<trackbot> Date: 16 June 2009

<Jan> scribe: Jan

<jeanne> scribe: jeanne

brainstorming contacts for reviewers, implementors, and evaluators

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009AprJun/0071.html

New proposals - B.1.1

B.1.1.3 Conforming Alternate Technology: If a Web content technology

does not create accessible Web content (e.g. a bar chart created in a

PNG image file), then an conforming alternate technology (e.g. a date

table in HTML) will be available to the author(s) prior to publishing.

(Level AAA)

JT: Why should it be level AAA? This is more important than a AAA.
... a company that is seeking ATAG compliance, should be willing to make the effort to insure that their content is accessible

<Greg> Reed: I think the way this is worded implies this is another special thing rather than an acceptable alternative

B.2.1.4 Guide Accessible Alternatives: If Web content is created or

integrated that is not accessible, (e.g. a bar chart created in a PNG

image file), the author(s) will be guided to create or integrate a

conforming alternate technology (e.g. a date table in HTML) prior to

publishing. (Level AAA)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009AprJun/0071.html

<Jan> JT: We need to weigh are approach to authoring accessibly from the start

<Jan> JT: We need to make sure that accessible technology is used

<Jan> GP: I have concerns with expectation that one tool doing everything

<Jan> JT: No recognizes that one tool can't can't do everything

<Jan> JT: Just have to include something in bundle that allows it

<Jan> RS: But end of the road is the point...maybe someone will make a great scanner+repair

<Jan> JT: But means lots of retrofit

<Jan> RS: But ex?

<Jan> JT: Retrofitting is usally redoing things

<Jan> GP: We have to handle multiple authoring styles

<Jan> JT: Yes there is a whole range of things

<Jan> JT: We are encouraging thinking from beginning PLUS ability to hndle accessiblity at the end

<Jan> JS: ARIA example...

<Jan> JS: If putting in nav tree structure put in ARIA from early in the process

<Sueann> Jutta: make it possible for authors to author accessibly from the start

<Sueann> GP: give me products that support the features to get to an accessible solution, if controls and objects can't support accessible solution you wouldn't what that

<Sueann> RS: What is an automatic prompt?

<Sueann> Reviewing Jean's email

<Sueann> RS: disagreement is this to guide accessible content or from the outset.

<Sueann> Jutta: it should be possible to make an accessible outcome from the outset

<Sueann> Jan: sees this as being part of the conformance statement

<Sueann> Jan: Should blow away the old b.1

<Sueann> Jan: we should have support for tools that enable accessibility from the outset

<Sueann> RS: in large organizations the work flow can cause problems having focus on accessibility

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009AprJun/0074.html\

<Sueann> Jan: update to the conformance claim

<Sueann> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009AprJun/0074.html

<Sueann> GP accessibility may not happen until all of the parts (images) are brought together

<Sueann> Jutta: there are multiple cases. There are cases when accessibility needs to be there from the start, in other cases it can be added in at the end

<Sueann> GP: it's all a moment in time when accessibility should happen

<Sueann> Jan: Jan's proposal is about the claim.

<Sueann> versus the guide.

<Sueann> JS: not all of the tools need to be atag compliant versus Jan: because part A is in there, the tools do need to meet Atag

<Sueann> RS what would the claim look like?

<Sueann> Jan there is no objective review of technologies

<Sueann> RS: having problem trying to figure out the claim to atag

<Sueann> Jan: try and cut it down and make a claim on a scenario

<Sueann> Jan: That's what WCAG 2.0 does

<Sueann> Jean: bundles should be for checking and repair.

<Sueann> Jutta: compound issues.

<Sueann> RS: why does b.1 not produce Atag

<Sueann> why does b.1 not just state output meet atag

<Sueann> Jutta: we don't say that because there is the issue of the author.

<Greg> JT If you make or incorporate content make sure that is is possible to create accessible output using that content

<Greg> JT You want to increase the liklihood that any author is producing accessible output with it

<Greg> JT: It has to be possible. It has to be just as easy at is to make it accessible as it is to make it inaccessible

<Greg> JR: It would be nice to go into B and do the triage we discussed yesterday

<Greg> JR: B.1.1 we will need to return to

<jtrevir> JT: ATAG is unlike WCAG in that we have the wildcard of the author. The developer cannot and should not, control what the author produces. The author has free choice.

<jtrevir> Therefore was we want to do in B1 is:

<jtrevir> Make sure that when the authoring tool has full control over the content (automatic processes) it is accessible and meets WCAG 2.0

<Greg> JR: B.1.2 Ensure that the authoring tool preserves the accessibility information

<jtrevir> For all else we want to make it possible and easy for the author to produce accessible content. We want to encourage them and guide them in making accessible content. It should be as easy if not easier to make accessible content as it is to create inaccessible content

<jtrevir> And we want to support them in checking that their content is accessible and then repair it if it isn't.

<jtrevir> We want accessible authoring to be naturally integrated, part of the workflow, where appropriate and possible from the beginning of the process rather than as a retrofit.

<Greg> B.1.2.2 Medium

<Greg> RS: Perhaps we should define automatically

<Greg> JR: Triage Okay. No problem here B.1.3

<Greg> JR: Moving on, B.2.1 Guide Authors to create accessible content

<Greg> JR: Triage High

<Greg> JR: B.2.2 Assist Authors in checking for accessiblity problems. Lots of comments

<Greg> JR: B.2.2 Triage High

<Greg> JR: B.2.3 Repair Accessibility (AAA)

<Greg> JR: B.2.3 Triage None

<Greg> ACTION: JR to clarify repair assistance language [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-au-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-166 - Clarify repair assistance language [on Jan Richards - due 2009-06-23].

<scribe> ACTION: JR to clarify repair assistance in B.2.3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-au-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-167 - Clarify repair assistance in B.2.3 [on Jan Richards - due 2009-06-23].

<Greg> Topic B.2.4 Assist authors with managing alternative content for non-text content

<Greg> B.2.4 Triage None

<Greg> Topic Guideline B.2.5 Assist authors with accessible templates and other pre-authored content

<Greg> B.2.5 Triage Medium

<Greg> Topic Guideline B.3.1 Ensure that accessible authoring actions are given prominence

<Greg> B.3.1 Triage None

<Greg> Topic Guideline B.3.2 Ensure that sequential authoring processes integrate accessible authoring practices

<Greg> RS: This is another one where I am concerned we are forcing design contraints on people. Who says it has to come at the end for instance?

<Greg> B.3.2 Triage HIGH

<Greg> Topic Guideline B.3.3 Ensure that features of the authoring tool supporting the production of accessible content are available

<Greg> B.3.3 Triage NONE

<Greg> Topic Guideline B.3.4 Ensure that features of the authoring tool supporting the production of accessible content are documented

<Greg> B.3.4 Triage None

<Greg> Topic Guideline B.3.5 Ensure that any authoring practices demonstrated in documentation are accessible.

<Greg> RS: What do we mean by documentation? Where is it coming from?

<Greg> JT: One of the AODA legislation requirements was to put a proviso over the things you have control over

<Greg> SN: It's like saying any example for any piece of code has to be written accessibly

<Greg> RS: Then I would feel comfortable making that single A (if you take out any)

Breaking for lunch. Be back in 30 minutes at 1:10 EDT

<ReedShaff> set scribe:ReedShaff

<ReedShaff> Discussing B3.2 or and B3.1 need to get accessibility into the the core of the authoring process

<ReedShaff> JT: The workflow part was integrated, not any point, it is a habitual part of the process in general

<ReedShaff> JR: ok maybe they aren't the saem

<ReedShaff> JR: Starting with B2.1

<Greg> RS and JR: How do we deal with issues involving the aggregating of content

<Greg> RS: For example, my app may include a video from another source that isn't captioned and which my tool can't add captions

<ReedShaff> Sueann: how does this change anything?

<ReedShaff> JR: conforming alternate is a way of meeting WCAG

<ReedShaff> JR: maybe we add something to be more explicit

<ReedShaff> Sueann: how can we check for all of these things people are inserting?

<ReedShaff> Greg: this is incredibly complex logic

<ReedShaff> Sueann: informing the user versus informing the purchaser

<ReedShaff> Sueann: you don't want to, the tools aren't tutorials

<ReedShaff> JR: they might include some guidance along the way

<ReedShaff> Sueann: it has nothign to do with UI

<ReedShaff> Greg: or a prompt

<ReedShaff> Sueann: set accessible properties for all objects that the tool can edit

<ReedShaff> JT: I want to do it in the middle of doing my workflow

<ReedShaff> Greg: you can always pretend your done

<ReedShaff> JT: then I as an author have to fool the tool

<ReedShaff> Sueann: AA I can query them at anytime

<ReedShaff> Sueann: real time checking is triple AAA

<ReedShaff> Greg: I as an author have a way of setting those propertieis

<ReedShaff> Sueann: you can't check anything until it meets AA criteria, it has been queried and has no sev1 or 2 issues

<ReedShaff> AAA: cannot publish until queried, no anwers, and automatic checking

<ReedShaff> JR: other two might be relevant to enterprise tools only

<ReedShaff> Greg: no that was just because it was in practice, basically change the wording

<ReedShaff> Sueann: run a report, where are my failures?

<ReedShaff> JT: if we go back to what we set for A, it's possible as an author, i can do it

<ReedShaff> JT: I may not be knowledgable the tools guides me, makes it more likely

<ReedShaff> ACTION: Jutta to b1.1 rational [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-au-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-168 - B1.1 rational [on Jutta Treviranus - due 2009-06-23].

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
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
Found Scribe: jeanne
Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne
Scribes: Jan, jeanne
Present: +Jan_Richards Greg_Pisocky Reed_Shaffner Jutta_Treviranus Sueann_Nichols Jeanne_Spellman Ann_McMeekin Andrew_Ronksley
Regrets: Tim_Boland Andrew_Ronksley
Found Date: 16 Jun 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/06/16-au-minutes.html
People with action items: jr jutta