See also: IRC log
<jeanne> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 01 October 2012
<scribe> Scribe: Jan
JT: As noted, this will give
reviewers a sneak peek of changes we have made to the ATAG2
... Taking vote
<jeanne> +1 to publishing
<Greg> Greg says yes
TB: Is it aligned with LC?
JR: Not exactly, it does include changes we have made based on LC comments
TB: Should have note, could be confusing
JT: We can add a not explaining
... The motion is passed, so we will publish...when can we?
JS: ASPA...probably next
week...def before TPAC
... It was important not to muddle LC status of the rec track doc
Resolution: All agreed to publish the Implementing ATAG doc
TB: Extended teleconference on Oct 31?
JT: That was a proposal
JS: Last I remember we didn't agree on something
<Greg> The last time we discussed a f to f was questioning the wisdom of holding one during hurricane season in Boca
JR: I think that text was from
... The main thing we need to do work on are the tests
JT: So the main thing we are
doing is writing tests for the SCs
... We also need to gather evaluators and reviewers?
JS: Yes, that needs to be done.
JT: Implementors of ATAG2 and
then evalutors/reviewers - people to check those
... Question is what kind of meeting do we need to put together all of this?
JS: I remember from wcag2 testing
that there was not a lot of group work...there was a lot of
coord and a lot of individual work...
... I could certainly see a meeting to draft and agree on CR exit conditions....but thats it for group work...
... What we really need is a run trhough of testing.
SN: Are you looking for people or implementations?\
SN: So we have SCs with tests then we need implementations?
JT: So to clarify, you and I had been talking about gathering some people to do the testing.
JS: Right and then the WG needs to stand behind those testers
JS: Well, the WG reviews the work
that the reviewers do and then they take a vote to say that we
think we are done with CR.
... Would take at least 6 weeks after we vote to become a Rec
GP: How many implementations do we really need? Is it ok if we have one tool that meets just one SC... etc.
JS: Its a tricky answer...largely
we decide that...but we have to be credible...we have to show
implementations in the real world
... I know JB would like to see examples in various different market niches...blogs, CMSs,, LMSs, etc
GP: Our problem is a process
issues....need to be able to track whether there is an example
for SC...and then show where that is
... Until we get examples for each we cant move forward?
JS: Well, we can declare that
certain SCs are "at risk".
... Need at least two examples,
... JR had that spreadsheet showing that
JR: There is a newer one...with more columns....I can update
JT: Great make sure to update the
... And people not working on the testing pls help with that
... Any other issues?
OK, then lets move to the 2 agenda items
<Greg> I vote for Integration
<Greg> Happy Thanksgivign
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137 of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: Jan Inferring ScribeNick: Jan Default Present: Jeanne, Jan, Cherie, Jutta, +1.571.765.aaaa, Greg, +1.970.349.aabb, Sueann, Tim_Boland Present: Jeanne Jan Cherie Jutta +1.571.765.aaaa Greg +1.970.349.aabb Sueann Tim_Boland Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0055.html Found Date: 01 Oct 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/10/01-au-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]