See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: jeanne
<Jan> scribe: Jeanne
<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0040.html
JR: This came up while writing tests.
<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) Note: This success criterion concerns the presence or absence of support features, such as accessibility checkers, not...
<Jan> ...any intrinsic property of web content technologies.
JR: Tools come in many formats,
so you need to document in the tool that any formats that do
not meet ATAG need to be documented.
... this is difficult to do from a testing viewpoint
<Jan> 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: and the documentation can be
buried in a manual, so it would not be useful.
... So if a tool produces a web content technology by default,
then that must be included for ATAG conformance.
... you cannot side-step the ATAG conformance.
GP: If the default content is NOT a web content technology, then it does not apply.
JR: Example: a word processing
program does not produce a web content technology by default,
but does have a save as HTML option
... it can conform for the HTML, but does not have to file on
the .doc document format
GP: it seems ok
... On the flip side, the default format can be accessible,
even if it is not a web content technology.
AL: I know what a "default" is, but I can anticipate that some people might ask what the default is for that tool. Other tools may produce many different formats without a default.
<Jan> 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>
<Jan> All: No objections heard...
JR: SO B.4.1.3 will be deleted and this will be added to B.4.1.1
<Jan> Resolved: Add the new sentence to 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...
<Jan> ...*included*.</NEW>
<Jan> Resolved: To remove SC B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information
GP: Can you recap where we are?
JR: We have finished Last Call and we could go into CR at any time, but we are settling our testing before we set up our exit criteria from CR.
GP: so how many test cases have to go through this before we are satisfied and W3C is satisfied.
JR: We set a test cases, a test
approach and our exit criteria.
... then we go and talk to those powers.
JS: An important part of the Exit Criteria is idenfying problem areas and what we will do about them. otherwise we have to go back to Last Call to change the document.
AL: then we need to be very flexible and accept tools that only do a few things
JR: well, we need to write the exit criteria so that we are credible.
JS: We can't just cherry pick implementations to find 2 implementations, we have to show that types of tools meet the criteria that apply to that tool .
JR: Those of you who are not writing test cases, please go through the document and look for the success criteria that are either hard to test, or may not have sufficient implementations.
<Jan> We will discuss on Dept 24
JR: We will discuss this next week. Look for at-risk success criteria.
<Jan> End of the first part of the call
<Greg> Provide link to the test location?
<Jan> This is the most recent: http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2-10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20120730
<Jan> There were some more tests submitted after that point...
<Jan> e.g. from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0035.html
<Jan> Guideline A.3.1: (For the authoring tool user interface) Provide keyboard access to authoring features - Tim Boland
<Jan> Guideline A.4.2: (For the authoring tool user interface) Document the user interface including all accessibility features. - Jan Richards
GP: A.3.7.1 & 2 - Greg will take them
<Jan> Guideline A.3.7: (For the authoring tool user interface) Ensure that previews are at least as accessible as in-market user agents. - Greg Pisocky
A.3.6 to Jeanne
<Jan> Guideline A.3.6: (For the authoring tool user interface) Manage preference settings. - Jeanne Spellman
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 Found Scribe: Jeanne Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne Default Present: Jan, Jeanne, Alex, Jutta, Cherie, +1.571.765.aaaa, Greg, Tim_Boland Present: Jan Jeanne Alex Jutta Cherie +1.571.765.aaaa Greg Tim_Boland Regrets: Jutta T. Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0040.html Got date from IRC log name: 17 Sep 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/09/17-au-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]