- From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:45:04 -0500
- To: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Apologies for the raw nature of the minutes. We did not have the "bot" that creates minutes from the IRC log running, so we did not get the usual minutes. Minutes (reconstructed): http://www.w3.org/2010/01/25-au-minutes IRC log (reconstructed): http://www.w3.org/2010/01/25-au-irc ___________________________ Minutes (from the locally saved log with timestamp and scribe nick removed): update editors draft at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009OctDec/0064.html Agenda: ======= <Greg> 1- Outstanding reviews: - Comments on this working draft are due on or before 30 November 2009. Comments on the draft should be sent to public-atag2-comments@w3.org - Waiting for Microsoft (Reed?), Adobe, CNIB, - Jeanne wants to develop a "Push" list for heading into Last Call 2- Working through comments (a) Complete SURVEY: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20100122/ (b)http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009OctDec/0058.html + Still to go: B.2.2.8- needs discussion B.2.3.1 B.2.4.1 B.2.4.2 Guideline B.2.5- needs discussion Guideline B.3.1 B.3.2 Guideline B.3.4 General: more whitespace... A.1.2 Implementing Guideline A.3.4 B.1.1 B.1.2.2 Appendix A (c) JR's 4 Action items related to Cynthia's comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0011.html (d) IBM comments continued: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009OctDec/0063.html 1- Outstanding reviews: - Comments on this working draft are due on or before 30 November 2009. Greg - Adobe in process Jutta - SCT, and CNIB almost done Jean - MSFT perhaps Jutta reminds all to add to the push list 2- Working through comments (a) Complete SURVEY: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20100122/ (b)http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009OctDec/0058.html Correction survey here http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20100122/ Question 1 tablesd until simplified wording is developed. While waiving the requirements for conformance, there are still opportunities to develop compliant software once one knows the context. Clearer wording is needed for the second half of the asterisk note - something around local jurisdictions can define their parameters and then measure the conformance by applying ATAG using the local context, when you have a user interface that is not a web interface Action: Jutta to draft alternative language for this <trackbot> Created ACTION-237 - Draft alternative language for this [on Jutta Treviranus - due 2010-02-01]. Item 2 Conformance claims are not required.- all accepted with one exception Jutta suggests modifying the first sentence without dwelling on the notion that claims are not required by eliminating the first sentence. If a conformance claim is made, etc., then in brackets "Authoring tools can conform to ATAG 2 without making a conformance claim..." Action Jeanne add the new proposed revised language to the survey <trackbot> Created ACTION-238 - Add the new proposed revised language to the survey [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2010-02-01]. Item 3 A.1.2 Accessibility Standards unanimously accepted *A.2.1.1* Define "accessible" as used in the context of this provision - rewording using the term "recognized alternative content". All agreed with one exception. Jutta "Is there a defintion of recognized alternative content?" Jean "We do." Jutta "Then we need to link to the definition" *A.2.2.2* The use of "and" at the end of each item - consensus is to agree with the WCAG convention *A.3.4.2* This should include role types such as ARIA roles. - 2 exceptions [2010-01-25 15:51:36] <Greg> Action Greg to research ARIA to see if it incorporates the level of granularity one of the respondents has asked for <trackbot> Created ACTION-239 - Research ARIA to see if it incorporates the level of granularity one of the respondents has asked for [on Greg Pisocky - due 2010-02-01]. Jutta - In general I think it is a good idea to examine ARIA Dates for face to face we apparently are settling on the second half of the second week Looking at a Thursday Friday schedule 2 items need further discussion Guideline B.2.5- needs discussion preauthored content specifically controls Jutta - We agree with the principle and it should be AA and answer what is meant by template, default, and under what conditions Group has agree to defer until the larger group reconvenes Action Jean to add the question concerning reverting back to 1 hour meetings. If people answer before Friday then the meeting can be scheduled accordingly * trackbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it. <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Jean Action Jeanne to add the question concerning reverting back to 1 hour meetings. If people answer before Friday then the meeting can be scheduled accordingly <trackbot> Created ACTION-240 - Add the question concerning reverting back to 1 hour meetings. If people answer before Friday then the meeting can be scheduled accordingly [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2010-02-01].
Received on Tuesday, 26 January 2010 15:45:27 UTC