<Brent> Chair: Brent

<Estella> Sorry can you hear me? I can also help with the transcript

<shawn> cribe:JennC

<shawn> scribe:JennC

<Estella> I will restart the WebEx sorry

Hello, ready

<HelenBurge> I can't get audio to work - is there something I'm missing?

<HelenBurge> I tried that - and the audio option is "Connecting..."

<HelenBurge> lol - done that too - will do it all again - brb (as calling fails too)

Brent: I have not had a chance to read through all emails so Daniel if there's something missing, let me know.

<HelenBurge> well ringing my mobile - doesn't even hear a ring and my landline won't accept automated calls - so will try iOS app

Brent: forgive us for switching up the agenda. Start with work for this week and planning for August.
... What to expect. Then look at authoring tool list requirements and read through - see if any feedback. Thirdly, there's a media resource issue that Shawn will discuss. Then the W3C currcula. Daniel will walk us through that. Then: optional wordsmithing discussion at the end of the meeting - people can stay and give feedback or drop off.

Work for this week and planning for August

Brent: We updated the work for this week -the Authoring tools list and ask people to review the requirements analysis. Hidde is working on prototypes for the tools list and looking for feedback. Anything to add or subtract?
... Curricula - Unit 5 survey. If missed, look now and make comments in GitHub

<HelenBurge> It called my landline after removing BT blocking

Brent: Please look through Resource 1 for the curricula and answer the survey. Please complete by Tues, August 13
... Making Audio and Video Media Accessible - ready for review. There are links to current open issues and added info. You can look at the history of what's been changed

<shawn> Planning work in August:

<shawn> * Media resource open issues, thorough review, and publication

<shawn> * Curricula schedule

<shawn> * Authoring Tool mock-ups for review

<shawn> * Video scripts for review

Brent: back on the Agenda: The Curricula schedule - the link will bring you to the Curricula page that brings you to a list of what's coming. with dates and discussion times and for the next surveys coming in August. Daniel is doing well to keep us on track.
... Then Authoring Tools mock-ups. Today we'll talk about the requirements, but Hidde will provide mock-ups in the next week or two
... Next - Video scripts for review from Shadi. Shawn - expects the scripts anytime. Shadi will try to get them done before his month vacation.

Authoring Tools list requirements

<Brent> Requirements Repository: https://github.com/w3c/wai-authoring-tools/wiki/Requirements-Analysis:-Authoring-Tools-List

Brent: links you to a wiki page for the requirements in a list. Hidde, could you talk about the two parts of the project and talk about any specific areas in the requirements. Explain the background.

Hidde: I will give my own view of the project first. The AT list project is a webpage that will mention a list of authoring tools (CMSs, create content) to make accessible websites. Part 1 is a page that explains how to select an AT - what a good authoring tool looks like. Part 2 is a list of tools where you can look and compare against the list. ie. does it work with keyboard. I've added use cases.
... You can put each of these requirements into a criteria to compare them. Or, we could come up with completely new criteria. Something that may not be in ATAG.
... I'd like your comments or questions.

Brent: Wondering if it would be worthwhile - given Shawn and Eric worked in the past with requirements. Any terminology or additions - you might answer questions. Is it too much to go through each section?

Shawn: We don't need to nitpick it but could go by <h1> at least - let's look at the sections one by one.

Brent: Approach is two deliverables - the Approach and the Terminology

<dmontalvo> +1 to not usint AT in this context

Shawn: We need to think of a name - rather than type out Authoring Tools. "AT" is a shortform for assistive technology. Minor thing but internally let's come up with a name

<HelenBurge> Creative Tools = CT?

Daniel: We are in the requirements analysis phase. are we talking about users? They might be users of an authoring tool, like Facebook, but may not recognise it as an authoring tool if they come from another link. Example is GitHub - if you're not familiar with behind the scenes, you may not know

ShawN: those people are not the users for this resource

Daniel: I agree

<shawn> "Users: people who want to use authoring tools" -> "Authors/Purchasers/???: people who want to pick an authoring tool" ???

Brent: feel free to jump in any time

<yatil> [ CMS & Publishing Tools List ]

Hidde: People have differentideas about what an authoring tool is

Shawn: yes. we may need to call it two different things. We want people to find it when they're looking for it, and also this is something we need to address

<shawn> [ from comments: Content Creation Tools ]

<shawn> scribe: Estella

Brent: the prototypes will be out in a week or two

<JennC> going To ReStart MY computer

Brent: Purpose section requirements analyses
... Under Page is everything defined?

Under page in the first bullet we can provide a definition of "What tutoring tools are"

Hidde: This will help people understand what they are

Helen: The process of authoring tools and features. How are we going to explain that? The features that allow users to make content accessible?

Hidde: This is a good thing to add as well. Is not an accessible criteria but is worth to add.

Helen: Can I volunteer to help?

Hidde: Absolutely

<dmontalvo> +1 to Editing Tool

Helen: Regarding the abbreviation that Shawn notes "AT" an issue. maybe "ET" for Editing Tool

Brent: Other comments on purpose?

Helen: Correction is not "AT" Autoring Tool but "ET" Editing Tool

No comments in Target Audiences

Brent: No comments in Target Audiences any comments in Use Cases?

<Brent> Estella: Will we be sure that the target audience matches the people/individuals from the use cases so that they match?

<Brent> Hidde: Yes, we can look more closely at those to be sure they match

Brent: No more comments on use cases let's jump to intended benefits
... To the Page you may add what is means to call what an accessible authoring tool is?
... This is a benefit

<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/atag/

Shawn: To consider the relation with the ATAG overview. What we do not want is to repeat information
... We can edit that page. We want to keep in mind the relationship of both pages

Brent: I completely agree. We do not want to repeat, so we can quote/link the page

Shawn: Good idea

Brent: Benefits are very straightforward next in the list are the features
... Any additional ideas?

Daniel: Each tool listing has clear shortcut to report it (also reinforces that content is user submitted) I don't understand the meaning

Are we talking about all W3C mechanisms

Hidde: Is a good comment
... Maybe we can change "report" with "comments on it" so people can agree or disagreee as it is open to discussion

Daniel: If I understand it right it approaches the users of the page

Hidde: Yes we invite users to comment on it

Brent: I have a question on it. In the past we had an area for people to provide comments on a tool. We are saying on this resource we will start doing that and if we do it here we will do it also to the list.
... A question to the all group are we deciding to star working on that?

Hidde: I can not recall it. For the evaluation tool list this might be something.

<HelenBurge> +q

Shawn: Three years ago we talk about it with the Components List

Brent: Is this going to be a check box or an open comment. Because if it is an open comment then we have to review them

Helen: If we are opening to comments on an authoring tool it can be a messy ground.
... Also you need to make sure that the authoring tool is accessible
... You have to be careful about that

I agree with Helen point

Brent: How others feel about? Should we open comments or not?

Helen: I not about opening or not is about being aware of opening it and we have to be neutral and make sure that it is accessible

<rjolly> My thoughts, avoid public/published comments. But maybe allow folks to submit GitHub issues if they have comments about specific content about an authoring/editing tool's claims...?

Howard: You should opening out to comments. You can provide an option to people to respond to a comment.

Brent: Robert do you want to explain?

Robert: If we do not have public comments in our resources, if we have an issue with any authoring tool then they can open a Github issue and see if it is appropriate or not

Hidde: Doing Github issues is a very good way to approach comments

<dmontalvo> +1 to handle issues through GitHub

<shawn> +1 that we cannot require people to use GitHub

Estella: How should make the comments on Github

<Brent> Estella: About the comments on the Authoring Tools, Do you expect the comments to come from developers or other users. They may or may not be familiar with GitHub to make the comments.

Hidde: Accessibility experts or users working on an institution
... If they can not do it on Github then they need an account to our application

Brent: Eric you can type a question in IRC
... Any other comments and questions on features

Shawn: Eric does has a background on how to approach this. He was leading the discussion on the components.

<HelenBurge> +q

Eric: We talk about the components. We have this two things that we need to thing about the comments. Review make changes on the list. This is a lot staff to do and we do need to thing about how to approach it.
... It is a challenge for sure.

Brent: Hidde maybe you can have a short discussion with Eric
... Having resources is a matter of having somebody watching comments and see how is going to be implemented

Shawn: Before we discussed again let's get a good conclusion.

<yatil> [ Eric has talked with Hidde about it. Just giving the greater group more perspective :-D ]

Helen: Vetting questions, will that be more on accessibility features added automatically and how they are going to be added?

Hidde: This is features by default. It is really hard to answer with a yes or not

Helen: My questions would be is there any in forced criteria?

Hidde: Is a really good questions and make sense.

Helen: AI is a growing area and should be part of the criteria

Howard: I see the questions of scope these are very specific examples. AI is out of scope in most authoring tools.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask about scope

Shawn: I think we should add feel free to add these kinds of questions (outside ATAG) as vetting questions
... We all know broader authoring tools (social media are authoring tools) I think that we should keep that in mind in order to clarify what is in the scope of this list and what is not

Eric: I think that this is a good point about the scope. But we should not be too narrow. This can be a delicate point.

Brent: We need to do a little bit of work on defining the scope and which tools will be considered
... Any other comments about questions on risk?

<yatil> [ Eric: Self-hosted and hosted tools to publish content to individual websites (not social media) ]

<shawn> wai-eo-editors@w3.org

Brent: For comments you can go to issues tag and comment eo editors list or put it in as an issue

Hidde: Thanks for the feedback

CURRICULA

Brent: I turned over to Daniel

Daniel: Thanks for the inputs and comments in the survey

<shawn> https://github.com/w3c/wai-curricula/issues/26 on title of "Applying and Managing accessibility"

Daniel: Let`s go to the title
... Now we have "applying and managing accessibility"

Vicky suggested "Implementing Accessibility"

<shawn> The topics in the Unit are:

Planning and Managing Web Accessibility

Developing Policies and Statements

Roles and Responsibilities

Accessibility in an Existing Project

<shawn> I'm not sure that's "Implementing"? I think that will be in another Unit?

<Brent> Unit 5 Link: https://w3c.github.io/wai-curricula/curricula/1-5/

Shawn: We should provide this link in the unit 5. The topics were "Getting Started with Accessibility" which left some of the planning stages behind. Then we have "Applying and Managing accessibility", but it seems it overlaps with the first of the topics, called "Planning and Managing".
... And the result is implementing?
... Do you think that implementing still works well.

Brent: I agree with Shawn but then I read the learning outcomes and the last point is "implementing" and I see the point in changing the title

<yatil> [ Putting accessibility into effect ]

Brent: I am more for yes than for not.

Shawn: If you look at the topic it does not teach you how to implement it and how to get started.
... It does help you to prioritize things but not to implement it.

<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say maybe two different meanings of implementing

<HelenBurge> +q

Eric: Maybe we are talking about implementing it theoretically and not technically?

<yatil> [ Accessibility Fundamentals or Foundations ]

Helen: "Managing and Applying" might be about designing the process? How about "Designing"?

Brent: We have to go back and look at all 5 units and check the titles

<Brent> Estella: Agree with all the comments so far. Design rather than implementing is more practical.

Daniel: This unit helps implementing accessibility to companies. Target users are every single people it might be developers and managers. People managing the accessibility strategies.

Shawn: Daniel do you want to go for implementing?

Daniel: I am for implementing for all things that are in this unit. My understanding is that "planning, managing..." are more centered in different steps and policies. "Implementing" has the possibility to be applied to all these different points.

<Sylvie1> What about "accessibility policy" ? Or implementing accessibility policy ? Where policy would include, manageing, planing, having roles?

Shawn: I do not think that "Implementing" covers the issues described in the unit.

<yatil> [ Eric agrees with Shawn, Implementing sounds more concrete than this unit is. ]

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say brainstorm: Accessibility in Organizations... Organizational Accessibility....

Shawn: I am for something like "Accessibility in Organizations", "Organizational Accessibility"
... I think that we can spend the next minutes in this issue.

Brent: I agree with Shawn is that what we are doing in this unit is only scratching the surface and when you have a title with "Implementing Accessibility" I would expect much more from the unit.

<shawn> brainstorming .... Foundation for Accessibility

<shawn> brainstorming .... Setting the Stage for Accessibility

<dmontalvo> Laying Foundations for Accessibility

<rjolly> Fundamentals?

<dmontalvo> Starting Blocks for Accessibility

<Sylvie1> Putting the accessibility "components" together

<Sylvie1> NOt sure if we want to use the word components

<rjolly> Building Blocks of Accessibility?

<shawn> brainstorming .... Putting Accessibility in Place

<Sylvie1> +1 for putting accessibility in place

<shawn> brainstorming .... Setting the Stage for Accessibility in an Organization

<Brent> Estella: I agree with Shawn in the reasoning of not using Implementing. I also feel however that the title should be interesting to capture attention.

Shawn:

<dmontalvo> Setting the stage for Accessibility

<Brent> "Begining Web Accessibility"

<yatil> [ Accessibility Tentpoles ]

<yatil> [ Accessibility Tent Poles ]

<shawn> brainstorming .... Framework

Brent: I agree with framework because it encompasses everything
... "Scratching the surface of Web Accessibility"

<shawn> brainstorming .... Putting the Background in Place

Yes I agree title has to be in line with other titles

<yatil> [ Introduction to the Introduction to Webaccessibility]

Brent: We should discuss this issue further because it is a reasoning behind from Shawn about not using "implementing"
... We will stop there. Helen welcome and we will do introductions in next meeting
... Please remember that there is survey open. Watch for emails.

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/lewis: People have different /Hidde: People have different/
Succeeded: s/ME In PERFECT TIMInG MY COMPUTER IS DOING SOMETHING INCREDIBLY ANNOYING BY CAPITALIZING CHARacters RANDOMLY WITHOUT THE sHift KEy ON>//
Succeeded: s/ME ShAWN - trIED to FIx IT//
Succeeded: s/hAAHA>>> OH deAr//
Succeeded: s/erGG//
Succeeded: s/Regarding the abbreviation that Shawn proposed maybe "AT" for Authoring Tool/Regarding the abbreviation that Shawn notes "AT" an issue. maybe "ET" for Editing Tool/
Succeeded: s/about it./about it with the Components List/
Succeeded: s| /me :(| |
Succeeded: s/ this to ATAG/ feel free to add these kinds of questions (outside ATAG) as vetting questions/
Succeeded: s/How about some metaphor?//
Present: Shawn Brent Daniel Estella Helen Howard Jenn Lewis hdv EricE Robert Sylvie dmontalvo
Found Scribe: JennC
Inferring ScribeNick: JennC
Found Scribe: Estella
Inferring ScribeNick: Estella
Scribes: JennC, Estella
ScribeNicks: JennC, Estella
Found Date: 02 Aug 2019
People with action items: 

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


WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)