W3C

- DRAFT -

SV_MEETING_TITLE

12 Aug 2013

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Jeanne, Jan, Alastair, Tom, Alex, Jutta, Tim_Boland
Regrets
Tim, B., (partial)
Chair
Jutta Treviranus
Scribe
Jan

Contents


<scribe> Scribe: Jan

1. Re-chartering update (Jeanne)

JS: No new news...still waiting for feedback from some groups before sending to AC
... Concers?

All: None

2. CR process update (Jeanne and Jan)

JS: Judy has accepted the exit criteria...
... Have not yet had chance to meet with people from w3m
... We need to have a resolution to go to CR
... I also need to explain how SC changes aren't substantive...but 3 actually are

JT: Any concerns with "If changes are deemed to be substantial, the working group agrees to publish another working draft of ATAG 2.0 with the shortest allowed timeframe for comments."

JR: No objections

JT: No objects heard

Resolved: If changes are deemed to be substantial, the working group agrees to publish another working draft of ATAG 2.0 with the shortest allowed timeframe for comments.

JT: Next steps Jeanne?

JS: The only problem I expect is with re: to the "substantial changes"
... I have been working on a package of info
... Then I'm working on requirements .... back when we started there was no requirements for requirements
... Evidence of wide review...should be ok\
... Evidence of issues being addressed
... Objections...none
... Implementations...JR's document
... And patent disclosure...none

JT: How do we address?

JS: Is working on it... I'm tying to bring in items from other WAI groups.

JT: So we have a way forward?

JS: Yes, will let you know.

3. SURVEY - Just two questions.

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20130807/

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20130807/results

Q1. EO2 - use of "MUST" in the Principles

JT: All ok

Resolved: All agree to remove must from the principles

Q2. EO3 comment on B.3.1.2

<jeanne> B.3.1.2 Help Authors Decide: If the authoring tool provides *accessibility checking* that relies on authors to decide whether potential web content accessibility problems (WCAG) are correctly identified (i.e., manual checking and semi-automated checking), then the checker provides instructions that describe how to decide. (Level A)

http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2013/ED-ATAG20-20130627/#def-Checking

<AlastairC> last section: "instructions are provided as part of the authoring tool interface that describe how to decide."

<scribe> ACTION: JS to Remove "An authoring tool may support any combination of checking types." from the bullets [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/12-au-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-389 - Remove "an authoring tool may support any combination of checking types." from the bullets [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-08-19].

B.3.1.2 Help Authors Decide: If the authoring tool provides *accessibility checking* that relies on authors to decide whether potential web content accessibility problems (WCAG) are correctly identified (i.e., manual checking and semi-automated checking), then the authoring tool provides instructions that describe how to decide. (Level A)

JT: B.3.1.2 Help Authors Decide: If the authoring tool provides *accessibility checking* that relies on authors to decide whether potential web content accessibility problems (WCAG) are correctly identified (i.e., manual checking and semi-automated checking), then the accessibility checking process provides instructions that describe how to decide. (Level A)
... Any objections...

AL: Don't hear problems

Resolved: B.3.1.2 Help Authors Decide: If the authoring tool provides *accessibility checking* that relies on authors to decide whether potential web content accessibility problems (WCAG) are correctly identified (i.e., manual checking and semi-automated checking), then the accessibility checking process provides instructions that describe how to decide. (Level A)

4. Implementation report update (Jan)

TB: Getting some support on this internally

JT: OERPUB update... more accessibility prompting in the Sept release

JR: Looked at Pinterest...does prompting

JT: Also spoke to people in DAISY...EPub3 authorong enviornments...
... ... will include many ATAG prompting featrues
... DAISY will be publishing a list
... Any other implementatipn updates?

None heard

JT: Status updates?

AC: New Tiny MCE?

JT: JR can you and GG take a look?

JR: Word on EasyChirp?

TB: Haven't heard anything

<AlastairC> Update http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/dlembree/easy-chirp-2-contribute-to-an-inclusive-twittersph/posts/547644

JT: Continue monitoring

JR: Still looking for accessible IDEs

JT: we are at end of time?
... Other issues.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: JS to Remove "An authoring tool may support any combination of checking types." from the bullets [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/12-au-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-08-12 17:59:35 $

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: Jan
Inferring ScribeNick: Jan
Default Present: Jeanne, Jan, Alastair, Tom, Alex, Jutta, Tim_Boland
Present: Jeanne Jan Alastair Tom Alex Jutta Tim_Boland
Regrets: Tim B. (partial)

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2013JulSep/0022.html
Got date from IRC log name: 12 Aug 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/08/12-au-minutes.html
People with action items: js

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]