See also: IRC log
Proposal: 6. A list of the *web content technologies produced by the authoring tool that are included in the claim*. If there are any web content technologies produced by the authoring tool that are *not included* in the conformance claim, these must be listed separately. <NEW>If the authoring tool produces any web content technologies by default, then these must be *included*.</NEW>
JR: Two "danger" cases...one where the problematic format is deafult (which this covers)...the other is when it is a secondary format that is problematic (not covered)
JT: Anyone else have concerns
B.4.1.1 Features Active by Default: All accessible content support features are turned on by default. (Level A)
B.2.2.1 Accessible Option Prominence (WCAG): If authors are provided with a choice of authoring actions for achieving the same authoring outcome (e.g., styling text), then options that will result in accessible web content (WCAG) are at least as prominent as options that will not. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria;...
scribe: Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)
JT: But no explicit
... Other example is video formats...one supporting captions, other not
... Need not be a negative statement...could be positive..."in order to create accessible videos with captions...use this format"
... Not a critique of one file format...
... I'm reticent to remove this entirely.
... We very often talk to developers after the fact and they say "if only we knew..."
AL: Comes down to practiacality and practical way to not infringe on other technologies in a negative way...in theory possible ...but no suggestions
JS: New document: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0025.html
JT: Given the size of testing
... We'd like to create a sub-group....
... to write the test cases.
JS: I think we should go ahead.
AL: Can we just do it on a survey
JS: Sorry that's too much copy-paste
AL: I think you can do survey with just a link, not full on copy-paste...having survey is a nudge to people to do things
JR: Are you saying we could have a survey with only a few questions?
AL: Maybe per SC?
JT: Alternative approach, have
the subgroup prepare and vet the document and then give3 the
whole doc to the rest of the group for review.
... Updates Sueann...
JS: There can be multiple tests per SC
SN: Is there a model - how have other groups done it?
AL: Survey per technique....it helps the group make foreward progress.
JS: Sorry I would rather spend time working on the tests.
SN: Can other people make surveys.
JR: Maybe we hold off on the surveys
JS: I'm away next week
JT: And its a CDN holiday
... So if no objections to the subgroup working on tests...
... Aug 6 - no call...
... Aug 13, testing subgroup call
... Any idea about the WG meeting?
JR: We agreed not to meet at
... GP offered to host.
JT: We could host as well.
... So for the next survey...wording for B.4.1.3...plus potential meeting dates
... Will send some dates when I'm available to start it off
SN: Can definitely look into hosting in Boca in Nov+
JT: Anything else to cover?
JR: So far the sub-group is Jeanne, Tim and Jan....we'll send an email to the group.
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) Succeeded: s/Aug 3/Aug 13/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: Jan Inferring Scribes: Jan Default Present: Jan, Alex, Jutta, Jeanne, Tim_Boland, +1.970.349.aaaa, Sueann Present: Jan Alex Jutta Jeanne Tim_Boland +1.970.349.aaaa Sueann Regrets: Cherie E. Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0024.html Got date from IRC log name: 30 Jul 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/07/30-au-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]