19:54:14 RRSAgent has joined #au 19:54:14 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/06/08-au-irc 19:54:21 Zakim, this will be AUWG 19:54:21 ok, Jan; I see WAI_AUWG()3:00PM scheduled to start 54 minutes ago 19:54:27 Meeting: WAI AU 19:54:39 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009AprJun/0051.html 19:54:55 Regrets: Roberto S., Tim B. 20:00:15 jeanne has joined #au 20:01:11 WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has now started 20:01:16 + +0208123aaaa 20:01:18 +Jeanne 20:01:26 +[IPcaller] 20:02:02 +??P6 20:02:06 zakim, aaaa is really AnnM 20:02:06 +AnnM; got it 20:02:21 zakim, [IPcaller] is really Jan 20:02:21 +Jan; got it 20:02:36 zakim, ??P6 is really Jutta 20:02:36 +Jutta; got it 20:02:43 zakim, who's here? 20:02:43 On the phone I see Jeanne, AnnM, Jan, Jutta 20:02:44 AnnM has joined #au 20:02:45 On IRC I see jeanne, RRSAgent, Zakim, Jan, trackbot 20:02:55 Chair: Jutta Treviranus 20:05:22 A mechanism for encoding instructions to be rendered, played or executed by user agents. Web Content technologies may include markup languages, data formats, or programming languages that authors may use alone or in combination to create end-user experiences that range from static Web pages to multimedia presentations to dynamic Web applications. Some common examples of Web content technologies in 20:05:22 +Greg_Pisocky 20:05:23 clude HTML, CSS, SVG, PNG, PDF, Flash, and JavaScript. An accessible technology is a technology that may be used in a way that is "accessibility supported" (For more information on "accessibility supported", see WCAG 2.0). 20:05:56 Andrew has joined #au 20:06:10 + +1.970.349.aabb 20:06:26 Greg has joined #au 20:06:32 zakim, aabb is really SueannN 20:06:32 +SueannN; got it 20:07:16 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/AUWG-F2F-20090615/results 20:07:35 + +2 20:07:53 zakim, +2 is really AndrewR 20:07:53 +AndrewR; got it 20:08:18 -Jutta 20:08:59 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/AUWG-F2F-20090615/ 20:09:03 +??P2 20:09:34 zakim, ??P2 is really Jutta 20:09:34 +Jutta; got it 20:10:10 Sueann has joined #au 20:10:10 Scribe: Andrew 20:10:36 Topic: Guideline B.1.1 Support Web content technologies.... 20:10:46 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009AprJun/0053.html 20:11:52 JR: Requirement around the tool choosing technologies that are "accessibility supported" 20:12:06 JR: Quite a subtle term that comes from WCAG 20:12:09 Rationale: The production of *accessible Web content* is only possible 20:12:11 if *authoring tools* make use of *Web content technologies* that can be 20:12:13 used in ways that are *accessibility supported*. 20:12:31 B.1.1.1 Automatic Technology Selection: If *Web content technologies* 20:12:33 are automatically selected by the *authoring tool* (e.g., for *automatic 20:12:35 content generation*, as the default technology for *author-generated 20:12:36 content*), then the *Web content technologies* can be used in ways that 20:12:38 are *accessibility supported*. (Level A) 20:13:07 B.1.1.2 Author Choice of Technologies: If *authors* are provided with a 20:13:09 choice of *Web content technology* options, any *Web content technology* 20:13:11 options that can be used in ways that are *accessibility supported* are 20:13:13 *at least as prominent* as any options that cannot. (Level A) 20:13:36 B.1.1.3 Technology Warning: If the *authoring tool* can *recognize* that 20:13:38 *authors* have chosen to use a *Web content technology* that may not be 20:13:40 able to be be used in ways that are *accessibility supported*, then the 20:13:41 *authoring tool* notifies the *authors* that this may result in *Web content 20:13:43 accessibility problems* in the output. (Level AA) 20:14:31 JR: Next piece is quite large but thought about it a lot 20:15:04 +1 for using the same definition as WCAG 20:15:15 JR: Thinking about bringing across the "accessibility supported" definition from WCAG 20:15:19 NEW DEF'N IN THE GLOSSARY: 20:15:21 accessibility supported [adapted from WCAG 2.0] 20:15:23 Supported by *end users'* *assistive technologies* as well as the 20:15:25 accessibility features in browsers and other *user agents*. To qualify 20:15:26 as an accessibility-supported use of a *Web content technology* (or 20:15:28 feature of a technology), both 1 and 2 must be satisfied for the *Web 20:15:30 content technology* (or feature): 20:15:32 1. The way that the *Web content technology* is used must be supported 20:15:33 by *end users'* *assistive technology* (AT). This means that the way 20:15:35 that the *Web content technology* is used has been tested for 20:15:36 interoperability with *end users'* *assistive technology* in the *human 20:15:38 language(s)* of the *Web content*, 20:15:40 AND 20:15:41 2. The *Web content technology* must have accessibility supported *user 20:15:43 agents* that are available to *end users*. This means that at least one 20:15:44 of the following four statements is true: 20:15:46 a. The *Web content technology* is supported natively in 20:15:48 widely-distributed *user agents* that are also accessibility supported 20:15:50 (such as HTML and CSS); 20:15:52 OR 20:15:54 b. The *Web content technology* is supported in a widely-distributed 20:15:56 plug-in that is also accessibility supported; 20:15:59 OR 20:15:59 c. The *Web content* is available in a closed environment, such as a 20:15:59 university or corporate network, where the *user agent* required by the 20:16:00 *Web content technology* and used by the organization is also 20:16:02 accessibility supported; 20:16:04 OR 20:16:06 d. The *user agent(s)* that support the *Web content technology* are 20:16:08 accessibility supported and are available for download or purchase in a 20:16:10 way that: 20:16:12 - does not cost a person with a disability any more than a person 20:16:14 without a disability and 20:16:16 - is as easy to find and obtain for a person with a disability as it 20:16:18 is for a person without disabilities. 20:16:20 Notes: 20:16:22 - The AUWG, WCAG Working group and the W3C do not specify which or how 20:16:24 much support by assistive technologies there must be for a particular 20:16:26 use of a *Web content technology* in order for it to be classified as 20:16:28 accessibility supported. (See “Understanding Accessibility Support” in 20:16:30 “Understanding WCAG 2.0” for more details). 20:16:32 - See also the *conformance profile* requirements for documenting 20:16:34 “accessibility supported”. 20:16:58 JR: Conformance claims are optional in WCAG 20:17:36 jtrevir has joined #au 20:21:09 5(b) A list of the *Web content technologies* (including version 20:21:10 numbers) produced by the *authoring tool* that the Claimant is 20:21:12 *including* in the conformance claim. 20:21:13 - The list must include any *Web content technologies* identified in 20:21:15 Guideline B.1 as being able to be used in ways that are *accessibility 20:21:16 JS: Like the idea of mirroring WCAG's process. Complicated process so we risk adding more confusion if we don't follow WCAGs lead. 20:21:16 supported*. 20:21:18 - For each *Web content technology*, specify the conditions under which 20:21:20 the *Web content technology* can be used in ways that are 20:21:22 *accessibility supported* (e.g., specify known *assistive technology* 20:21:24 support, *user agent* support, plug-in support, in what *human 20:21:25 languages*, in what closed environments, etc.). NOTE: It is the 20:21:27 responsibility of *authors* to decide whether these conditions for 20:21:28 *accessibility supported* are actually applicable in the context of the 20:21:30 *authors'* own circumstances (e.g., the *human language* of their *Web 20:21:32 content*, whether they develop in open vs. closed environment, etc.) 20:21:33 5(c [was d]) A list of the *Web content technologies* produced by the 20:21:35 the *authoring tool* that the Claimant is *excluding* from the 20:21:36 conformance claim. *Web content Technologies* may only be excluded that 20:21:38 are not automatically selected by the *authoring tool* (See Success 20:21:39 Criterion B.1.1). 20:28:37 AM: My concern is the people who are making the tools don't know all the "technical ways" web content technologies can be made accessible 20:29:26 JT: In an ideal world there would be a guide to accessible web content technologies for tool developers to refer to 20:32:45 -Jutta 20:33:43 +??P2 20:34:33 -AndrewR 20:35:15 +??P0 20:38:11 Accessibility Support Statements 20:38:11 Examples of ways in which a conformance claim might document its accessibility support include: 20:38:13 1.This conformance claim meets the accessibility support requirement based on testing content in language(s) of the content with User Agents A, B, and C, and Assistive Technologies X, Y, and Z. This means that we were able to pass all of the success criteria for level A of WCAG 2.0 using these products. 20:38:14 2.This conformance claim meets the accessibility support requirement for the language(s) of the content based on the use of techniques and user agent notes documented in Techniques for WCAG 2.0. It is also based on the accessibility support documentation for the technologies (that we relied upon for conformance), which is available in " XYZ Organization's Documentation of Accessibility Support." 20:38:16 3.This conformance claim meets the accessibility support requirement for the language(s) of the content based on the use of technology Z as documented in "Technology Z accessibility supported techniques for WCAG 2.0." 20:38:18 4.This conformance claim meets the accessibility support requirement for the language of the content based on the use of Accessibility Guidelines for Technology A and Accessibility Guidelines for Technology B. User agent and assistive technology support information can be found in "Product XYZ Accessibility Support Requirements", which are documented in these guidelines. 20:40:56 JR: How can you tell what is a more accessible choice? 20:41:22 GR: If you choose to produce Flash for example, the tool should facilitate creating accessible Flash 20:41:40 GR: This shouldn't become a debate about one format over another 20:42:04 JR: We used to have the "accessibility benchmark" concept 20:43:41 -??P0 20:44:20 + +2 20:45:58 JR: All formats can be used in an accessible or inaccessible way 20:46:21 JR: Even if the tools are capable of producing accessible output 20:52:08 - +2 20:52:50 +??P0 20:53:32 -??P2 20:53:57 +??P2 21:02:18 Action GP Intermediate and evaluating accessibility of formats w/o pitting them against each other 21:02:18 Created ACTION-153 - Intermediate and evaluating accessibility of formats w/o pitting them against each other [on Greg Pisocky - due 2009-06-15]. 21:02:19 Action: GP to writeup applicability ideas around "intermediate formats" 21:02:19 Created ACTION-154 - Writeup applicability ideas around "intermediate formats" [on Greg Pisocky - due 2009-06-15]. 21:03:32 Action JR: Take another look at simplifying B.1 and the formats issue 21:03:32 Created ACTION-155 - Take another look at simplifying B.1 and the formats issue [on Jan Richards - due 2009-06-15]. 21:06:16 -Greg_Pisocky 21:06:17 -??P2 21:06:17 -SueannN 21:06:18 -Jeanne 21:06:21 -Jan 21:06:26 -AnnM 21:06:28 -??P0 21:06:29 WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has ended 21:06:30 Attendees were +0208123aaaa, Jeanne, AnnM, Jan, Jutta, Greg_Pisocky, +1.970.349.aabb, SueannN, AndrewR, +2 21:06:42 RRSAgent, make minutes 21:06:42 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/06/08-au-minutes.html Jan 21:06:45 AnnM has left #au 21:06:48 RRSAgent, set logs public 21:06:54 Zakim, bye 21:06:54 Zakim has left #au 21:07:13 RRSAgent, bye 21:07:13 I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/08-au-actions.rdf : 21:07:13 ACTION: GP to writeup applicability ideas around "intermediate formats" [1] 21:07:13 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/08-au-irc#T21-02-19 21:07:13 ACTION: JR to Take another look at simplifying B.1 and the formats issue [2] 21:07:13 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/08-au-irc#T21-03-32