23 Mar 2015


See also: IRC log


Jan, Jutta, Jeanne, TomB, Tim_Boland
Jutta Treviranus


<scribe> Scribe: Jan

1. Update on ATAG WG charter

JS: wai charters were offically sent out a few weeks ago
... Some feedback coming back
... Some orgs not aware of how far along we are
... So we have been working hard to let people know how close ATAG is
... Judy sent out an informative note
... We really encourage members to talk to their AC reps to encourage them to approve ATAG going forward

JT: Where did feedback come from?

JS: When we send out charters, we invite comment... we need 5% (I think) approval from the members

Candidate Recommendation (CR) process update

JS: Last week I had an action to talk to Judy re: our Exit Criteria
... Reviewing our more complex criteria
... Our criteria

1. [Tool by tool] Two independent [1] authoring tools must conform to ATAG 2.0 level AA (which includes level A).

2. [Tool by category] At least one authoring tool from each of the following authoring tool categories must conform to ATAG 2.0 Level A (i.e. will conform to all applicable Level A success criteria.):

WYSIWYG web page editing tools

Content management tools

Development tool for applet, scripts, or applications

Non-text media (e.g. video, audio, images) editing tools

Social media content authoring tools (e.g. blogs, wikis, social networks)

3. [Success criterion by success criterion] Each ATAG 2.0 success criterion must be implemented [2] by two independent authoring tools. For the thirteen ATAG 2.0 success criteria that are dependent on WCAG 2.0 [3] for their levels, each ATAG 2.0 success criterion must be implemented for two WCAG 2.0 success criteria at each level: A, AA, and AAA. These six WCAG 2.0 success criteria are a...

scribe: sampling of the requirements of WCAG (e.g. text alternatives for non-text content, keyboard accessibility, sufficient contrast).

JS: We are looking at simplifying this
... Some things have loosened up re: exit criteria for guidelines
... Plan (if you agree) would be to finish up enough testing to ensure we had implementations of every success criteria
... With 2 examples
... Then we re-publish CR with new exit criteria
... We wait 3 weeks for comments on those criteria
... Then we go to PR
... I hope the group approves this

JR: Sounds good to me

JT: Yes
... How close are we

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/CR20/eval/scorecard

JR: We are very close...95% of SCs met by 2 or more,,,and mostly more
... Main gaps: transformations, checking, templates

JS: My focus in the next couple weeks is to resplove issues between testers
... "Canonical" column is for the check that resolves differences between testers
... I have started process of anonymizing the data
... And hopefully we can contact tools to see if they want themselves identified

JT: B.2.5.2...
... We can look at OER tools that will be integrating means of adding metadata
... I will put JR in touch with them
... Working group approval for this plan?
... Objections?

TB: No objections

JS: I will also be reaching out Alastair
... Maybe a WBS survey

Resolution: ATAG WGagreed with the plan to simplify the Exit Criteria 9to 2 implmentations for each SC) and re-publishing.

Other implementation progress?

JS, JR: We spoke to a number of groups at CSUN

JS: What we will need the votes for is a new set of Exit Criteria for April 6
... So let's reach out to people who weren't on this call

JT: Anything else?

JS: We are working on the WAI2020 framework....
... There were presentations at CSUN
... THere is a concensus developing that we could write extensions to WCAG on vertical topics (e.g. Cognitive, Low vision, voice input) or industry (mobile, IofT)

JT: Would also be good to add note that WCAG can be met by the system rather than just the page.

JS: Can you draft something

JR: April 6 is Easter Monday
... Maybe we can at least discuss a draft of Exit Criteria on Mar 30

... Then we can have a WBS ballot after that
... Thanks - next meeting - Mar 30

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015-03-23 20:05:39 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140  of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/The four people on the call (Jutta, Jan, Tom, Jeanne) / ATAG WG/
Found Scribe: Jan
Inferring ScribeNick: Jan

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: IPcaller JR JS JT Jan Jeanne Jutta TB Tim_Boland TomB https tbabinszki
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2015JanMar/0029.html
Got date from IRC log name: 23 Mar 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/03/23-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]