See also: IRC log
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0008.html
<scribe> Scribe: Jan
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ED-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20120113/#conf-req
JT: People have chance to read?
SN: No chance yet?
JT: We will all now read it http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ED-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20120113/#conf-req
WCAG2: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#conformance
GP: Wonders about "Statement of"
JR: No problem to remove it.
JT: Any objections?
None
note 2 in ATAG 2.0 conformance...ie is confusing
an applicable Level A success criterion has not been met
original: Note 2: If the minimum
conformance level (Level A) has not been achieved (i.e., at
least one applicable Level A success criterion has not been
met), it is still beneficial to publish a statement specifying
which success criteria were met.
... Note 2: If the minimum conformance level (Level A) has not
been achieved (i.e., not all applicable Level A success
criteria have been met), it is still beneficial to publish a
statement specifying which success criteria were met.
<scribe> NEW: Note 2: If the minimum conformance level (Level A) has not been achieved (i.e., not all applicable Level A success criteria have been met), it is still beneficial to publish a statement specifying which success criteria were met.
AL: Under Success Criteria Satisfaction...NA should be first
JR: +1
JT: Objections?
No objections
AL: Do we need to define "authoring process components"?
JR: I think it is implicit but I can try?
JT: Do we use the phrase elsewhere?
JR: No
JT: Other way to phrase
JR: Sub-system?
AL: Maybe JT: tools or components?
Original: his conformance option may be selected when an authoring tool would require additional authoring process components in order to conform as a complete authoring system. This option may be used for components with very limited functionality (e.g. a plug-in) up to nearly complete systems (e.g. a markup editor that only lacks accessibility checking functionality).
JT: This conformance option may be selected when an authoring tool would require additional tools or components in order to conform as a complete authoring system. This option may be used for components with very limited functionality (e.g. a plug-in) up to nearly complete systems (e.g. a markup editor that only lacks accessibility checking functionality).
No objections
<scribe> NEW: This conformance option may be selected when an authoring tool would require additional tools or components in order to conform as a complete authoring system. This option may be used for components with very limited functionality (e.g. a plug-in) up to nearly complete systems (e.g. a markup editor that only lacks accessibility checking functionality).
JT: We accept all of the new language with today's three modifications/
No objections
Resolution: Accept new
"Conformance Requirements" text with 3 modifications: Rem
statement of; NEW: Note 2: If the minimum conformance level
(Level A) has not been achieved (i.e., not all applicable Level
A success criteria have been met), it is still beneficial to
publish a statement specifying which success criteria were
met.; NEW: This conformance option may be selected when an
authoring...
... tool would require additional tools or components in order
to conform as a complete authoring system. This option may be
used for components with very limited functionality (e.g. a
plug-in) up to nearly complete systems (e.g. a markup editor
that only lacks accessibility checking functionality).
2. Part A Conformance Applicability Note: Platform limitations
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0001.html
"Statement of Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance - Platform Limitation (Level A, AA, or AAA)
This conformance option may be selected when an authoring tool is unable to meet one or more success criteria because of intrinsic limitations of the platform (e.g., lacking a platform accessibility service). The (optional) explanation of conformance claim results should explain what platform features are missing."
JT: Thoughts?
GP: So 2 flavours of partial for different reasons?
JR: Yes
... WCAG2 has 2 flavours of partial as well?
... WCAG2 has 2 flavours of partial as well.
No objections
Resolution: Accept new partial conformance type http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0001.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0003.html
A.4.2.1 Explain Accessibility Features: For each authoring tool feature that is used to meet Part A of ATAG 2.0, at least one of the following is true:
(a) Explained in documentation: use of the feature is explained in the authoring tool's documentation; or
(b) Explained in interface: use of the feature is explained in the user interface; or
(c) Platform service: the feature is a service provided by an underlying platform; or
(d) Not used by authors: the feature is not used directly by authors (e.g., passing information to a platform accessibility service)
Note: The accessibility of the documentation is covered by Guideline A.1.1 and Guideline A.1.2.
A.4.2.2 Explain All Features: For each authoring tool feature, at least one of the following is true:
a) Explained in documentation: use of the feature is explained in the authoring tool's documentation; or
(b) Explained in interface: use of the feature is explained in the user interface; or
(c) Platform service: the feature is a service provided by an underlying platform; or
(d) Not used by authors: the feature is not used directly by authors (e.g., passing information to a platform accessibility service)
Note: The accessibility of the documentation is covered by Guideline A.1.1 and Guideline A.1.2.
JT: Thoughts?
... Are previous concerns addressed?
GP: Description vs explanation?
JR: Explain comes from 508 Refresyh
CE: Agree that describe is better than explain
JR: Described is fine with me
JT: Any objection to "described" in the handle and elsewhere
Resolution: Change explain to
describe
... All accept new A421 and A422 with the change (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0003.html)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011JulSep/0107.html
JT: Any concerns with dropping it?
GP: No -Jan make a good case
JT: Do we have other related?
GP: THis is really a usability thing
JT: Maybe this should be added as a note somewhere?
<scribe> ACTION: JR to Find a place to slot in making user settings usable in intent, examples [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/01/16-au-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-371 - Find a place to slot in making user settings usable in intent, examples [on Jan Richards - due 2012-01-23].
Resolution: Remove SC A365
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0007.html
content generation (content authoring, content editing):
The act of specifying the actual web content that will be rendered, played or executed by the end user's user agent. While the precise details of how content is created in any given system may vary widely, responsibility for the generation of content can be any combination of the following ():
- author generated content: Web content for which authors are fully responsible. The author may only be responsible down to a particular level (e.g., when asked to type a text label, the author is responsible for the text, but not for how the label is marked up; when typing markup in a source editing-view, the author is not responsible for the fact that UNICODE is used to encode the text ).
- automatically generated content: Web content for which developer-programmed functionality is fully responsible (e.g., what markup to output when an author requests to start a new document, automatically correcting markup errors).
- third-party content generation: Web content for which a third-party author is responsible (e.g., community shared templates).
JT: Everyone take 2 minutes to read...
AL: I don't have a problem with it
JT: Anyone else?
... No objections heard
Resolution: Accept new den of content genreation (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0007.html)
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 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 Inferring ScribeNick: Jan Default Present: Jan, Andrew, Jutta, Alex, Greg, +1.561.582.aaaa, Sueann, Cherie, Jeanne Present: Jan Andrew Jutta Alex Greg +1.561.582.aaaa Sueann Cherie Jeanne Regrets: Alessandro_M Tim_B Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0008.html Got date from IRC log name: 16 Jan 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/01/16-au-minutes.html People with action items: jr WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]