<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0034.html

1- Any early results/questions about Techniques review?

<Jan> Techniques Draft: http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2009/ED-ATAG20-TECHS-20090814/

<Jan> Scribe: JR

<Jan> Scribe: Jan

TB,JT: Clarify the work items from last week....re: review the techniques draft - assigned pieces

B.2.4.3

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0035.html

The intent of this success criterion is to address situations in which

an author has either not noticed or ignored opportunities for adding

alternative content and has closed their "authoring session". ATAG 2.0

does *not* require authoring tools to attempt automated repairs in this

situation because doing so risks misleading accessibility checking tools

and end users into the assumption that the alternative content was

provide or approved by a human author. However, if developers are

interested in providing automation to assist end users, this success

criterion acts as a guide. Basically, the success criterion assumes that

basic repairs (e.g., using text content that is readily available to

user agents, such as the file name, text metadata within non-text

objects, the tile of a linked resource, etc.) are best left to user

agents and assistive technologies, since they can more clear about the

fact that the alternative content results from an automatic repair,

rather from a human author. However, in some cases the authoring tool

will have text information, such as contextual information (e.g., the

image is the author's profile picture) that the user agent does not have

equal access to, in which case, the repair can be made by the authoring

tool. In addition, the success criterion does not limit more technically

sophisticated repairs that go beyond simple text processing to

processing images, audio or video. The intent here is encourage, rather

discourage progress in these rapidly advancing areas.

Note: When web content technologies include a mechanism for marking text

alternatives as automatically generated, these mechanisms should be

employed. Also, because these automatic repairs are, by their nature,

second-best measures taken only when authors are no longer available, it

would be preferable for the instances of automated repairs to be flagged

for author attention in any subsequent authoring sessions.

SUCCESS CRITERION:

B.2.4.3 Let user agents repair: After the end of an *authoring session*,

the *authoring tool* does not attempt to *repair* *alternative content*

for non-text content using any text values that are equally available to

*user agents* (e.g., the filename is not used). (Level A)

JT: Some way to segment this better?
... THis is what authorin tool should do...this what should be left to the user agent any why...and we want to leave open innovation in the future

<scribe> ACTION: Segment B2.4.3 proposal with clarifications on the each paragraph [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/24-au-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Segment

<scribe> ACTION: JR to Segment B2.4.3 proposal with clarifications on the each paragraph [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/24-au-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-184 - Segment B2.4.3 proposal with clarifications on the each paragraph [on Jan Richards - due 2009-08-31].

Jutta asks Andrew for any comments on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0035.html

<AndrewR> I agree with the comments on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0035.html. I think we should urge caution for tools developers choosing some arbitrary information to use in place of information that the author omitted.

JT: Great thanks

4-Clearing up the ACTIONS list:

3-Clear up the ISSUES list: (http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/open)

4-Clearing up the ACTIONS list:

http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/actions/open

5- Proposed SC B.2.1.X

JT's original: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0006.html

JR's message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0036.html

JT: I still believe it fairly critical...educational
... Need to educate authors , guidance because most people don't read documentation
... Lot's of our supports are after mistakes are made
... Can be light-weight and in-line with UI...
... An accesasibility advisor giving variety of choices open to people.
... What are accessibility implications of various things to embark upon

TB: How expressed?

JT: Depends on UI...if you do this...you'll need to do X
... Might be "it's easier to be accessible to be with this than this"
... Looking at different CMS and HTML tools, this is very much in line with general fuidance on other things

JR: Agress but I think we need to focus a bit more

JT: But might not be HTML, could be flash etc
... Maybe I could try to draft some techniques and success criteria for this

<scribe> ACTION: JT to Re-formulate guideline and scuccess criteria for decision support (B.2.1.X) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/24-au-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-185 - Re-formulate guideline and scuccess criteria for decision support (B.2.1.X) [on Jutta Treviranus - due 2009-08-31].

Next Meeting AUg 31

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: JR
Found Scribe: Jan
Inferring ScribeNick: Jan
Scribes: JR, Jan
Default Present: Jeanne, Jan, Tim_Boland, +1.416.946.aaaa, Jutta, Andrew
Present: Jeanne Jan Tim_Boland +1.416.946.aaaa Jutta Andrew
Regrets: SueAnn N.
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0034.html
Got date from IRC log name: 24 Aug 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/08/24-au-minutes.html
People with action items: jr jt segment

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.