W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > July to September 2010

Minutes of the AUWG F2F meeting of 17 September

From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:01:19 -0400
Message-ID: <4C93C90F.4080907@w3.org>
To: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Minutes:
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html

IRC Log:
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-irc

Action Items:
[NEW] ACTION: GP to write a proposal on who can be a claimant with 
Jeanne Spellman [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to write a proposal on path, speed and pressure 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to write proposal for conformance with Tim Boland 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to write proposal on Programmatically determined 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to write proposal Preserve Accessibility Information 
for B.1.2.4(a) in responseto WCAGWG25 [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: JS to write a proposal on how to test whether a template 
is accessible. [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: SN to write proposal on A.1.2.1 non-web based accessible 
(comment IBM15). [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action05]


Text of Minutes
    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

  Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

17 Sep 2010

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Andrew, Greg, Sueann, Jutta, Jeanne, Jan, Alex_Li_(guest)

    Regrets
    Chair
           Jutta

    Scribe
           jeanne

Contents

      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Conformance and Compatible Conformance
          2. [5]MS12: Edit by Structure
          3. [6]MS17: Third-party user agents
          4. [7]MS21: End product cannot preserve accessibility
             information.
          5. [8]MS23 comment on B.2.1.1 Decision Support.
          6. [9]MS24 B.2.1.2 Set Accessible Properties
          7. [10]MS3 - Conformance condition published on the web. WCAG
             doesn't require it.
          8. [11]MS6 Purpose of Added Information.
          9. [12]MS8 Keyboard Interface
         10. [13]MS10 language difference from WVAG
         11. [14]MS11 Static View Option
         12. [15]MS13: A.3.4.1 Navigate by structure
         13. [16]MS12 - A.3.4 Navigate by Structure.
         14. [17]MS18 A.4.1.1 Undo content
         15. [18]MS22 "prior to publishing"
         16. [19]MS26 B.2.1.3 Other Technologies
         17. [20]MS31 - B.2.2.3 - Author Judgement
         18. [21]MS35 Relevant sources
         19. [22]MS36 Used Properly
         20. [23]MS39 Short cut keys
         21. [24]MS41 A.3.5.1 text search
         22. [25]MS42 A.3.6.1 inconsistencyu of level from 3.1.4
         23. [26]MS45 A.4.2.2 Document all features
         24. [27]MS47 B.1.2 Copy and Paste to another format
         25. [28]MS49 Metadata
         26. [29]MS51, 53, 54 B.2.5.4 Templates
         27. [30]MS57 B.3.2.4 "Compariable" is not testable
         28. [31]GL1 Programmatically Determined
      * [32]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    <trackbot> Date: 17 September 2010

    zakim this will be WAI_AUWG

    can you skype to the 617 number?

    +44.203.318.0479 (new) is the new UK number. Sorry, zakim needs to
    be updated

    zakim ??P14 is ARonksley

    zakim who is here?

    <Jan> Conformance idea:
    [33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JulSep/0089.h
    tml

      [33] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JulSep/0089.html

    <Jan> Tim's comment:
    [34]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JulSep/0090.h
    tml

      [34] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JulSep/0090.html

Conformance and Compatible Conformance

    JT: There us a circle of Tool Compliance for part A and B. There is
    Partial Compliance which is Part A or Part B

    There is compatible Component which is Part A and Part B and
    optionally B4.

    Jeanne: I want to insure that the conformance labels are clear so
    that buyers and purchasing agents can easily tell whether they are
    getting a system that is fully ATAG conformant, or getting a system
    with partial or component ATAG conformance.

    the group takes a look a the examples of Authoring Tools, so see if
    they conform to this new conformance proposal.

    HTML Editors = ATAG component

    Direct editor = ATAG Component

    Converting to Web = ATAG Component

    Integrated Devleopment environment could be either a Component or a
    System if they chose to add the web libraries and accessibility
    checkers.

    [some discussion about the definition of authoring tool and whether
    evaluation tools are Authoring Tools. ]

    SN: I don't think eval tools are authoring tools because they don't
    create content, the same way that debuggers are not authoring tools.

    JR: [gives an example of an authoring tool component like
    spellcheckers that provide a feature but don't actually write
    content]

    Blogs, wikis =ATAG Components

    CMS, LMS = Atag Component or Full ATAG System

    Email client that create html emails - may be a component, but there
    is discussion that it is publishing so it really is a system.

    SN: Compatible component needs more definition

    JR: Example of a tool creating a format, for which a checker doesn't
    exist.

    SN: So we always have to go back to the criteria always
    ... People already have to meet 508 and criteria of WCAG and the
    levels. ATAG added to this is adding complexity. I think there will
    be problems of uptake.

    GP: At least of you catagorize yourself as a system or a component,
    at least people know what they are looking at.

    JT: If what we are trying to do is get web content then we have to
    look @@ missed @@

    SN: I am a system, but I don't meet all the requirements, so then
    that makes me a component?
    ... no, you are still a system.
    ... there is a difference because I am still a system but I fail
    some criteria

    So how do we determine what is a system?

    JS: Is Wordpress a component or a system?

    JR: We leave it flexible so Wordpress can decide if they are a
    system or component.

    SN: So as soon as someone knows that they won't make it, they stop
    trying.
    ... I am very concerned about communicating it, because I'm not sure
    it is communicatable.
    ... this breaks the normal conformance model that people are used
    to. If you want people to follow this, we need to be able to
    communicate it.

    JR: if the system allows the introduction of accessibility problems,
    then it doesn't need checking.

    SN: It is whether or not they met the criteria making a claim of
    what it met and didn't meet.
    ... I think creating other classifications is going to make it
    difficult to get back accurate information.

    JS: So is a blog a system? They would say they are a system - and
    they can use an external for check and repair. And that would make
    them not a system?

    SN: "You have to have checking, but if you don't, that's ok". Do we
    want to do that?
    ... what is ATAG, if we don't demand checking.

    GP: Let Wordpress and Deque bundle and offer a compliant package.

    Alex Li, Microsoft, has joined the call. Alex discloses that he has
    not been able to complete the IP rights declaration.

    Jeanne confirms with Judy Brewer that because Microsoft has
    previously signed a patent disclosure agreement, that Alex Li can
    attend as a guest.

    JR: MS39: Variations from WCAG on the excemption for a path of the
    user movements. ATAG also offers an exemption for pressure, force,
    angle.

    AL: Use "path" as the common denominator. Force, angle and speed are
    all path dependent.

MS12: Edit by Structure

    AL: If you have just a basic web form, if the form results in a
    generation of web based output, then it becomes the authoring tool.
    Then this is not in the control of the author, it is controlled by a
    back-end system.

    JR: We are aware of the problem and are working on it.

MS17: Third-party user agents

    JR: We are not requiring UAAG conformance, because an author is not
    served by an unrealistic world view.

    AL: Then how will it fail?

    JR: If someone creates their own HTML parser.
    ... Ideas include: existing user agents, publically available

    AL: commercially available.

MS21: End product cannot preserve accessibility information.

    AL: If it is a Microsoft propriatary format, we would be ok. If it
    was not a microsoft format, then we do have a legal issue of
    liability of MS making a statement saying "information will be
    lost".

    I do not want to cause difficulties with partners. I talked with
    legal, and they said it was not ok. It would cause us too much
    trouble.

    JR: I have seen that warning with Excel saving as csv.

    AL: It is very different saying that accessibility is lost, because
    of the legal requirements around accessibility.
    ... If we say in a very generic way "information may be lost" that
    is ok, but if there is any mention of accessibility information
    being lost, that is no-go from a legal viewpoint.

MS23 comment on B.2.1.1 Decision Support.

    JR: PDF has accessibility support, but a tool may have a Save As
    option to create a flat, unstructured PDF.

    AL: I will talk to legal and see if they will accept the nuance of
    it.
    ... I see a subtle difference between this and the previous item. I
    will talk to the legal team.

MS24 B.2.1.2 Set Accessible Properties

    AL: If there are multiple interfaces to control various properties,
    like the menu, the ribbon, a right-click menu. If I have different
    mechanisms, would i have to set accessibility property in every
    mechanism?

    JS: example of image, that whereever the height, width and border
    are set, and the alt is set.

    JT: We want an integrated approach to including the accessibility
    properties, if the UI is distributed, then the bounds on where the
    accessibility mechanisms are located is also distributed.

    <gpisocky> Discussion of MS23 brings to mind another concern
    regarding the impact on proponents of targetted formats

    GP: that a vendor could give warnings to give advantage to one
    format over another.

    AL: Where we have anti-trust issue, that would be a problem.

MS3 - Conformance condition published on the web. WCAG doesn't require
it.

    JR: Because we are not closely prescriptive, we want people to know
    the background of what the developer is claiming.

    AL: But WCAG doesn't require it.

    JT: But it is important to be public.

    AL: I see the inconsistency with WCAG.

    JT: Then I think our next step would be to go to WCAG and ask them
    to make it a change.

    AL: If WCAG made a normative errata publication, I would not object
    to it. In fact, the only WCAG compliance statements are on the web,
    so it is how it works in reality.

MS6 Purpose of Added Information.

    JT: We agreed to say that we will write a definition of Added
    Information

MS8 Keyboard Interface

    JT: The definitions were taken from WCAG.

    AL: I will look at WCAG.

MS10 language difference from WVAG

    JR: ATAG goes beyond what WCAG was addressing.

    Section (a) is the chrome of the widget, section (b) is the embedded
    widget that grabs control of focus.

    JR: There is a complex relationship between the editing view and the
    user interface.

    JT: There are behaviors and properties of the editing tool that are
    unique to the authoring tool perspective.

    AL: So how would you exit out of (b) to (a)?

    JR: There could be a keystroke that the authoring tool reserves for
    itself that could be used for returning control to the auhtoing tool
    user interface.

MS11 Static View Option

    JT: It is visual only, and would only apply to content. It mostly
    means requiring a stop button.

    AL: There is a big difference between a @@ and a stop button.

    JT: we will reword it.

MS13: A.3.4.1 Navigate by structure

    JT: If there is structure, then we want to use it for navigation.

    AL: The structure may not be there for the author, but may be
    applied by the tool.

    JR: Structured at the time of editing, not the way it will be
    structured in the end product.

MS12 - A.3.4 Navigate by Structure.

    AL: Does that apply to the comment MS12 - all structures.

    JR: We don't want to specify

    AL: There is so much web structure, not all of them apply to
    navigation.

MS18 A.4.1.1 Undo content

    JT: We agreed that one is sufficient, but are considering an
    additional SC to require more.
    ... [reads MS 18, 19, 21, 22] these are all items we agreed with the
    MS comments, so there is no discussion.

MS22 "prior to publishing"

    AL: doesn't address real time publishing.
    ... I'm also considering all real-time information - stock
    information, banking application, supply chain, etc.

    JT: but banking, that will only affect myself.

    AL: But the bank officer will also see it. It can go all the way to
    regulartory authorities and other banking systems.

    JR: because the input is so contrained that this may or may not
    introduce an accessibility problem.

    AL: But we don't know where the accessibility problems can arise.
    Where is the value chain end in authoring? Does it go to the
    database and how the database is related to other systems? At what
    point does it become an authoring tool.
    ... that is something we need to address in the definition of
    authoring tool.

    TB: Whenever you create content, you don't know where it will end
    up.

MS26 B.2.1.3 Other Technologies

    JT: We have agreed to work on the condition. The read-only issue is
    not relevant, because of the wrapper.

    AL: the word document with a graphic is created with read-only. the
    author cannot make the graphic accessible.

    JR: That is covered in another applicability note about author
    permission

MS31 - B.2.2.3 - Author Judgement

    AL: I think it is all based on WCAG. You need to say the following
    normative list requires judgement.

    JR: But it will vary by the tool.

    AL: A contrast checker will only check contrast.

    JR: does the image need long description? The tool will ask a prompt
    for a decision, or the tool may look at a 1x1 white image and decide
    not to prompt.

    AL: the authoring tool developer is deciding when to ask for author
    decision.

    JR: The UI needs to provide some support to help the author in
    making the decision.

    AL: the developers are asking for a finite list.

    JR: ANytime the author is asked for a decision, we need to provide
    some support in helping the author make that decision.

    AL: ok

    MS32 B.2.2.4 Help Authors Locate

    JT: It is help in determining the bounds of where the problem may be
    located.

    AL: It implies too much intelligence on the part of the tool.
    ... people will ask "do you meet 2.2.4, you don't show the location
    of this kind of error"

    JR: Agreed, we need to tighten up our language.

MS35 Relevant sources

    JR: Relevant sources is just the handle.

    AL: it is a "slushy" term.

MS36 Used Properly

    AL: If the notes are normative, they have to be testable.

MS39 Short cut keys

    AL: Imagine using a web form to do an authoring? Do you need
    short-cut key?

    JT: One of the weaknesses in WAI has been the support for users with
    mobility problems. We want to support authors with alternative
    interfaces.

    AL: for web-form, it is too much. Web apps need shortcuts, but a
    simple form does not.

    JR: Make it complexity based

MS41 A.3.5.1 text search

    JR: It could claim the find feature of the web browser in the
    conformance claim.
    ... the user agent platform has to be identified since they have
    different capabilities.

MS42 A.3.6.1 inconsistencyu of level from 3.1.4

    JT: A.3.6.1. applies to more than just keystrokes. We have changed
    the wording of this to "perference settings"
    ... it is hard enough to set the preferences to access the tool, so
    we want to save the preferences that the user does not have to set
    it again.
    ... we took out the "control and display" settings and replace it
    with "preference settings".

    AL: I don't dispute the validity of the success criteria, I just
    spotted the inconsistency. I will need to think about whether it
    impacts the inconsistency.

    MS 44, agreed, agreed

MS45 A.4.2.2 Document all features

    JT: We mean features that users can use. We don't mean that hidden
    features need to be documented.

    AL: SOme of the tools have so many features, we don't know if we
    ever could document all features.

    JT: "All features available to the author".

    AL: If the tool is big enough, something will always be
    undocumented.

    JR: we see the issue and it is not the spirit we disagree on, just
    the details.

MS47 B.1.2 Copy and Paste to another format

    AL: Nobody does this.

    JR: MS48 - provide a real life option with (c). We have not found
    any examples of this.

MS49 Metadata

    JT: There is advocacy to make it double AA because there are other
    systems that want to use this metadata.

    This seems more of a future development than current. We agree
    theoretically, but it is not today.

    JT: It is common practice in Dublin Core in education environments.
    It is current.

    AL: I will have to think about it more. Having the check is fine,
    but associating it as meta data, I don't think it is not as
    practical.

    JT: We can send you examples, and speak with Bob Sinclair. It would
    be good to have a conversation within Microsoft about it. AL: NPII
    is not close to implementation.
    ... But this is a precursor to implementation.
    ... ATAG is not just to codify what already exists, it is also to
    move the agenda of accessibility further.

    AL: I see your point.

MS51, 53, 54 B.2.5.4 Templates

    JT: We simply want a label of accessibility, not a ranking.

    AL: Most of these people don't know what they are doing with
    accessible templates. They will check the box, and they will create
    a lot of misinformation. it will be wrong most of the time.

    SN: We would have to create a list of criteria that a template must
    meet to be accessible.

    JS: WCAG criteria?

    AL: People won't check WCAG

MS57 B.3.2.4 "Compariable" is not testable

    JR: The spirit we are trying to get to is comparable prominence. The
    example of a spellchecker with underlined words is much more
    prominent than a checker that needs to be run from a 3rd level menu.

GL1 Programmatically Determined

    <Zakim> Adobe_room has Greg, Sueann, Jutta, Jeanne, Jan

    <scribe> chair: Jutta

    SN: iAccessible2 and DOMs are an important part of the platform
    accessibility architecture.

    Adding Iaccessible2 to the definition of Platform Architecture
    should be sufficient.

    <scribe> ACTION: JR to write proposal for conformance with Tim
    Boland [recorded in
    [35]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-295 - Write proposal for conformance with
    Tim Boland [on Jan Richards - due 2010-09-24].

    <scribe> ACTION: GP to write a proposal on who can be a claimant
    with Jeanne Spellman [recorded in
    [36]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-296 - Write a proposal on who can be a
    claimant with Jeanne Spellman [on Greg Pisocky - due 2010-09-24].

    <scribe> ACTION: JR to write proposal on Programmatically determined
    [recorded in
    [37]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-297 - Write proposal on Programmatically
    determined [on Jan Richards - due 2010-09-24].

    <scribe> ACTION: JR to write a proposal on path, speed and pressure
    [recorded in
    [38]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-298 - Write a proposal on path, speed and
    pressure [on Jan Richards - due 2010-09-24].

    <scribe> ACTION: SN to write proposal on A.1.2.1 non-web based
    accessible (comment IBM15). [recorded in
    [39]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action05]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-299 - Write proposal on A.1.2.1 non-web
    based accessible (comment IBM15). [on Sueann Nichols - due
    2010-09-24].

    <scribe> ACTION: JS to write a proposal on how to test whether a
    template is accessible. [recorded in
    [40]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action06]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-300 - Write a proposal on how to test
    whether a template is accessible. [on Jeanne Spellman - due
    2010-09-24].

    <scribe> ACTION: JR to write proposal Preserve Accessibility
    Information for B.1.2.4(a) in responseto WCAGWG25 [recorded in
    [41]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action07]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-301 - Write proposal Preserve
    Accessibility Information for B.1.2.4(a) in responseto WCAGWG25 [on
    Jan Richards - due 2010-09-24].

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: GP to write a proposal on who can be a claimant with
    Jeanne Spellman [recorded in
    [42]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: JR to write a proposal on path, speed and pressure
    [recorded in
    [43]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: JR to write proposal for conformance with Tim Boland
    [recorded in
    [44]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: JR to write proposal on Programmatically determined
    [recorded in
    [45]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: JR to write proposal Preserve Accessibility
    Information for B.1.2.4(a) in responseto WCAGWG25 [recorded in
    [46]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action07]
    [NEW] ACTION: JS to write a proposal on how to test whether a
    template is accessible. [recorded in
    [47]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action06]
    [NEW] ACTION: SN to write proposal on A.1.2.1 non-web based
    accessible (comment IBM15). [recorded in
    [48]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action05]

    [End of minutes]
      _________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [49]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([50]CVS log)
     $Date: 2010/09/17 19:55:30 $
      _________________________________________________________

      [49] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [50] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

    [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20
Check for newer version at [51]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002
/scribe/

      [51] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Partial Compliance which is Part A and Part B/Partial Comp
liance which is Part A or Part B/
Succeeded: s/gues./guest./
Succeeded: s/NPII is not close to implementation. /AL: NPII is not clos
e to implementation./

WARNING: Possible internal error: join/leave lines remaining:
         <jeanne> Alex Li, Microsoft, has joined the call.  Alex disclos
es that he has not been able to complete the IP rights declaration.


No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: jeanne
Inferring Scribes: jeanne
Present: Andrew Greg Sueann Jutta Jeanne Jan Alex_Li_(guest)
Found Date: 17 Sep 2010
Guessing minutes URL: [52]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html
People with action items: gp jr js sn

      [52] http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html

WARNING: Possible internal error: join/leave lines remaining:
         <scribe> Alex Li, Microsoft, has joined the call.  Alex disclos
es that he has not been able to complete the IP rights declaration.



WARNING: Possible internal error: join/leave lines remaining:
         <scribe> Alex Li, Microsoft, has joined the call.  Alex disclos
es that he has not been able to complete the IP rights declaration.



    End of [53]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

      [53] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
Received on Friday, 17 September 2010 20:01:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 17 September 2010 20:01:33 GMT