IRC log of au on 2012-07-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:49:53 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #au
18:49:53 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/07/16-au-irc
18:49:58 [Jan]
Zakim, this will be AUWG
18:49:59 [Zakim]
ok, Jan; I see WAI_AUWG()3:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes
18:50:04 [Jan]
Meeting: WAI AU
18:50:39 [Jan]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0006.html
18:59:37 [Jan]
zakim, code?
18:59:38 [Zakim]
the conference code is 2894 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Jan
18:59:47 [Zakim]
WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has now started
18:59:54 [Zakim]
+??P7
19:00:06 [Jan]
zakim, ??P7 is really Jan
19:00:06 [Zakim]
+Jan; got it
19:00:08 [Zakim]
+Jeanne
19:00:19 [jeanne]
jeanne has joined #au
19:00:20 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
19:00:56 [Jan]
zakim, [Microsoft] is really Cherie
19:00:56 [Zakim]
+Cherie; got it
19:01:35 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
19:01:51 [Jan]
zakim, [Microsoft] is really Alex
19:01:51 [Zakim]
+Alex; got it
19:04:10 [Zakim]
+Greg
19:04:39 [Jan]
Chair: Jan Richards
19:05:04 [jeanne]
scribe: jeanne
19:05:18 [Jan]
Topic: 1. Processing Last Call comments
19:05:28 [Greg]
Greg has joined #au
19:05:31 [Jan]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/att-0004/ATAG2-CommentResponses20120410LC-5.html
19:05:56 [Jan]
Topic: New proposal related to MS3, IBM19, MS4, IBM20
19:06:04 [Jan]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0005.html
19:07:09 [Jan]
B.2.3.2 Conditions on Automated Suggestions:
19:07:16 [Jan]
MS3: The wording "text alternatives may only be suggested under the following conditions" under B.2.3.2 makes it sounds like text alternative suggestion is not a good practice. Please make minor reword to remove the negative connotation.
19:07:24 [Jan]
IBM19: B.2.3.2 - not sure "relevant sources" is testable. Sounds very subjective.
19:07:31 [Jan]
B.2.3.3 Let User Agents Repair:
19:07:45 [Jan]
B.2.3.3 Let User Agents Repair:
19:07:54 [Jan]
MS4: The text for B2.3.3 still requires improvements. Text value for text alternative is, by definition, available to user agents-making this SC rather illogical.
19:08:09 [Jan]
IBM20: B.2.3.3 - why is this requirement limited to automatic repair of text alternatives "after the end of an authoring session". Seems like it is also relevant if the repair is being done during the authoring session.
19:08:33 [Jan]
B.2.3.2 Repair of Text Alternatives During Authoring Sessions: If the authoring tool attempts to automatically or semi-automatically repair text alternatives for non-text content ("repair strings") during an authoring session, then the following are both true: (Level A)
19:08:34 [Jan]
(a) No generic/irrelevant strings: Generic strings (e.g. "image") and irrelevant strings (e.g., the file name, file format) are not offered as repair strings; and
19:08:36 [Jan]
(b) Author control: Authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the repair strings prior to insertion in the content.
19:08:37 [Jan]
B.2.3.3 Repair of Text Alternatives After Authoring Sessions: If the authoring tool attempts to automatically repair text alternatives for non-text content after an authoring session has ended, then the following are both true: (Level A)
19:08:39 [Jan]
(a) No generic/irrelevant strings: Generic strings (e.g. "image") and irrelevant strings (e.g., the file name, file format) are not used as repair strings; and
19:08:41 [Jan]
(b) Author control: In the subsequent authoring session (if any), auto-generated text alternatives are indicated and authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the text alternatives.
19:12:00 [Jan]
JS: Wouldn't say generic/irrelevant strings...say instead generic or irrelevant strings
19:12:31 [Jan]
AL: Looks good to me
19:12:39 [jeanne]
Cherie: It looks good to me.
19:12:40 [Jan]
CE: Looks good to me too
19:12:45 [Jan]
JR: Greg?
19:12:46 [jeanne]
Greg: good
19:13:21 [Jan]
B.2.3.2 Repair of Text Alternatives During Authoring Sessions: If the authoring tool attempts to automatically or semi-automatically repair text alternatives for non-text content ("repair strings") during an authoring session, then the following are both true: (Level A)
19:13:23 [Jan]
(a) No generic or irrelevant strings: Generic strings (e.g. "image") and irrelevant strings (e.g., the file name, file format) are not offered as repair strings; and
19:13:23 [jeanne]
resolved: Accept the proposal for B.2.3.2 and B.2.3.3 with minor changes as above.
19:13:24 [Jan]
(b) Author control: Authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the repair strings prior to insertion in the content.
19:13:40 [Jan]
B.2.3.3 Repair of Text Alternatives After Authoring Sessions: If the authoring tool attempts to automatically repair text alternatives for non-text content after an authoring session has ended, then the following are both true: (Level A)
19:13:42 [Jan]
(a) No generic or irrelevant strings: Generic strings (e.g. "image") and irrelevant strings (e.g., the file name, file format) are not used as repair strings; and
19:13:44 [Jan]
(b) Author control: In the subsequent authoring session (if any), auto-generated text alternatives are indicated and authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the text alternatives.
19:14:11 [Zakim]
+Sueann
19:15:07 [jeanne]
[Sueann joins and Jan recapitulates prior discussion]
19:16:06 [jeanne]
JR: The IBM issue on B.2.3.2 was "relevant sources" was not testable. That wording has been replaced
19:17:18 [jeanne]
Sueann: Ok, that makes sense.
19:17:23 [Sueann]
Sueann has joined #AU
19:17:29 [Jan]
SN: Yes I agree
19:17:54 [jeanne]
Topic: IBM23
19:18:03 [Jan]
IBM23: B.4.1.3 - requires tools that do not comply with the requirements of Part B to document the fact that they don't comply. There is no leverage to get a tool developer to do this. If they document that they don't comply, they still don't comply.
19:20:01 [Zakim]
+Tim_Boland
19:20:11 [jeanne]
JR: The intent was to make things more flexible for developers.
19:20:21 [Jan]
AUWG: This success criterion was actually added by the Working Group to increase flexibility for developers. Instead of requiring that tools support accessibility for all of the formats they might output, they only need to support accessibility for one format and then document the fact that accessibility support is not offered for the other formats.
19:20:37 [jeanne]
SN: The other alternative is to require everything to be compliant which would be more difficult.
19:21:25 [Tim]
Tim has joined #au
19:21:58 [Jan]
zakim, who's making noise?
19:22:10 [Zakim]
Jan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Jan (12%), Sueann (41%)
19:22:21 [Greg]
Better now
19:23:13 [Jan]
Resolved: All agree with AUWG: This success criterion was actually added by the Working Group to increase flexibility for developers. Instead of requiring that tools support accessibility for all of the formats they might output, they only need to support accessibility for one format and then document the fact that accessibility support is not offered for the other formats.
19:23:25 [jeanne]
Topic: GZ6
19:23:54 [Jan]
B.4.2.1 Model Practice (WCAG): A range of examples in the documentation (e.g., markup, screen shots of WYSIWYG editing-views) demonstrate accessible authoring practices (WCAG).
19:25:05 [jeanne]
+1
19:25:36 [Jan]
The note on "range" in the glossary: Informative Note: ATAG 2.0 uses the term "range" where absolute measurements may not be practical (e.g., the set of all help documentation examples, the set of all templates). While the strict testable requirement is the definition "More than one item within a multi-item set", implementers are strongly encouraged to implement the success criteria more broadly.
19:25:36 [jeanne]
JR will add the informative note on range
19:27:24 [Jan]
AUWG: While the Working Group recognizes that "range" is a weak term, documentation can run to hundreds of thousands of pages making a sweeping requirement very difficult to test. Instead of dropping the requirement entirely, the Working Group decided to use wording that clearly conveyed our intent while remaining testable. To make clear, the Working Group added the following informative...
19:27:26 [Jan]
...note to the glossary definition of "range": "Informative Note: ATAG 2.0 uses the term "range" where absolute measurements may not be practical (e.g., the set of all help documentation examples, the set of all templates). While the strict testable requirement is the definition "More than one item within a multi-item set", implementers are strongly encouraged to implement the success...
19:27:27 [Jan]
...criteria more broadly."
19:27:42 [Jan]
JR: Comments, additions?
19:27:55 [jeanne]
+1
19:28:04 [Greg]
+1
19:28:09 [Jan]
JR: Is everyone still happy with our use of Range?
19:28:13 [Jan]
All: Agree
19:28:45 [Greg]
y
19:28:53 [Jan]
Resolved: AUWG: While the Working Group recognizes that "range" is a weak term, documentation can run to hundreds of thousands of pages making a sweeping requirement very difficult to test. Instead of dropping the requirement entirely, the Working Group decided to use wording that clearly conveyed our intent while remaining testable. To make clear, the Working Group added the following...
19:28:54 [Jan]
...informative note to the glossary definition of "range": "Informative Note: ATAG 2.0 uses the term "range" where absolute measurements may not be practical (e.g., the set of all help documentation examples, the set of all templates). While the strict testable requirement is the definition "More than one item within a multi-item set", implementers are strongly encouraged to implement the...
19:28:56 [Jan]
...success criteria more broadly."
19:29:01 [Greg]
Go ahead it's good stuff
19:29:56 [jeanne]
Topic: Getting to Candidate Recommendation
19:31:58 [jeanne]
One of the issues that the ARIA group has discovered is that it is more important to write test cases before entering CR. Once in CR it is difficult to change the text.
19:32:07 [Jan]
JR: Congrats everyone on getting through the Last Call comments!
19:33:14 [jeanne]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/
19:33:21 [Jan]
scribe: Jan
19:33:38 [Jan]
JS: First link is something I'vwe shown before...going to be our cebntral testing page
19:34:04 [Jan]
TB: I've send a few out...a bit rough
19:34:16 [Jan]
JS: I'm delighted you sent them, I've polished them up.
19:34:17 [jeanne]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2-10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20120711
19:34:36 [Jan]
JS: This is a link to a central piece that JR started
19:34:56 [Jan]
JS: I've started working on tests...I've standardized the formatting and language a great deal
19:35:18 [Jan]
JS: I've also set up another series of placeholder...please don't send as we are not officially in SC
19:35:40 [Jan]
JS: This not for sharing
19:36:01 [Jan]
JS: Document preparations for testing has all of the items JR put in the original document
19:37:02 [Jan]
JS: The set of testing information needs to be expanded...eg. a set of stable testing content
19:37:19 [jeanne]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2-10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20120711
19:37:20 [Jan]
JS: With that in mind, if we go back to resource doc...
19:37:49 [Jan]
JS: Some of the thinks I did...
19:38:09 [Jan]
JS: I broke A.1.1.1 into tests for each WCAG 2.0 level
19:39:21 [Jan]
JS: Pass at any one of those will pass the SC
19:39:35 [Jan]
JS: I wrote some others...
19:39:54 [Jan]
JS: I added a couple of TBs A.2.1.1...
19:41:21 [Jan]
JS: Also split web vs non-web based as in A.2.2.1...
19:41:41 [Jan]
JS: Let's look at A.3.2.1
19:42:29 [Jan]
TB: Have to be careful not to redefine the SC, but rateher to test in good faith
19:42:46 [Jan]
JS: Anpther thing I have to do is update all the wording to the LC changes
19:44:01 [Jan]
JR: How to share work?
19:44:13 [Jan]
JS: Just send to list.
19:49:45 [jeanne]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2-10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20120711
19:51:02 [Jan]
TB: Will work on A.3.1.1
19:51:13 [Jan]
CE: Bad week for me, but next week is better
19:51:34 [Jan]
GP: Need to take some time
19:52:44 [jeanne]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/
19:53:46 [Jan]
"Testing Reference Document" on http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/
19:54:31 [Zakim]
-Alex
19:54:32 [Zakim]
-Jeanne
19:54:32 [Zakim]
-Sueann
19:54:33 [Zakim]
-Tim_Boland
19:54:33 [Zakim]
-Jan
19:54:35 [Zakim]
-Greg
19:54:41 [Zakim]
-Cherie
19:54:41 [Zakim]
WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has ended
19:54:41 [Zakim]
Attendees were Jan, Jeanne, Cherie, Alex, Greg, Sueann, Tim_Boland
19:55:19 [Jan]
RRSAgent, make minutes
19:55:19 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/07/16-au-minutes.html Jan
19:55:31 [Jan]
RRSAgent, set logs public
19:55:37 [Jan]
Zakim, bye
19:55:37 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #au
19:55:42 [Jan]
RRSAgent, bye
19:55:42 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items