See also: IRC log
The WCAG group had some concern about ATAG citing WCAG techniques as benchmarks
One concern is that the WCAG techniques are not normative in WCAG and that making them normative in ATAG might cause confusion
The ATAG responds that these techniques are not normative per se, but the motiviation was to encourage the logevity of the Guidelines and allow for new technologies and authoring tools for those technologies. ATAG will take an action to remove the name WCAG techniques with no links and make it clear that they are not making them normative
<scribe> ACTION: Jan Richards will go back to ATAG will to remove the WCAG techniques an links and make it clear that they are not making them normative but will encourage people to go to the WCAG guidelines [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/11-wai-wcag-irc]
WCAG has concer that A.0.1 in ATAG is not promininent enough, hard to miss. Perhaps going to a "if.. then... statement"
Concern that there is no reference to UAAG, WCAG assumes that some of the UAAG issues are covered off... ATAG responds that they agree, lots of discussion about UAAG as a big part of the standard for making the AUthoring tool accessibile. WCAG is concerned that there was not much requirement to conform to UAAG. Jutta says that ATAG spent much time putting UAAG in and out and has concern...
scribe: about rendering view verses editing view..
Loretta and Jan and Jutta will take this offline.
WCAG is not sure about the relation with Repair tools group and ATAG, Jan responds that they didn't want to bring in requirements that might be appriate for repair tools.
Recommend pointing to newest ATAG techniques
Katie congrats for the abstract, clear and concise. THe main concerned Part A and Part B priorities. Part A is interface Part B is content...: make some mention of what Part A and Part B is before you hit that part...
Bruce wants clarify... PART A and Part B...both need to be satified to get ATAG compliance... Jutta says that there would be concern that Part A would not get enough attention if they divided out. THere was a resounding unanimous rejection of separating the 2 for that reason.
WCAG has suggestions for reordering to help those who are not "in the know"
know" about ATAG, just to make it more understandable... directs to WCAG comments.
Jutta said that they can create partial compliance statements that are simple and understandable.
Katie suggests adding a few other AT examples besides magnification and screen readers
Jutta invites WCAG members to hold furthure discussions, and invites everyone submit comments for ATAG 2.0 to firstname.lastname@example.org today or tomorrow... Thanks to the ATAG team
ATAG member present were Greg_Pisocky , -Treviranus -Barry -Jan_Richards
Visually rendered text can be resized without assistive technology up to 200 per cent without loss of content or functionality in a way that does not require the user to scroll horizontally.
Resolution: add level 3 SC to 1.4 "Visually rendered text can be resized without assistive technology up to 200 percent without loss of content or functionality in a way that does not require the user to scroll horizontally."
... accept 930 as amended
Resolution: accept 974 as amended
... no change to 2.4.6 , the proposed rewording was rejected
Resolution: Accept the amended proposal to combine 1.3.1 and 1.3.4.
<scribe> ACTION: Team C repropose new response to 672 and remove the plain text technique for tables "presenting Tabular information in plain text" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/11-wai-wcag-irc]
Resolution: accept failure Failure of 1.3.1 due to using changes in text presentation to convey information without using the appropriate markup.David will add an example that <p class="heading"> as failure.