EOWG -- 12 Jan 2007

Scribes list: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/scribes.html (Alan is up; however, he didn't reply to my email earlier this week asking if he was available)

<Alan> Euro dialup numbers

<Alan> http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar

acribe: Alan

<scribe> scribe: Alan

<Jack> Greetings

<shawn> chari: Judy

<Henny> Hi, I'm having problems getting through. Is the code 3692#?

<shawn> 3694#

JB: No teleconference next week, 19th.

topic Face-to-face (f2f) meeting 22-23 Jan in Boston/Cambridge

Face-to-face (f2f) meeting 22-23 Jan in Boston/Cambridge

<Henny> Thanks Shawn, literally just back in the ofice today and looking at the wrong agenda, doh!

JB: Any thoughts on agenda topics; what's been more useful in past meetings.

WL: Discuss activism; attitude of government agencies in requiring accessible tools.

JB: Hope to have something about that ready for meeting.
... Clarification, "transitioning" means the document of same name

HS: "Transitioning" document is aimed at people involved in practical aspects, implementing WCAG. Accompanies other documents in WCAG suite.

SH: Hope to get the documents ready for discussion at F2F. If you can't attend, please review them and send comments.

JB: "Promoting Web Accessibility". Have already discussed material for campaign, but would be interested in contacts in people's [geographical] areas.

SH: Please complete "Food and Meals" survey.
... Be aware of security concerns at meeting venue. Will advise later.

JB: Those attending should check weather carefull, as it's chaning rapidly.

http://www.johnjeffrieshouse.com/

SD: Please can we have some accessible information about getting to the venue, transport, etc.

SH: I always take a cab from the airport to the hotel.

JB: Please let us know of any questions about logistics.

ATAG 2.0 Working Draft comments

JB: Hope this is now complete.

SH: I think that abstract is short and sweet as is. Abstract shouldn't be addded to it.

JB: Abstract should be edited.

What about getting relationship between WCAG 1 and 2 and ATAG 2 in abstract. Would be just one more sentence.

SH: Will do that.

LM: Reviewed ATAG from point of view of someone developing a compliant CMS. Then a "Content Type-Specific WCAG Benchmark" for other content types would be very important.

WL: Need for something for people who use non-W3C content.

LM: It's ambiguous.

We will go through the comments later, so we can take it out of the consensus list.

[No objections]

[No more comments on first four items]

SH: "links cause some reading difficulties" there are examples. Will include them.

[no objections]

<shawn> sh: actually, now hearing Liam's info, I feel even more strongly that the comment should stay -- the info should be pulled out so it can be explained well and updates

JH: Review comments sent in e-mail

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/

<shawn> ACTION: change "The dependency between ATAG 2.0..." to "* The dependency between ATAG 2.0 and WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 needs to be clarified in the Introduction. Suggest also briefly mentioning in the Abstract that ATAG 2.0 applies with both WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/12-eo-minutes.html#action01]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2006OctDec/0112.html

<shawn> ACTION: change "* The content in 1.2 does not entirely match the heading. Re-examine..." to ""* The content in 1.2 does not entirely match the heading ("Role of authoring tools in Web accessibility"). Re-examine..." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/12-eo-minutes.html#action02]

JT: I was referring to a perosn is is not used to reading W3C recommendations.

LM: Yes, this would make the document much shorter.
... I agree that for Web-based authoring tools, there is nothing else to comply with.

AC: Tools are often not only HTML-based but use proprietary controls embedded.

JT: OK to put it in the overview, rather than restructuring the whole document.

<shawn> ACTION: to the comment "[editorial] In several places, the links cause some reading difficulties..." add another example: "The links in '(e.g., an HTML editor with both code-level and WYSIWYG editing views)' go to the bullets right underneath; instead of links, put 'described below'." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/12-eo-minutes.html#action03]

<judy> ACTION: comment: consider mentioning the following as one among several overarching principles (or a quick tip?) for the document: 'if the auth tool is web-based, then the user interface should be wcag-compliant, and the content that is produced should be wcag-compliant" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/12-eo-minutes.html#action04]

JB: Comment on "Section 2.1 Conformance Model"

JT: Is already included in our compiled comments.

JB: Comment about "Section 2.2 Conformance Claim"

SH: What they ask for is more straightforward than an essay.

JB: should just state how each CP was complied with.

JW: Is it asking for an explanation of how or why?

JB: Like a US VPAT (Voluntary Product Accessibility Template?)

<shawn> scribe: Shawn online, Doyle offline

<shawn> scribenick: shawn

Justin: Is content type-specific WCAG benchmark" different from a Techniques document?

Judy: Does "content type-specific WCAG benchmark" need to be normative?

Liam &/or Justin: Is the authoring tool developer to write the "content type-specific WCAG benchmark" or the vendor (e.g., Adobe).

<judy> ACTION: comment: the concept of content type specific wcag benchmarks is not sufficiently clear from the description, nor how to implement it; and the developer is pointed to too many resources for detail on how to implement this. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/12-eo-minutes.html#action05]

<judy> ACTION: comment: the concept of content type specific wcag benchmarks is not sufficiently clear from the description, nor how to implement it; and the developer is pointed to too many resources for detail on how to implement this. [and add questions from above to this] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/12-eo-minutes.html#action06]

<scribe> ACTION: to "* Provide one or more example conformance statements. Put these in a separate document and point to it from the ATAG 2.0 spec." add "Related Note: The fourth point asks for a description of how the normative success criteria were met for each of the checkpoints that were required. That seems like that is a lot to ask for. Perhaps the example would help clarify that this requirement is for brief comments as opposed to detailed descriptions." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/12-eo-minutes.html#action07]

<Liam> Be xplicit about what content types benchmarks exist for. ALso what it doesn't apply to. 'application/msword'? 'application/x-zip'? 'application/octet-stream'? ' application/x-pn-realaudio'? 'video/quicktime'? 'text/javascript'? 'application/pdf'? etc etc

<Liam> Full list at http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

<judy> ACTION: comment: "content type" needs both a clearer definition, and also examples; a list would be helpful if possible, though would need to be external to the normative document. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/12-eo-minutes.html#action08]

<scribe> ACTION: comment: at the top, add a link to the [Contents] (as is done in many other specs) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/12-eo-minutes.html#action09]

<judy> ACTION: comment: since relative priority is such a key concept for atag conformance, introduce it in the introduction. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/12-eo-minutes.html#action10]

<judy> ACTION: comment: atag should apply to modular components (such as widgets) of the auth tools as well as to the auth tools themselves [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/12-eo-minutes.html#action11]

- DRAFT -

EOWG

12 Jan 2007

Attendees

Contents

Face-to-face (f2f) meeting 22-23 Jan in Boston/Cambridge

ATAG 2.0 Working Draft comments

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output