W3C

- DRAFT -

WAI AU

07 Jan 2013

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
[IPcaller], Jeanne, +1.571.765.aaaa, Greg, Jutta, +1.202.368.aabb, Tim
Regrets
Tim_B., Cherie_E., Sueann_N., Alex_L.
Chair
Jutta Treviranus
Scribe
Jan

Contents


<scribe> Scribe: Jan

1. Review of answers to the surveys re: tests

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20130107/results

JR: If we decide on any reasonable ideas lets puut them in an email.

JT: OK lets get started

A.2.1.1 Text Alternatives for Rendered Non-Text Content: If an editing-view renders non-text content, then any programmatically associated text alternatives for the non-text content can be programmatically determined. (Level A)

GP: Remeber this is an authoring tool for multimedia, either audio or video and as such, the alternatives may not be available because this is raw content. Needs some kind of qualifier that doesn't automatically assume that an alternative is already in existance. Your not going to have a closed caption transcript for video ready until the video has been edited. No one is going to bother...
... producing alternatives for content that ends up on the cutting room floor. Chicken, meet egg. Egg say hello to chicken.

JR: Agree maybe we can scope it at the top of each test
... New note at the top of the test - if the media alternatives for the format are in a different (non-included) format then the requirem,ent is not applicable and select, SKIP.

A.2.1.2 Alternatives for Rendered Time-Based Media

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20130107-2/results

A.3.1.5 Customize Keyboard Access: If the authoring tool includes keyboard commands, then those keyboard commands can be customized. (Level AAA)

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20130107-2/results#xq7

JR: Check whether the authoring tool has any mechanism by which any of the keyboard commands can be customized (e.g.. ???)
... And remove the fail loop

JT: OK

JS: OK

<scribe> ACTION: Jan to To write an email to the list with changes to tests agreed today [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/07-au-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-383 - Write an email to the list with changes to tests agreed today [on Jan Richards - due 2013-01-14].

A.3.4.2 Navigate by Programmatic Relationships: If editing-views allow editing of programmatic relationships within web content, then mechanisms are provided that support navigation between the related content. (Level AAA) Note: Depending on the web content technology and the nature of the authoring tool, relationships may include, but are not limited to, element nesting, headings, labeling,...

scribe: programmatic definitions, and ID relationships.

GP: Not quite sure what this is saying. The way this is written "navigate between pieces of web content (elements, functions, etc.) where there is a programmatic relationship" implies you can navigate the code. Isn't the point to exploit the relationships and "flip flop" between elements where there is an established relationship?

JR: Agrees that 2 should be tightened up.

JT: Agree that JR will put in suggested fail conditions where they were missing.

A.3.6.1 Independence of Display: If the authoring tool includes display settings for editing-views, then the authoring tool allows authors to adjust these settings without modifying the web content being edited. (Level A)

GP: 4.2 isn't that the point the author makes a change, then the end use experience should change. I gather the point here is to separate authoring view from rendered view. The assertion might be clearer if written "Authors can adjust display settings of editing views without affecting the display of the final content."

JR: OK with "Authors can adjust display settings of editing views without affecting the display of the final content."

JT: OK

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20130107-4/results

B.1.2.3 Optimizations Preserve Accessibility: If the authoring tool provides optimizing web content transformations, then any accessibility information (WCAG) in the input is preserved in the output. (Level A).

GP: Some accessibility information need not be preserved in the optimization because it doesn't apply to the optimization - the example cited for example - unless it's a preview of the "pretty print" but why would you necessarily preserve alt text for content meant exclusively for hard copy?
... Will withdraw comment

B.1.2.4 Text Alternatives for Non-Text Content are Preserved: If the authoring tool provides web content transformations that preserve non-text content in the output, then any text alternatives for that non-text content are also preserved, if equivalent mechanisms exist in the web content technology of the output. (Level A). Note: This success criterion only applies when the output technology is "

included" for conformance.

GP: Will withdraw comment

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20130107-3/results

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). (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)

documentation

Any information that supports the use of an authoring tool. This information may be provided electronically or otherwise and includes help, manuals, installation instructions, sample work flows, tutorials, etc.

GP: OK with B.2.4.1
... OK with B.2.4.2

B.4.2.3 Tutorial: The authoring tool provides a tutorial for an accessible authoring process that is specific to that authoring tool. (Level AAA)

JR: Can add an eg to support website

B.4.2.4 Instruction Index: The authoring tool documentation contains an index to the instructions for using any accessible content support features. (Level AAA)

JR: will add that as an eg

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Jan to To write an email to the list with changes to tests agreed today [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/07-au-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-01-07 21:34:31 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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: [IPcaller], Jeanne, +1.571.765.aaaa, Greg, Jutta, +1.202.368.aabb, Tim
Present: [IPcaller] Jeanne +1.571.765.aaaa Greg Jutta +1.202.368.aabb Tim
Regrets: Tim_B. Cherie_E. Sueann_N. Alex_L.
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2013JanMar/0002.html
Got date from IRC log name: 07 Jan 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/01/07-au-minutes.html
People with action items: jan

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]