W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2009

Minutes of the AUWG teleconference of 22 June

From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:29:21 -0400
Message-ID: <4A3FF7B1.8060604@w3.org>
To: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>

IRC Logs:

Text of Minutes:

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                                 WAI AU

22 Jun 2009



    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/22-au-irc


           AnnM, Jeanne, Jan, AndrewR, Greg_Pisocky, +1.949.542.aaaa,
           SueannN, Tim_Boland

           Jutta, Treviranus

           Jan Richards



      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Top to bottom review
      * [6]Summary of Action Items

    <AnnM> sure thing.





    <scribe> Scribe: Jan

Top to bottom review

    The Introduction includes both normative and informative sections,
    as noted. This section is informative.

    <scribe> ACTION: TB to Will look into whether it is ok to mix
    informative and normative in Introduction section [recorded in

    <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - TB

    All: Approve "addressed by"
    ... Approve remove ", with the assumption that many authors will not
    be familiar with the specific needs of end users with disabilities"
    ... Approve "Examples of authoring tools:" handle
    ... Approve remove ""conventional" "
    ... Approve remove "Any ATAG 2.0 guideline that require authors to
    modify web content in some way, always assumes that the person has
    author permission"
    ... Approve add "Web-based and non-web-based: ATAG 2.0 applies
    equally to authoring tools of web content that are web-based,
    non-web-based or a combination (e.g., a non-web-based markup editor
    with a web-based help system, a web-based content management system
    with a non-web-based file uploader client)."

    All" Approve "debugging tools for web content "

    JR: Just give thought to: "Real-time publishing: ATAG 2.0 applies to
    authoring tools with workflows that involve real-time publishing of
    web content (e.g., some collaborative tools). For these authoring
    tools, conformance to Part B of ATAG 2.0 may involve some
    combination of real-time accessibility supports and additional
    accessibility supports available after the real-time authoring
    ... (e.g., the ability to add captions for audio that was initially
    published in real-time). For more information, see the Techniques -
    Appendix E: Real-time content production."

    All: Approve "Text Editors: ATAG 2.0 is not intended to apply to
    simple text editors that can be used to edit source content, but
    that include no support for the production of any particular web
    content technology. In contrast, ATAG 2.0 can apply to more
    sophisticated source content editors that support the production of
    specific web content technologies (e.g., with syntax checking,
    ... prediction, etc.). "
    ... Remove: "sufficient techniques and advisory"
    ... Approve: Add "As of publishing, WCAG 2.0 is the most recent W3C
    Recommendation for web content accessibility. ATAG 2.0, therefore,
    makes reference to WCAG 2.0 in order to set the success criteria for
    judging the accessibility of web-based authoring tool user
    interfaces (in Part A) and for judging the accessibility of web
    content produced by authoring tools"
    ... Approve "Scope of Authoring Tool User Interface"
    ... Approve "This includes views of the web content being edited,
    and features that are independent of the web content being edited,
    such as menus, button bars, status bars, user preferences,
    documentation, etc."
    ... Approve "Reflected Content Accessibility Problems: The authoring
    tool is responsible for ensuring that the web content being edited
    is accessible to authors with disabilities (e.g., ensuring that an
    image label in the web content can be programmatically determined).
    However, where an authoring tool user interface accessibility
    problem is caused directly by a web content accessibility...
    ... problem in the web content being edited (e.g., if an image in
    the content lacks a label), then this would not be considered a
    deficiency in the accessibility of the authoring tool user
    ... approve: Previews: Preview features are exempt from having to
    meet the other requirements in Part A, if they meet Guideline A.3.7.
    Previews are treated differently than editing views because authors,
    including those with disabilities, will not be well-served if
    preview features diverge too much from the actual functionality of
    user agents.
    ... Remove "along with their user agents"
    ... Change to "Rationale: Some authors need access to the editing
    view presentation because this may be used to convey both status
    information added by the authoring tool (e.g., underlining
    misspelled words) and, within content renderings, information about
    the end user experience of the web content being edited."
    ... Approve: "A.2.2.2 Access to Text Presentation (Minimum): If an
    editing view (e.g., WYSIWYG view) renders any of the following
    presentation properties for text, then the properties can be
    programmatically determined:"
    ... Chnage to: Rationale: Some authors need to set their own display
    settings in a way that differs from the presentation that they want
    to define for the published web content.
    ... Approve change to: A.2.3.1 Independence of Display: The
    author(s) have the global option to specify display settings for
    editing views that take precedence over web content renderings
    without affecting the web content to be published. (Level A)
    ... Approve: Rationale: Some authors with limited mobility or visual
    disabilities are not able to use a mouse, and instead require full
    keyboard access.
    ... Approve: A.3.1.4 Customize Keyboard Access: The author(s) can
    customize keyboard access to the authoring tool. (Level AAA)
    ... Approve "The search can be" wording

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: TB to Will look into whether it is ok to mix
    informative and normative in Introduction section [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Monday, 22 June 2009 21:29:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:57 UTC