See also: IRC log
<jeanne> scribe: jeanne
<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0005.html
<Jan> B.2.3.2 Conditions on Automated Suggestions:
<Jan> MS3: The wording "text alternatives may only be suggested under the following conditions" under B.2.3.2 makes it sounds like text alternative suggestion is not a good practice. Please make minor reword to remove the negative connotation.
<Jan> IBM19: B.2.3.2 - not sure "relevant sources" is testable. Sounds very subjective.
<Jan> B.2.3.3 Let User Agents Repair:
<Jan> B.2.3.3 Let User Agents Repair:
<Jan> MS4: The text for B2.3.3 still requires improvements. Text value for text alternative is, by definition, available to user agents-making this SC rather illogical.
<Jan> IBM20: B.2.3.3 - why is this requirement limited to automatic repair of text alternatives "after the end of an authoring session". Seems like it is also relevant if the repair is being done during the authoring session.
<Jan> B.2.3.2 Repair of Text Alternatives During Authoring Sessions: If the authoring tool attempts to automatically or semi-automatically repair text alternatives for non-text content ("repair strings") during an authoring session, then the following are both true: (Level A)
<Jan> (a) No generic/irrelevant strings: Generic strings (e.g. "image") and irrelevant strings (e.g., the file name, file format) are not offered as repair strings; and
<Jan> (b) Author control: Authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the repair strings prior to insertion in the content.
<Jan> B.2.3.3 Repair of Text Alternatives After Authoring Sessions: If the authoring tool attempts to automatically repair text alternatives for non-text content after an authoring session has ended, then the following are both true: (Level A)
<Jan> (a) No generic/irrelevant strings: Generic strings (e.g. "image") and irrelevant strings (e.g., the file name, file format) are not used as repair strings; and
<Jan> (b) Author control: In the subsequent authoring session (if any), auto-generated text alternatives are indicated and authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the text alternatives.
<Jan> JS: Wouldn't say generic/irrelevant strings...say instead generic or irrelevant strings
<Jan> AL: Looks good to me
Cherie: It looks good to me.
<Jan> CE: Looks good to me too
<Jan> JR: Greg?
Greg: good
<Jan> B.2.3.2 Repair of Text Alternatives During Authoring Sessions: If the authoring tool attempts to automatically or semi-automatically repair text alternatives for non-text content ("repair strings") during an authoring session, then the following are both true: (Level A)
<Jan> (a) No generic or irrelevant strings: Generic strings (e.g. "image") and irrelevant strings (e.g., the file name, file format) are not offered as repair strings; and
resolved: Accept the proposal for B.2.3.2 and B.2.3.3 with minor changes as above.
<Jan> (b) Author control: Authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the repair strings prior to insertion in the content.
<Jan> B.2.3.3 Repair of Text Alternatives After Authoring Sessions: If the authoring tool attempts to automatically repair text alternatives for non-text content after an authoring session has ended, then the following are both true: (Level A)
<Jan> (a) No generic or irrelevant strings: Generic strings (e.g. "image") and irrelevant strings (e.g., the file name, file format) are not used as repair strings; and
<Jan> (b) Author control: In the subsequent authoring session (if any), auto-generated text alternatives are indicated and authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the text alternatives.
[Sueann joins and Jan recapitulates prior discussion]
JR: The IBM issue on B.2.3.2 was "relevant sources" was not testable. That wording has been replaced
Sueann: Ok, that makes sense.
<Jan> SN: Yes I agree
<Jan> IBM23: B.4.1.3 - requires tools that do not comply with the requirements of Part B to document the fact that they don't comply. There is no leverage to get a tool developer to do this. If they document that they don't comply, they still don't comply.
JR: The intent was to make things more flexible for developers.
<Jan> AUWG: This success criterion was actually added by the Working Group to increase flexibility for developers. Instead of requiring that tools support accessibility for all of the formats they might output, they only need to support accessibility for one format and then document the fact that accessibility support is not offered for the other formats.
SN: The other alternative is to require everything to be compliant which would be more difficult.
<Greg> Better now
<Jan> Resolved: All agree with AUWG: This success criterion was actually added by the Working Group to increase flexibility for developers. Instead of requiring that tools support accessibility for all of the formats they might output, they only need to support accessibility for one format and then document the fact that accessibility support is not offered for the other formats.
<Jan> B.4.2.1 Model Practice (WCAG): A range of examples in the documentation (e.g., markup, screen shots of WYSIWYG editing-views) demonstrate accessible authoring practices (WCAG).
+1
<Jan> The note on "range" in the glossary: Informative Note: ATAG 2.0 uses the term "range" where absolute measurements may not be practical (e.g., the set of all help documentation examples, the set of all templates). While the strict testable requirement is the definition "More than one item within a multi-item set", implementers are strongly encouraged to implement the success criteria more broadly.
JR will add the informative note on range
<Jan> AUWG: While the Working Group recognizes that "range" is a weak term, documentation can run to hundreds of thousands of pages making a sweeping requirement very difficult to test. Instead of dropping the requirement entirely, the Working Group decided to use wording that clearly conveyed our intent while remaining testable. To make clear, the Working Group added the following informative...
<Jan> ...note to the glossary definition of "range": "Informative Note: ATAG 2.0 uses the term "range" where absolute measurements may not be practical (e.g., the set of all help documentation examples, the set of all templates). While the strict testable requirement is the definition "More than one item within a multi-item set", implementers are strongly encouraged to implement the success...
<Jan> ...criteria more broadly."
<Jan> JR: Comments, additions?
+1
<Greg> +1
<Jan> JR: Is everyone still happy with our use of Range?
<Jan> All: Agree
<Greg> y
<Jan> Resolved: AUWG: While the Working Group recognizes that "range" is a weak term, documentation can run to hundreds of thousands of pages making a sweeping requirement very difficult to test. Instead of dropping the requirement entirely, the Working Group decided to use wording that clearly conveyed our intent while remaining testable. To make clear, the Working Group added the following...
<Jan> ...informative note to the glossary definition of "range": "Informative Note: ATAG 2.0 uses the term "range" where absolute measurements may not be practical (e.g., the set of all help documentation examples, the set of all templates). While the strict testable requirement is the definition "More than one item within a multi-item set", implementers are strongly encouraged to implement the...
<Jan> ...success criteria more broadly."
<Greg> Go ahead it's good stuff
One of the issues that the ARIA group has discovered is that it is more important to write test cases before entering CR. Once in CR it is difficult to change the text.
<Jan> JR: Congrats everyone on getting through the Last Call comments!
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/
<Jan> scribe: Jan
JS: First link is something I'vwe shown before...going to be our cebntral testing page
TB: I've send a few out...a bit rough
JS: I'm delighted you sent them, I've polished them up.
<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2-10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20120711
JS: This is a link to a central
piece that JR started
... I've started working on tests...I've standardized the
formatting and language a great deal
... I've also set up another series of placeholder...please
don't send as we are not officially in CR
... This not for sharing
JS: Document preparations for
testing has all of the items JR put in the original
document
... The set of testing information needs to be expanded...eg. a
set of stable testing content
<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2-10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20120711
JS: With that in mind, if we go
back to resource doc...
... Some of the thinks I did...
... I broke A.1.1.1 into tests for each WCAG 2.0 level
... Pass at any one of those will pass the SC
... I wrote some others...
... I added a couple of TBs A.2.1.1...
... Also split web vs non-web based as in A.2.2.1...
... Let's look at A.3.2.1
TB: Have to be careful not to redefine the SC, but rateher to test in good faith
JS: Anpther thing I have to do is update all the wording to the LC changes
JR: How to share work?
JS: Just send to list.
<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2-10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20120711
TB: Will work on A.3.1.1
CE: Bad week for me, but next week is better
GP: Need to take some time
<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/
"Testing Reference Document" on http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/
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: jeanne Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne Found Scribe: Jan Inferring ScribeNick: Jan Scribes: jeanne, Jan ScribeNicks: jeanne, Jan Default Present: Jan, Jeanne, Cherie, Alex, Greg, Sueann, Tim_Boland Present: Jan Jeanne Cherie Alex Greg Sueann Tim_Boland Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0006.html Got date from IRC log name: 16 Jul 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/07/16-au-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]