30 Mar 2015


See also: IRC log


Jeanne, Jan, Alastair, Jutta
Tim, B.
Jutta Treviranus


<scribe> Scribe: Jan

1. Update on ATAG WG charter

JS: AC thanks for your comments on charter
... There were comments from others re: lack of progress
... But actually we have been making progress
... One good thing coming out of his is that the exist criteria might be reopened
... We would re-publish new CR
... Need new exit criteria for that
... Then comes PR (Proposed Rec) stage
... I think we are pretty close
... We need exit criteria as bulletproof as possible

JT: I received word from someone from a member org that they wanted to join AUWG

JR: Great!

Exit criteria

JT: As far as we know, hwhat has been met so far...

JS: A bit more complicated - we need two tests of each meeting SC
... I'm going back over this


(existing version)


(proposed version)

JR: Main change... Note 3: Thirteen ATAG 2.0 success criteria are dependent on WCAG 2.0 for their levels (i.e. A.1.1.1 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG), B.1.1.1 Content Auto-Generation After Authoring Sessions (WCAG), etc.). These will be tested at WCAG 2.0 Level A.

JS: Don't format as notes

JR: I will change
... I can also clarify that "features" referes to SCs

<alastairc> How about: there must be at least two independent implementations of features that meet each success crtiera.

JR: I like that

JT: Make adjustments in first and second sentence?

AC: Maybe don't need to
... Idea of starting with WCAG and working the other way
... I'd be iok with 50% at Level A

JS: Where applicable at Level A

AC: Difficulty of going to 100% rules that out
... But 1 or 2 things at each level doesn't seem serious implmentation

JT: Back to user reqs
... Litmus test at the end, can this tool be used by someone needing alternative access
... And for B, can someone create accessible output...reasonably

JR: But doesn't that get into personas...which has its own multiplication

AC: Standard will still need to fully meet
... P Here we are talking about "Can it be implemented by a tool?"
... Gap would be if a tool could not meet the standard

JS: One of things I said is that we aren't trying to prove WCAG
... So I think we want to be clear about that

JT: Given our time frame
... WCAG has been accepted etc
... Do we want to get too complex?

JR: I'm still leaning to 50%+1 of WCAG 2.0 Level A

JS: These must demonstrate at least 50% of the applicable success criteria of WCAG

JR: At level A?

JT: We don't want a trigger that they aren't strong enough

AC: Looking at the (WCAG ) ones in ATAG 2 Part B

JR: I'll do a reword of the exit criteria + 13 sentences to explain how they would apply to each SC

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


Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015/03/30 18:15:28 $

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)

Found Scribe: Jan
Inferring ScribeNick: Jan
Default Present: Jeanne, Jan, Alastair, Jutta
Present: Jeanne Jan Alastair Jutta
Regrets: Tim B.
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2015JanMar/0033.html
Got date from IRC log name: 30 Mar 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/03/30-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]