30 Sep 2013


See also: IRC log


Alex, L.
Jutta Treviranus


<scribe> Scribe: Jan

1. Re-chartering update (Jeanne)

JS: No news for this week

JR: Doesn't it end today?

JS: Yes...big implication is we can't publish
... I'm just unsure...I didn't talk to Judy about it
... I will send an email to the group

JT: But we can continue with the meetings, etc?

2. CR process update (Jeanne and Jan) - we are in Last Call until October 1.

JS: Still just the one comment

<Greg> What was the comment about?

JS: Comments close end of day... midnight Eastern on Tues.

<Greg> +1

<jeanne> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-atag2-comments/2013Sep/0001.html

JS: This is the comment

JR: Proposed response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2013JulSep/0071.html

<Greg> NO

> Capturing the results of accessibility evaluation performed by authors has

> several advantages, including:

> • enabling the re-use of self-evaluation results to substantiate WCAG 2.0

> conformance claims;

> • enabling auditing as a credible alternative to product inspections;

> • enabling aggregation of evaluation results (for research purposes,

> monitoring and ranking);

> • enhancement of the scope of large-scale monitoring of web accessibility,

> which at present often is limited to a subset of WCAG 2.0 (i.e. what can be

> reliably programmatically determined);

> • supporting the transition of web content accessibility management from

> a product-based approach to a process-based approach. This will especially

> help integrating the subject of web accessibility into complex and/or multi-

> stakeholder environments.

Previous intent: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20130910/#sc_b315

<Greg> facilitate and encourage however we are not an enforcement body, these are guidelines, others with authority may choose to make them rules

JR: Reads it.

Greg: "facilitate and encourage"

JS: I like it

JT: Acknowledges thoughtful input

JR: Any objections to making that change to the implementations and to sending this rationale.

All: No

Resolution: All agree to the response and change in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2013JulSep/0071.html with two edits "facilitate"->"facilitate and encourage" AND remove duplicate "repair tools"

JT: We will keep eye out for additional comments.
... If no additional substantive comments received, timeline?

JS: I hope it can happen in 2 weeks...but I will need to attend a Directors meeting with Judy.... need to show that we've met various requirements
... I have a doc that is largely ready.
... Once it passes Directors meeting, we can publish
... But there may be changes we need to make
... e.g. they will be spot-checking comment responses etc.

JT: Great
... Good to hear when that meeting will happen, keep us up to date
... Any other people have questions?

All: None

3. Implementation report update (Jan)


JR: Heard from AC about Part A for Defacto, Part B is coming soon

JS: This weekend I was talking to one of TB's colleagues about Lotus Connections....

TB: Basically this tool will have the same process as the MCE, we will need to get approval etc.
... It's very accessible but it's complex

JS: This person was suggesting we only look at the wiki part
... Thought it could be considered in isolation

TB: OK that seems managable
... Thought it was considered and dismissed int he past?

JR: Yes, because it was thought too complex...if the wiki can be looked at separately then maybe it becomes viable

JT: Maybe softwares are complex so it may be common for us to explain that we are looking at a part of something

JS: Strategically good to have large companies products moving towards ATAG2 conformance

TB: Do you need approvals if it is a public product

JS: No, but 6-8 months down the road, we will be looking for testimonials.

JR: So that's what I know about...

JT; There is also Google CourseBuilder

JT: The contact would like a walkthrough

JR: I can do that

JT: I qwill send JR the contact

JS: You should suggest they look at "ATAG at a glance" document

JT: Another one...OPS internal ... Test harness...evaluation tool.
... Framework does have a lot of Authoring Tool features

JR: OK, please send me the contacts

4. Other issues?

All: None heard

JT: OK we will keep an eye out for comments...
... Next meeting Oct 7

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-09-30 17:41:33 $

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

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Alastair All Cherie Greg IPcaller JR JS JT Jan Jeanne Microsoft TB Tim Tim_Boland TomB W3C aaaa aabb alastairc jutta tbabinszki trackbot
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

Regrets: Alex L.
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2013JulSep/0072.html
Got date from IRC log name: 30 Sep 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/09/30-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]