determine if accessibility information survived the copy/paste process.
... the application may only be intermediary.

SN: You could only validate that the originating information was sent.

JT: An example of copy/paste a video or portions of a video and its captions
... or copy and pasting an image, if the authoring tool also copies the alt text.

SN: What does WCAG do?
... this situation can occur outside the tool, not necessarily tool related - mostly happens in the OS.

JS: I don't think WCAG addresses it, because it is an authoring function

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.

JT: This was written because of questions that the implications of B.1.2.2 included copy-paste.
... 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.

TB: This says the authoring tool doing the copy would also be doing the pasting.

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.

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.

SN: So why did we split out copy and paste?

JT: Because Alex expressed concern about copy-paste and asked for illustrative examples.

SN: I think it could be a little clearer

JT: Could you suggest some changes?

Whether to move these appendices to the Implementing doc?:

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.

TB: If we move it to the Implementing document, people may not see them.

RESOLUTION: Move the checklist into the Implementing document, but keep a reference to them in the Guidelines document

Finalizing responses to the few remaining outstanding comments. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0028.html

JT: Before he had to leave, Alex reviewed them and had no criticism.
... we are referencing a Note, the NOte may add more detail into the examples.

SN: Looks fine to me.

TB: Fine with me.

RESOLUTION: Accept the edits to outstanding comments from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0028.html

Last Call planning

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?

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.

JR: I think in the big picture, 8 weeks is not unreasonable.

JS: I think that those reasons are defensible, so I am ok with requesting 8 weeks.

<Tim> next week is Presidents Day in U.S. so must send regrets

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/02/13 21:03:33 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: jeanne
Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne
Default Present: Jeanne, Alex, Sueann, Tim_Boland, Cherie, Jan
Present: Jeanne Alex Sueann Tim_Boland Cherie Jan
Found Date: 13 Feb 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/02/13-au-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]