00:28:09 <Zakim> -f2f
00:28:13 <Zakim> -jutta
00:28:14 <Zakim> WAI_AUWG(f2f)12:00PM has ended
00:28:15 <Zakim> Attendees were f2f, jutta
00:30:36 <MattSFO> zakim, bye
00:30:36 <Zakim> Zakim has left #au
00:30:38 <MattSFO> rrsagent, bye
00:30:38 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items:
00:30:38 <RRSAgent> ACTION: jr Work with Bob on boundaries for what is a tool [1]
00:30:38 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/25-au-irc#T16-53-22
00:30:38 <RRSAgent> ACTION: tb to scope of ISO conformance [2]
00:30:38 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/25-au-irc#T17-33-44
16:01:02 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #au
16:01:03 <Zakim> +f2f
16:01:18 <MattSFO> rrsagent, make log world
16:01:27 <MattSFO> zakim, f2f is really Macromedia
16:01:27 <Zakim> +Macromedia; got it
16:02:51 <JR> JR has joined #au
16:04:23 <Zakim> +??P8
16:04:50 <auwg_KM> auwg_KM has joined #au
16:05:55 <Zakim> +??P2
16:40:06 <auwg_KM> Jan - how about: the authoring tool must always be prepared to provide appropriate prompts or assistance to an author when specific events or actions occur that can cause <accessibility problems>.
16:54:09 <auwg_KM> Jan - for guideline 3.1 "Prompt and assist the author to create accessible content" shouldn't the word prompt link down to our glossary? That's an important word.
17:00:21 <JR> When content is added that requires information from the author in order to conform to WCAG, then the authoring tool must inform the author that this additional information is required (e.g. via input dialogs, interactive feedback, etc.). (determine level)
17:00:21 <JR> If the authoring tool recommends a particular authoring practice then that practice must result in Web content that conforms to WCAG.
17:12:49 <JR> The authoring tool must alert the author to any failed check results prior to completion of authoring.
17:35:55 <Zakim> -??P2
17:36:05 <Zakim> -??P8
17:51:01 <MattSFO> zakim, who's here?
17:51:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see Macromedia
17:51:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see auwg_KM, JR, RRSAgent, Zakim, MattSFO
17:54:36 <auwg_KM> dialling in again
17:55:10 <Zakim> +??P2
17:56:07 <Zakim> +??P6
18:19:05 <auwg_KM> Matt - I wrote up a rationale proposal for 3.9.
18:19:35 <auwg_KM> "Authors are also more likely to use features that promote accessibility if they understand when and how to use them. Checkpoint 3.8 covers the how of accessible authoring practices. Checkpoint 3.9 covers the when. Knowing the workflow, or the sequence and timing of steps, for producing accessible content can make it easier for the author become familiar with these processes......
18:20:09 <auwg_KM> "...An author that is familiar with the workflow for using accessible authoring practice is more likely to continue to use these methods and make them a common practice, again reinforcing the message of accessibility." This was before we started "tersifying".
18:41:54 <Zakim> +Tim_Boland
19:37:59 <Zakim> -Tim_Boland
19:38:05 <Zakim> -??P2
19:38:15 <auwg_KM> good night!
19:38:16 <Zakim> -??P6
19:38:41 <auwg_KM> auwg_KM has left #au
20:39:52 <MattSFO> zakim, who is on the phone?
20:39:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see Macromedia
20:40:22 <JR> Starting again.
20:51:18 <Zakim> +??P5
21:51:40 <Zakim> -??P5
22:07:22 <Zakim> +??P2
22:23:52 <MattSFO> jr: 2.2 priority?
22:24:05 <MattSFO> wl: vote for P1, no objection to P2
22:24:11 <MattSFO> gp: P2
22:24:24 <MattSFO> bf: could be P3, but vote P2
22:26:17 <MattSFO> bf: What is the pain suffered here? It's inconvenience.
22:26:51 <MattSFO> jt: What about scenarios where author isn't even aware of accessibility, and they erase it inadvertently?
22:26:55 <MattSFO> jr: What about import?
22:27:52 <MattSFO> bf: If you use difficulty as a measure, what would the author have to do?
22:28:03 <MattSFO> jt: They'd have to be informed that acc information isn't there, and they wouldn't know it.
22:28:16 <MattSFO> bf: So difficulty as a measure is not relevant.
22:28:22 <MattSFO> wl: Creates difficulties.
22:31:02 <MattSFO> jr: P2.
22:31:10 <MattSFO> jr: 3.4. Currently P2.
22:31:46 <MattSFO> bf: If this doesn't happen, what is the result?
22:33:34 <MattSFO> jr: If this overwrites request with garbage, I can see this as a 1.
22:33:39 <MattSFO> wl: P1.
22:33:41 <MattSFO> jt: P1.
22:33:45 <MattSFO> jr: set to P1.
22:33:57 <MattSFO> jr: 3.5. Currently P3.
22:34:17 <MattSFO> all: P3.
22:34:27 <MattSFO> jr: 3.6. P3.
22:34:37 <MattSFO> all: agree
22:35:25 <MattSFO> jr: 3.7
22:37:32 <MattSFO> mm: Since only 10% read the documentation, doesn't cause too much trouble. I vote P2.
22:37:59 <MattSFO> gp: If you can't arrive at a solution, people check the documentation.
22:38:37 <MattSFO> gp: I see that as a 1.
22:38:40 <MattSFO> jr: 1.
22:39:24 <MattSFO> jt: If consensus, can see it being a 1.
22:40:54 <MattSFO> bf: If they don't have help at all, it is possible not to conform at all.
22:41:15 <MattSFO> mm: fine, 1.
22:42:05 <MattSFO> jr: 3.8 P2, Bob says P3.
22:42:33 <MattSFO> jr: There's a finite number of screen shots to go through in documentation.
22:42:39 <MattSFO> bf: His argument was based on usable vs. nice to have.
22:43:53 <MattSFO> mm: By our criteria, I think this makes things easier. Therefore, P3.
22:44:17 <MattSFO> jr: Difficult? Inefficient?
22:45:22 <MattSFO> gp: Doesn't make it impossible, or difficult, I think it could be P3.
22:51:54 <MattSFO> gp: Didn't think the aim of the guideline is to dictate human behavior.
22:52:01 <MattSFO> jr: But the guideline is all about human behavior.
22:52:14 <MattSFO> wl: If they have illustrations, they must illustrate good accessibility practices.
22:52:51 <MattSFO> gp: Yes, you want them to do it, but if it's not there, it's not impossible.
22:54:14 <MattSFO> jr: If people see images without alt, maybe people are going to look at that and think it's not important.
22:56:37 <MattSFO> wl: I think 3.7 and 3.8 are both 2s.
22:56:45 <MattSFO> gp: 3.8 should be P3.
22:56:53 <MattSFO> jr: Bob agrees.
22:56:56 <MattSFO> bf: Me too.
22:57:04 <MattSFO> jr: moving it to P3.
22:58:07 <MattSFO> jr: 3.9 P3. Agree.
22:58:09 <MattSFO> all: agree.
23:16:33 <MattSFO> jr: How to break out conformance levels in Priority statements?
23:17:36 <MattSFO> jt: We're thinking that authors are expecting to create accessible document. That's not the case. They want to create a web page for whatever.
23:17:52 <MattSFO> jt: We're guiding authors to create more accessible content.
23:20:44 <MattSFO> br: I think of "non-technical" authors.
23:21:05 <MattSFO> jt: but it's not about technical. average author is not knowledgeable about or interested in accessibility.
23:26:09 <MattSFO> gp: "If the authoring tool doesn't satisfy this checkpoint, it is likely that most authors using the tool will create Web content that does not conform to WCAG."
23:34:13 <MattSFO> jr: "Requirements that, if met, are likely to cause many authors to use the tool to create Web content that conforms to WCAG."
23:59:58 <MattSFO> jr: Process: how to complete