See also: IRC log
Resolved: To use this text B.1.1 "Rationale: If authoring tools automatically produce web content that includes accessibility problems (WCAG), then this will impose additional repair tasks on authors."
Resolved: Response: AUWG: The Working Group has changed the wording to: B.1.1 "Rationale: If authoring tools automatically produce web content that includes accessibility problems (WCAG), then this will impose additional repair tasks on authors."
AUWG: A note will be added as
follows: "B.2.3.1 Alternative Content is Editable (WCAG): If
the authoring tool provides functionality for adding non-text
content, then authors are able to modify programmatically
associated text alternatives for non-text content. Note: An
exception can be made when non-text content is known to be
decoration, formatting or invisible." The case of CAPTCHA is
not...
... as clear because the purpose must be described and the
author may need to contribute.
Note: An exception can be made when non-text content is known to be decoration, formatting, invisible or a CAPTCHA."
Resolved: "Note: An exception can be made when non-text content is known to be decoration, formatting, invisible or a CAPTCHA."
Resolved: AUWG: A note will be added as follows: "B.2.3.1 Alternative Content is Editable (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides functionality for adding non-text content, then authors are able to modify programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content. Note: An exception can be made when non-text content is known to be decoration, formatting, invisible or a CAPTCHA."
Proposed text: AUWG: No. Text alternatives to non-text content are defined as: "text alternatives for non-text content: Text that is programmatically associated with non-text content or referred to from text that is programmatically associated with non-text content. For example, an image of a chart might have two text alternatives: a description in the paragraph after the chart and a short...
scribe: text alternative for the chart indicating in words that a description follows." Captions and audio descriptions are instead types of "alternatives for time-based media".
http://www.w3.org/TR/IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20/#def-Text-Alternatives
JT: Any concerns with reply?
GP: my only concern is with composite documents...
Resolved: AUWG: No. Text alternatives to non-text content are defined as: "text alternatives for non-text content: Text that is programmatically associated with non-text content or referred to from text that is programmatically associated with non-text content. For example, an image of a chart might have two text alternatives: a description in the paragraph after the chart and a short text...
scribe: alternative for the chart indicating in words that a description follows." Captions and audio descriptions are instead types of "alternatives for time-based media".
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012AprJun/0050.html
Resolved: AUWG: The Working Group understands this comment to be saying that WCAG conformance is only part of the requirement and that that the missing part is a requirement along the lines of "Web-based user interfaces must be usable on user agents that implement communication with platform accessibility services." This make sense, however, there is much more to user agent accessibility...
scribe: than API communication, so the Working Group has decided to leave requirements in this area to UAAG 2.0. To provide clarification, the following text will be added to the relevant intent sections:
"For A.1.1.1: Note: Even when a web-based user interface has met the requirements of WCAG 2.0, many factors will determine the accessibility of any particular end-user's experience, including (but not limited to): the features and settings of the end-user's user agent, platform, and assistive technology (if any). It is recommended, therefore, that developers of web-based authoring tools be...
scribe: familiar with the accessibility guidance that the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) provides to the developers of user agents. At the time of publication, UAAG version 1.0 is a W3C Recommendation and version 2.0 is under development.
For A.1.2.1:
(Proposed) Note 2 (to follow the existing Note): Even when a non-web-based user interface has followed the relevant user interface accessibility guidelines for the platform, many factors will determine the accessibility of any particular end-user's experience, including (but not limited to): the features and settings of the platform and assistive technology (if any).
For A.1.2.2:
(Proposed) Note 2 (to follow the existing Note): Even when a non-web-based user interface has been designed to expose accessibility information through platform accessibility services, many factors will determine the accessibility of any particular end-user's experience, including (but not limited to): the features and settings of the platform and assistive technology (if any). "
Resolved: AUWG: See the response to IBM6.
Proposed: AUWG: Good idea, this example has been updated: "In a web-based environment: A web-based CMS uses WAI-ARIA landmarks (e.g., banner, main, navigation, search, etc.) to allow authors to navigate more quickly."
Resolved: AUWG: Good idea, this example has been updated: "In a web-based environment: A web-based CMS uses WAI-ARIA landmarks (e.g., banner, main, navigation, search, etc.) to allow authors to navigate more quickly."
Proposed: AUWG: Rather than adding additional text to scope the success criterion, a note appears in the intent: "Web-based authoring tools will already be required to meet this success criterion as part of a Success Criterion A.1.1.1." which is the requirement for web-based user interfaces to follow WCAG 2.0.
Resolved: AUWG: Rather than adding additional text to scope the success criterion, a note appears in the intent: "Web-based authoring tools will already be required to meet this success criterion as part of a Success Criterion A.1.1.1." which is the requirement for web-based user interfaces to follow WCAG 2.0.
AUWG: WCAG 2.0 does not include a definition of Time Limit, but in the interest of clarity, the Working Group has added one: "Time Limit: The amount of time that an authoring tool provides to an author to perform a task (e.g., read a message, select an item, save a change). Examples include: authoring session timeouts, time-based presentations (e.g. tutorial video)."
Resolved: AUWG: WCAG 2.0 does not include a definition of Time Limit, but in the interest of clarity, the Working Group has added one: "Time Limit: The amount of time that an authoring tool provides to an author to perform a task (e.g., read a message, select an item, save a change). Examples include: authoring session timeouts, time-based presentations (e.g. tutorial video)."
Proposed: AUWG: The success criterion was not meant to imply this because it is quite difficult to qunantify. The success criterion is simply that any exposed markup elements can be be leveraged to allow more efficient navigation of the markup. This could be simple tree-traversal or, as you state, something more sophisticated, such as navigation by ARIA landmark.
JT: Do we want to add anything else?
GP: Its ok
SN: Suspect that being more
prescriptive may be problematic.
... OK
Resolved: AUWG: The success criterion was not meant to imply this because it is quite difficult to qunantify. The success criterion is simply that any exposed markup elements can be be leveraged to allow more efficient navigation of the markup. This could be simple tree-traversal or, as you state, something more sophisticated, such as navigation by ARIA landmark.
Resolved: AUWG: This change has been made: (b) Match: Matching results can be presented to authors and given focus"
Proposed: AUWG: Audio and haptic display settings are less commonly utilized, but still valid.
JS: Could say we mean "duisplay" in the broader sense.
JT: In the spirit of encouraging multiple modes of presentation.
AUWG: The AUWG intended for
"display" to be used in the sense of presenting information
across potentially multiple modes. While, audio and haptic
display settings are less commonly utilized, they are still
valid.
... The AUWG intends for "display" to be used in the sense of
presenting information across potentially multiple modes. While
audio and haptic display settings are less commonly utilized,
they are still valid.
... The AUWG intends for "display" to be used in the sense of
presenting information across potentially multiple modes. While
audio and haptic display settings are less commonly utilized,
they are still valid examples.
... The AUWG intends for "display" to be used in the sense of
presenting information across multiple possible modes. While
audio and haptic display settings are less commonly utilized,
they are still valid examples.
Resolved: The AUWG intends for "display" to be used in the sense of presenting information across multiple possible modes. While audio and haptic display settings are less commonly utilized, they are still valid examples.
@@AUWG: The following changes will be made to the "User Agent" glossary entry:
User agent: Any software that retrieves, renders and facilitates end user interaction with web content (e.g. web browsers, browser plug-ins, and media players).
- In-Market User Agent: A user agent, that can be procured by members of the public (free or otherwise). Usually, an in-market user agent will be a separate software from the authoring tool, however, sometimes a software may combine user agent and authoring tool functionality. These cases include:
- Preview-Only: If the user agent can only render web content that it receives from the associated authoring functionality, then the software is an authoring tool with a "preview" feature. Such preview-only features are not considered in-market user agents.
- User Agent with Authoring Tool Mode: If the user agent functionality must retrieve and open web content before it can be sent to the authoring tool functionality, then the software is a user agent with an authoring tool mode. If the user agent is used to "preview" content produced by the authoring tool mode, then it is to be considered an in-market user agent.
- Combined User Agent/Authoring Tool: A user agent in which the default mode of user interaction enables editing the web content. These tools do not need previews because the author is already experiencing the content in the same way as end users.
And the following entry will be changed:
"previews: Views in which no authoring actions are provided (i.e., the view is not editable). Previews are provided to present the web content being edited by the authoring tool as it would appear to end users of user agents. Previews may be implemented using actual in-market user agents, but this is not necessary. See the defintion of user agent for more information.
And the following will be added to note #5 in the introduction.
"User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) Overview (This will be of special interest to developers of "Combined User Agent/Authoring Tools" and "User Agents with Authoring Tool Modes").
<scribe> ACTION: JR to Add some examples to In-Market User Agent proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/18-au-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-380 - Add some examples to In-Market User Agent proposal [on Jan Richards - due 2012-06-25].
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) No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: Jan Inferring Scribes: Jan Default Present: Jeanne, Cherie, Alex, +1.561.582.aaaa, Sueann, +1.703.678.aabb, Greg Present: Jeanne Cherie Alex +1.561.582.aaaa Sueann +1.703.678.aabb Greg Regrets: Tim B. Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012AprJun/0055.html Got date from IRC log name: 18 Jun 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/18-au-minutes.html People with action items: jr[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]