IRC log of au on 2012-07-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:47:00 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #au
18:47:00 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/07/23-au-irc
18:47:06 [Jan]
Zakim, this will be AUWG
18:47:06 [Zakim]
ok, Jan; I see WAI_AUWG()3:00PM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
18:47:11 [Jan]
Meeting: WAI AU
18:47:23 [Jan]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0014.html
18:47:33 [Jan]
Chair: Jan Richards
18:58:38 [jeanne]
jeanne has joined #au
19:01:49 [Zakim]
WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has now started
19:01:56 [Zakim]
+Jeanne
19:02:14 [Zakim]
+??P1
19:02:29 [Jan]
zakim, ??P1 is really Jan
19:02:29 [Zakim]
+Jan; got it
19:03:02 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
19:03:17 [jeanne]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2-10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20120723
19:03:46 [Jan]
zakim, [Microsoft] is really Cherie
19:03:46 [Zakim]
+Cherie; got it
19:07:40 [jeanne]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2-10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20120723
19:09:41 [Zakim]
+Greg
19:11:04 [Jan]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0014.html
19:11:10 [Jan]
Scribe: Jan
19:11:28 [Jan]
Topic: 1. AUWG test development to prepare for entering CR:
19:11:47 [Greg]
Greg has joined #au
19:12:26 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
19:12:35 [Jan]
zakim, [Microsoft] is really Alex
19:12:35 [Zakim]
+Alex; got it
19:12:48 [Jan]
Regrets: Sueann N.
19:13:56 [Jan]
Topic: 2. SC's that we might flag as a result of test writing
19:14:13 [Jan]
- B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information: If the authoring tool supports production of any web content technologies for publishing for which the authoring tool does not provide support for the production of accessible web content (WCAG), then this is documented. (Level AA)
19:14:22 [Jan]
Note: This success criterion concerns the presence or absence of support features, such as accessibility checkers, not any intrinsic property of web content technologies.
19:14:30 [Jan]
@ISSUE: This is tricky because the SC just says "support for production", not that the production of the other format needs to meet ATAG 2.0. This makes some sense because if it did imply ATAG 2.0 conformance then to do an ATAG 2.0 conformance check on any format for a tool would actually require doing one on all of them. But, what, then, does "support" mean? One (weak) possibility is [the...
19:14:32 [Jan]
...test I wrote]... that accessible content be possible. Another (stronger) possibility is that a "supported" format has to have checking (even if it is manual checking). If that's what we mean...I think we should fix the SC to say that.
19:14:33 [Jan]
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0013.html)
19:20:37 [Jan]
RR, AL: Discuss the issue...
19:20:47 [Jan]
s/RR/JR
19:25:35 [Jan]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0013.html
19:31:06 [jeanne]
Definitions for testing ->http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/CR20/TestPrep.html
19:31:51 [Jan]
JS: Has added the definition into the page above.
19:32:23 [Zakim]
+??P5
19:32:40 [Jan]
zakim, ??P5 is really Jutta
19:32:40 [Zakim]
+Jutta; got it
19:34:46 [Zakim]
-Cherie
19:35:15 [jutta]
jutta has joined #au
19:35:17 [Jan]
B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information: If the authoring tool supports production of any web content technologies for publishing for which the authoring tool does not provide support for the production of accessible web content (WCAG), then this is documented. (Level AA)
19:35:19 [Jan]
Note: This success criterion concerns the presence or absence of support features, such as accessibility checkers, not any intrinsic property of web content technologies.
19:35:20 [Jan]
@ISSUE: This is tricky because the SC just says "support for production", not that the production of the other format needs to meet ATAG 2.0. This makes some sense because if it did imply ATAG 2.0 conformance then to do an ATAG 2.0 conformance check on any format for a tool would actually require doing one on all of them. But, what, then, does "support" mean? One (weak) possibility is [the...
19:35:22 [Jan]
...test I wrote]... that accessible content be possible. Another (stronger) possibility is that a "supported" format has to have checking (even if it is manual checking). If that's what we mean...I think we should fix the SC to say that.
19:35:46 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
19:38:01 [Jan]
JT: Primary point of SC is to guide author...we've tried many formulations
19:38:33 [Zakim]
-[Microsoft]
19:38:35 [Jan]
JT: Wonder how we can keep the spirit of this
19:39:06 [Jan]
JT: Maybe we look at this in the other direction...recommending the technology that has support.
19:39:30 [Jan]
AL: I think the testability issue is still there
19:39:34 [Jan]
JT: In what way?
19:39:57 [Jan]
AL: Really hard to say when a tool provides support for production of accessible support
19:40:50 [Jan]
JT: If the recommendation is that there be an indicator that accessible production is supported....
19:41:36 [Jan]
JT: So the guidance doesn't nee to ba certification...just having some indicator that some...
19:43:09 [Jan]
JR: What about only triggering it only if the default technology is not the included technology
19:44:11 [Jan]
AL: In most cases accesssibility will depend. One tech might be better in one way, one tech might be better for something else
19:44:42 [Jan]
GP: Often times the authoring tool won't even create the final technology...
19:44:57 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
19:45:05 [Jan]
GP: So important to have properly created target technology
19:46:26 [Jan]
JR: Not about the format
19:46:44 [Jan]
JR: example of spell checking in only one format, but not others
19:47:08 [Jan]
GP: In most situations there it is not the case that one or the other
19:47:43 [Jan]
JT: If it is the case that there is no difference, then it shouldn't apply
19:48:21 [Jan]
GP: Example of ePub...needs reader
19:49:22 [Jan]
GP: In most tools, validity is limited to native format
19:49:35 [Jan]
JT: Can validate DAISY with MS Word
19:51:50 [Zakim]
-Alex
19:52:21 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft.a]
19:53:12 [Jan]
JR: What are some scenarios that should trigger sc?
19:53:59 [Jan]
JT: Example of video with captions, about to transfom to a video format without captions
19:54:37 [Jan]
JR: Should be covered by our content transformation SC
19:56:09 [Jan]
GP: Sound authoring in the source, should result in greater accessibility in the target
19:57:55 [Jan]
GP: Contemporary tools take you 80% of the way...because they automatically use styles etc
19:59:06 [Jan]
JT: Step back again to look at spirit...at decision points...where one choice would likely reduce accessibility
20:00:07 [Jan]
GP: For example, if you are going to use this feature or place this object, you need to know x. But sometimes its just good auhtoring practice.
20:00:41 [jeanne]
when authoring tools provide different technologies, the user is supported toward the more accessible choice as measured by the task the user wants to perform.
20:03:09 [Jan]
JR: But still complicated...what if you format includes some checking...but not repair etc.
20:03:44 [Jan]
GP: Microsoft has 8 simple checkpoints for making docs accessible
20:04:21 [Jan]
GP: Afraid that this is a documentation requirement...that will cause a backlash
20:04:26 [Zakim]
-[Microsoft]
20:04:54 [Jan]
GP: Its getting much more complex than the actual tools that will be produced as we try to account for all possibilities.
20:05:24 [Jan]
JS: when authoring tools provide different technologies, the user is supported toward the more accessible choice as measured by the task the user wants to perform.
20:06:34 [jeanne]
as measured by the actions the author takes
20:07:58 [Zakim]
-[Microsoft.a]
20:08:10 [jeanne]
zakim, who is here?
20:08:10 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Jeanne, Jan, Greg, Jutta
20:08:11 [Zakim]
On IRC I see jutta, Greg, jeanne, RRSAgent, Zakim, Jan, trackbot
20:08:17 [Jan]
JR: I do have concern that user will experience the SC as a judgement against the format (not as we intend honesty about the authoring tools own functionality)
20:09:04 [Jan]
B.1.2.1 Restructuring and Recoding Transformations (WCAG):
20:09:05 [Jan]
If the authoring tool provides restructuring transformations or re-coding transformations, and if equivalent mechanisms exist in the web content technology of the output, then at least one of the following is true: (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)
20:09:07 [Jan]
(a) Preserve: Accessibility information (WCAG) is preserved in the output; or
20:09:08 [Jan]
(b) Warning: Authors have the default option to be warned that accessibility information (WCAG) may be lost (e.g., when saving a vector graphic into a raster image format); or
20:09:10 [Jan]
(c) Automatic Checking: After the transformation, accessibility checking is automatically performed; or
20:09:11 [Jan]
(d) Checking Suggested: After the transformation, the authoring tool prompts authors to perform accessibility checking.
20:09:36 [Jan]
GP: We are moving to multiple formats
20:13:05 [Zakim]
-Greg
20:13:06 [Zakim]
-Jutta
20:13:07 [Jan]
JT: Idea of merging issue SC with B.1.2.1
20:13:42 [jeanne]
CuoBian.inc
20:13:49 [jeanne]
s/CuoBian.inc//
20:14:17 [Jan]
Action: JR to suggest combination of B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information and B.1.2.1 Restructuring and Recoding Transformations (WCAG)
20:14:17 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-382 - Suggest combination of B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information and B.1.2.1 Restructuring and Recoding Transformations (WCAG) [on Jan Richards - due 2012-07-30].
20:15:13 [Jan]
zakim, who's here?
20:15:13 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Jeanne, Jan
20:15:14 [Zakim]
On IRC I see jutta, Greg, jeanne, RRSAgent, Zakim, Jan, trackbot
20:18:58 [jeanne]
rrsagent, make minutes
20:18:58 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/07/23-au-minutes.html jeanne
20:19:12 [Zakim]
-Jeanne
20:19:33 [jeanne]
rrsagent, make logs public
20:19:52 [jeanne]
rrsagent, make minutes
20:19:52 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/07/23-au-minutes.html jeanne
20:20:06 [jeanne]
zakim, bye
20:20:06 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were Jeanne, Jan, Cherie, Greg, Alex, Jutta, [Microsoft]
20:20:06 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #au
20:20:18 [jeanne]
rrsagent, make minutes
20:20:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/07/23-au-minutes.html jeanne
20:20:39 [jeanne]
present- [Microsoft]
20:21:04 [jeanne]
rrsagent, make minutes
20:21:04 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/07/23-au-minutes.html jeanne
20:23:07 [jeanne]
rrsagent, bye
20:23:07 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/07/23-au-actions.rdf :
20:23:07 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: JR to suggest combination of B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information and B.1.2.1 Restructuring and Recoding Transformations (WCAG) [1]
20:23:07 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/07/23-au-irc#T20-14-17