16:52:03 RRSAgent has joined #au 16:52:03 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/05/04-au-irc 16:52:10 Zakim, this will be AUWG 16:52:10 ok, Jan; I see WAI_AUWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 8 minutes 16:52:15 Meeting: WAI AU 16:52:27 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2015AprJun/0043.html 16:52:42 Chair: Jutta Treviranus 16:52:50 Scribe: Jan 16:52:59 Regrets: Alastair C. 16:59:54 WAI_AUWG()1:00PM has now started 17:00:01 +Jeanne 17:00:02 jeanne has joined #au 17:00:26 +[IPcaller] 17:00:51 zakim, [IPcaller] is really Jan 17:00:51 +Jan; got it 17:03:04 + +1.206.778.aaaa 17:04:23 zakim, aaaa is really Alex 17:04:23 +Alex; got it 17:05:20 +[IPcaller] 17:06:23 zakim, [IPcaller] is really Jutta 17:06:23 +Jutta; got it 17:06:53 Topic: 1. Update on exit criteria 17:07:08 JT: Thanks Alex for your input 17:07:18 JT: Do you want to update us Jeanne? 17:07:30 JS: I've been speaking with Judy about this... 17:08:00 JS: We've been meeting for months about how to simplify the exit criteria to bring them more in line with other W3C recs 17:08:16 JS: We've met with the Chair designates about this a couple of times 17:08:45 JS: They observed that their was a large cost to strict criteria 17:09:03 JS: I certainly brought Alex's comments to Judy 17:09:38 AL: So in the end, any tests are there to test hyothesis 17:09:48 AL: And in this case, the hypothses 17:10:14 AL: IS that ATAG is implementable and we are trying to disprove 17:10:38 AL: Or that it is implementable and we are trying to prove 17:11:12 JS: for example in HTML, there were many places where they didn't have to test references to other document 17:11:42 JS: Idea of directors is that WCAG is implementable...so ATAG doesn't have to test WCAG 17:11:46 AL: Are there? 17:12:03 AL: Are there ample examples of authrogint tools that meet WCAG 17:12:29 AL: It makes me nervous to hear ... 17:14:07 JS: We have found a number of tools that are meeting WCAG, web-based editors, WYSIWYG, etc. 17:14:40 JT: Accoring to contacts at US access board there are tools with VPATas that are claiming to meet WCAG2 17:14:51 AL: That sounds suspicious 17:15:09 AL: Also the access board doesn't do compliance testing 17:15:22 (hared to hear Alex due to background noise() 17:23:58 JR, AL: Discussion of accessible templates etc... agree that those don't have to show every WCAG SC because ... 17:25:10 ...templates naturally won't cover the gamut of WCAG 17:25:21 AL: I think I understand it a bit better now... 17:31:17 JR: We could do a table of WCAG SCs...and then next to each names of a couple of tools that can meet it for 1.1.1 17:31:56 JS: But the problem with this is that there are still SCs that just aren't met (Sign Language, etc.) 17:32:06 JS: And we've spent so long on the wording 17:32:33 JT: There is a reasonable approach out of this bind.... 17:32:47 JT: WCAg is tested and we can reference 17:33:05 JT: Yet WCAG gfoes beyond what is reasonable or rational for an authoring tool 17:33:45 JT: Compromise we have reach for simplified exit criteria does not put at risk the goal of testing the implemnatability of ATAG 17:34:25 JS: And Alex is right, as we write the final report, we will want to make sure we show that we meet all the applicable AA SCs in WCAG 17:34:38 JS: But putting it into exit criteria will tie our hands 17:34:51 JT: Time is of the essensce, we need to move this forward 17:35:11 JT: Any more concerns? 17:35:32 AL: No more concerns, just wondering how you will write your exit criteria? 17:36:06 JT: Directors and Judy are in agreement with the current proposed wording...can we get agreement here? 17:36:19 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2015AprJun/0007.html 17:36:46 AL: I'm standing at a phone...are you talking about the.... 17:37:29 JS: Reads... 17:37:46 JS: For this specification to be advanced to Proposed Recommendation, there must be at least two independent implementations of features that meet each success criterion. Each of these features may be implemented by a different set of products and there is no requirement that all features be implemented by a single product. 17:37:47 *Independent authoring tools* 17:37:49 are tools by different developers that do not share (or derive from) the same source code for the relevant feature(s). Sections of code that have no bearing on the implementation of this standard are exempt from this requirement. The authoring tools must be a shipping product or other publicly available version. Experimental implementations, specifically designed to pass the test suite and... 17:37:50 ...not intended for normal usage, are not permitted. 17:37:52 *Implemented* 17:37:53 refers to situations in which a success criterion is applicable to a given authoring tool and the authoring tool meets the success criterion. This is in contrast to situations in which a success criterion is not applicable. 17:37:55 *Success criteria referencing WCAG 2.0 for priorities* 17:37:56 17:37:58 For the thirteen ATAG 2.0 success criteria that are dependent on WCAG 2.0 [3] for their levels, each ATAG 2.0 success criterion must be implemented for two WCAG 2.0 success criteria at each level: A, AA, and AAA. These six WCAG 2.0 success criteria are a sampling of the requirements of WCAG (e.g. text alternatives for non-text content, keyboard accessibility, sufficient contrast). 17:39:11 AL: I'm ok with it 17:39:17 JT: Great, thank you 17:39:32 Topic: 2. Update on Charter 17:39:46 JS: We have lots of notes back on the charter 17:40:00 JS: That I got just before this call... 17:40:15 http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2015/draft_auwg_charter.html 17:40:39 JS: Comments are mainly on the timeline section 17:41:01 JS: I think there are things left over from an earlier version, that need to get updated 17:41:18 JS: I will edit as we talk 17:41:55 JS: "Review and comment on the work in other W3C Working Groups" needs to be removed - PF is only group doing reviews 17:42:01 JR: OK 17:43:05 JS: I have some language from UAWG to update a few things 17:44:37 JS: Reads some new text.. 17:44:50 Contribute user requirements and relevant user agent accessibility support needs to be included and addressed as part of the WAI 2020 Framework. This work will be done in coordination with WCAG WG. 17:45:02 JS: Ooops that'as the old one 17:45:06 Contribute user requirements and relevant authoring tool accessibility support needs to be included and addressed as part of the WAI 2020 Framework. This work will be done in coordination with WCAG WG. 17:45:57 JS: I think I have everything else 17:46:39 Topic: 3. Update on Getting to Proposed Recommendation 17:46:58 https://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/CR20/eval/scorecard 17:49:27 JR: Almost there 17:49:41 JR, JS: To meet later this afternoon to do some more vetting 17:49:53 JS: Next steps: Republish CR 17:49:59 JS: There is a comments period 17:50:19 JS: We spend that time writing the implement report 17:50:42 JS: We must publish by May 18, before charter expires 17:50:58 JS: I'll need to get announcements written 17:52:08 JT: So after publishing are we ok? Any roadblocks? 17:52:18 JS: I sincerely think so. 17:52:45 JT: Any concerns before we close the meeting? 17:52:47 AL: No 17:54:22 JR: I'm on vacation next Mon 17:54:26 JS: Me too 17:54:32 -Alex 17:54:39 -Jutta 17:54:41 JT: Then the next Mon is Victoria Day 17:54:49 -Jeanne 17:54:56 JT: So we will announce things on the list 17:55:08 JS: I will send text for the publishing vote email 17:55:16 -Jan 17:55:17 WAI_AUWG()1:00PM has ended 17:55:17 Attendees were Jeanne, Jan, +1.206.778.aaaa, Alex, Jutta 17:55:33 RRSAgent, make minutes 17:55:33 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/04-au-minutes.html Jan 17:57:05 RRSAgent, set logs public 17:57:11 Zakim, bye 17:57:11 Zakim has left #au 17:57:18 RRSAgent, bye 17:57:18 I see no action items