W3C

- DRAFT -

WAI AU

17 Jun 2013

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
+1.847.917.aaaa, Jeanne, Tom, Jan, +1.571.765.aabb, Greg, Alastair, Alex, Cherie
Regrets
Jutta_T., Tim_B.
Chair
Jan Richards
Scribe
AlastairC

Contents


<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2013/ATAG2ImplementationReport.html

<Jan> Scribe: AlastairC

1. Re-chartering update (Jeanne)

<Jan> JS: No news due to AC meeting

Jeanne: No new news, but many people were in Tokyo last week, so that's expected.

2. Current SURVEY:

<Jan> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20130610/results

<Jan> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20130610/results#xq10

<Jan> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20130523/results#xq10

<Jan> B.4.1.2 Option to Reactivate Features: The authoring tool does not include the option to permanently turn off its accessible content support features. (Level A

<Jan> Or

<Jan> B.4.1.2 Option to Reactivate Features: The authoring tool does not include the option to turn off its accessible content support features or features which have been turned off can be restored at all times. (Level A

Jan: Not thrilled about the 'restored', doesn't match terms elsewhere.

<Jan> Jan's proposal from email of 13 June B.4.1.2 Option to Reactivate Features: The authoring tool does not include the option to turn off its accessible content support features or those features can be turned back on. (Level A)

Greg: I liked the term 'restored', but Jan's version is fine.

<Jan> B.4.1.2 Option to Reactivate Features: The authoring tool does not include the option to turn off its accessible content support features or features which have been turned off can be restored at all times.

AL: Turn on/off makes sense

<Jan> B.4.1.2 Option to Reactivate Features: The authoring tool does not include the option to turn off its accessible content support features or features which have been turned off can be turned back on.

Greg: That's acceptable to me.

<Jan> AC: OK

<Jan> TB: OK

<Jan> Resolution: Change B.4.1.2 to "B.4.1.2 Option to Reactivate Features: The authoring tool does not include the option to turn off its accessible content support features or features which have been turned off can be turned back on. "

B.2.4.4 Proposal

<Jan> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20130610/results#xq11

jeanne: Trying to save the original intent of B 2.2.4, originally for the authoring tool all the templates would be accessible. Found a lot of problems with the language.
... Current language discussed in meeting last week, unlikely an authoring tool that didn't provide accessible template would then provide a warning of that.
... "All templates meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria at A and AA that can be applied to each template before the template receives authored content."
... Template should meet at level A and AA. Can't say that a template meets

WCAG

Jan: Have wording for this in section A

<Jan> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/ATAG20/#def-Accessible-Template

AC: Difficult to find implementation, for us easier to fix the templates

AL: For tools with big eco system, difficult to setup such a system.

<Jan> AC: In defacto...content author picks templates...

<Jan> AC: When a website is setup.... defacto provides some accessible templates...

<Jan> JR: So it sounds like defacto would be an implementation?

AC: Initial setup is by developers, checked at that stage, content authors only have access to accessible templates.

<Jan> B.2.4.1 Accessible Template Options (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides templates, then there are accessible template (WCAG) options for a range of template uses. (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)

<Jan> B.2.4.2 Identify Template Accessibility (Minimum): If the authoring tool includes a template selection mechanism and provides any non-accessible template (WCAG) options, then the templates are provided such that the template selection mechanism can display distinctions between the accessible and non-accessible options. (Level AA)

<Jan> B.2.4.3 Author-Created Templates: If the authoring tool includes a template selection mechanism and allows authors to create new non-accessible templates (WCAG), then authors can enable the template selection mechanism to display distinctions between accessible and non-accessible templates that they create. (Level AA)

<Jan> AC: Defacto templates are generally tested to AA

AC: exmaple interface from defacto - choosing template http://alastairc.ac/images/examples/defacto-choose-template.png

Jan: Given that this is AAA (not mainstream tools?) is there an issue with including it?

<Jan> Draft B.2.4.4 Accessible Template Options (Enhanced): If the authoring tool provides templates, then all of the templates are accessible templates at WCAG 2.0 Level AA.

jeanne: Not sure we can say that, in terms of WCAG AA?

<jeanne> all the templates meet the WCAG 2.0 level A and level AA success criteria

<Jan> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/ATAG20/#def-Accessible-Web-Content

<Jan> Draft B.2.4.4 Accessible Template Options (Enhanced): If the authoring tool provides templates, then all of the templates are accessible templates to WCAG 2.0 Level AA.

Jan: I think it's ok, due to definition of template. We don't use the word 'conform'.

<Jan> Draft B.2.4.4 Accessible Template Options (Enhanced): If the authoring tool provides templates, then all of the templates are accessible templates to WCAG 2.0 Level AA. (Level AAA)

AC: ok

jeanne: yes, this would be removed if we can't find examples

<Jan> JR: And this will go on the at risk list to be removed

AL: ok

<Jan> Resolution: All agree to reword B.2.4.4 as follows B.2.4.4 Accessible Template Options (Enhanced): If the authoring tool provides templates, then all of the templates are accessible templates to WCAG 2.0 Level AA. (Level AAA) AND this SC will be placed on the at-risk list for REMOVAL (not rewording) if implementations cannot be found

3. Implementation report (Jan)

<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2013AprJun/att-0082/ATAG2ImplementationReport20130614.html

<Jan> A.3.6.4 Multiple Sets: If the authoring tool includes display and/or control settings, then the authoring tool provides the option of saving and reloading multiple configurations of settings.

Jan: Had Dreamweaver as an implementation, but it's just partial. The display settings let you change default font size etc. Those are not something you have multiple sets for.

No other implementations, should we let this go?

<Jan> AC: For browser-based tools ...best to rely on browser

AC: Browser based ones we rely on the browser settings, should we apply the same to the system?

<Jan> JS: I would prefer it in the platform

AC: i.e. things like Dreamweaver allow system-level user settings to work in the interface.

<Jan> JR: I will go ahead and propose removing A.3.6.4 Multiple Sets

<Jan> B.2.5.2 Pre-Authored Content Accessibility Status: If the authoring tool provides a repository of pre-authored content, then each of the content objects has a recorded accessibility status. (Level AAA)

Jan: similar issue to what we were talking about with the tempaltes.

<Jan> B.2.5.1 Pre-Authored Content Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a selection mechanism for pre-authored content other than templates (e.g., clip art gallery, widget repository, design themes), then both of the following are true: (Level AA)

<Jan> (a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of the pre-authored content (if known); and

<Jan> (b) Prominence: Any accessible (WCAG) options are at least as prominent as other pre-authored content options.

Jan: I couldn't find anything like this, e.g. clip art gallery with Word. You can search by text & captions. Oddly, when inserted they add URI rather than caption. But that's still not indicating the accessibility.

AC: we run under the assumption that included templates (pre-authored things) are accessible, rather than saving whether it is or not.

Jan: We could fix the gating on that, but doesn't help for finding implementation. Anyone know of any?

jeanne: What about video libraries? E.g. ones with captions.

Jan: Has to be from developer of authoring tool though

<Jan> Meeting as usual on June 24

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-06-17 18:02:20 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: AlastairC
Inferring ScribeNick: AlastairC
Default Present: +1.847.917.aaaa, Jeanne, Tom, Jan, +1.571.765.aabb, Greg, Alastair, Alex, Cherie
Present: +1.847.917.aaaa Jeanne Tom Jan +1.571.765.aabb Greg Alastair Alex Cherie
Regrets: Jutta_T. Tim_B.
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2013AprJun/0081.html
Got date from IRC log name: 17 Jun 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/06/17-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]