<scribe> Scribe: Jan

1. Update on exit criteria

JT: Thanks Alex for your input
... Do you want to update us Jeanne?

JS: I've been speaking with Judy about this...
... We've been meeting for months about how to simplify the exit criteria to bring them more in line with other W3C recs
... We've met with the Chair designates about this a couple of times
... They observed that their was a large cost to strict criteria
... I certainly brought Alex's comments to Judy

AL: So in the end, any tests are there to test hyothesis
... And in this case, the hypothses
... IS that ATAG is implementable and we are trying to disprove
... Or that it is implementable and we are trying to prove

JS: for example in HTML, there were many places where they didn't have to test references to other document
... Idea of directors is that WCAG is implementable...so ATAG doesn't have to test WCAG

AL: Are there?
... Are there ample examples of authrogint tools that meet WCAG
... It makes me nervous to hear ...

JS: We have found a number of tools that are meeting WCAG, web-based editors, WYSIWYG, etc.

JT: Accoring to contacts at US access board there are tools with VPATas that are claiming to meet WCAG2

AL: That sounds suspicious
... Also the access board doesn't do compliance testing

(hared to hear Alex due to background noise()

JR, AL: Discussion of accessible templates etc... agree that those don't have to show every WCAG SC because ...

scribe: templates naturally won't cover the gamut of WCAG

AL: I think I understand it a bit better now...

JR: We could do a table of WCAG SCs...and then next to each names of a couple of tools that can meet it for 1.1.1

JS: But the problem with this is that there are still SCs that just aren't met (Sign Language, etc.)
... And we've spent so long on the wording

JT: There is a reasonable approach out of this bind....
... WCAg is tested and we can reference
... Yet WCAG gfoes beyond what is reasonable or rational for an authoring tool
... Compromise we have reach for simplified exit criteria does not put at risk the goal of testing the implemnatability of ATAG

JS: And Alex is right, as we write the final report, we will want to make sure we show that we meet all the applicable AA SCs in WCAG
... But putting it into exit criteria will tie our hands

JT: Time is of the essensce, we need to move this forward
... Any more concerns?

AL: No more concerns, just wondering how you will write your exit criteria?

JT: Directors and Judy are in agreement with the current proposed wording...can we get agreement here?

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2015AprJun/0007.html

AL: I'm standing at a phone...are you talking about the....

JS: Reads...
... For this specification to be advanced to Proposed Recommendation, there must be at least two independent implementations of features that meet each success criterion. Each of these features may be implemented by a different set of products and there is no requirement that all features be implemented by a single product.

*Independent authoring tools*

are tools by different developers that do not share (or derive from) the same source code for the relevant feature(s). Sections of code that have no bearing on the implementation of this standard are exempt from this requirement. The authoring tools must be a shipping product or other publicly available version. Experimental implementations, specifically designed to pass the test suite and...

scribe: not intended for normal usage, are not permitted.

*Implemented*

refers to situations in which a success criterion is applicable to a given authoring tool and the authoring tool meets the success criterion. This is in contrast to situations in which a success criterion is not applicable.

*Success criteria referencing WCAG 2.0 for priorities*

<THIS SECTION COPIED FROM EXISTING APPROVED EXIT CRITERIA>

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

AL: I'm ok with it

JT: Great, thank you

2. Update on Charter

JS: We have lots of notes back on the charter
... That I got just before this call...

<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2015/draft_auwg_charter.html

JS: Comments are mainly on the timeline section
... I think there are things left over from an earlier version, that need to get updated
... I will edit as we talk
... "Review and comment on the work in other W3C Working Groups" needs to be removed - PF is only group doing reviews

JR: OK

JS: I have some language from UAWG to update a few things
... Reads some new text..

<jeanne> Contribute user requirements and relevant user agent accessibility support needs to be included and addressed as part of the WAI 2020 Framework. This work will be done in coordination with WCAG WG.

JS: Ooops that'as the old one

<jeanne> Contribute user requirements and relevant authoring tool accessibility support needs to be included and addressed as part of the WAI 2020 Framework. This work will be done in coordination with WCAG WG.

JS: I think I have everything else

3. Update on Getting to Proposed Recommendation

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

JR: Almost there

JR, JS: To meet later this afternoon to do some more vetting

JS: Next steps: Republish CR
... There is a comments period
... We spend that time writing the implement report
... We must publish by May 18, before charter expires
... I'll need to get announcements written

JT: So after publishing are we ok? Any roadblocks?

JS: I sincerely think so.

JT: Any concerns before we close the meeting?

AL: No

JR: I'm on vacation next Mon

JS: Me too

JT: Then the next Mon is Victoria Day
... So we will announce things on the list

JS: I will send text for the publishing vote email

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, +1.206.778.aaaa, Alex, Jutta
Present: Jeanne Jan +1.206.778.aaaa Alex Jutta
Regrets: Alastair C.
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2015AprJun/0043.html
Got date from IRC log name: 04 May 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/05/04-au-minutes.html
People with action items: