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

Minutes of AUWG special meeting of 12 November 2010

From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 12:02:05 -0500
Message-ID: <4CDD730D.6070503@w3.org>
To: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Minutes:
http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-minutes

IRC:
http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-irc

Summary of Action Items:

    [NEW] ACTION: Jan to take the examples discussed and add them to the
    implementing document for B.1.2.1 [recorded in
    [44]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: JR to Consider how
    [45]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0070.h
    tml might be made more consistent with new auto-generate wording
    [recorded in
    [46]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: Li to review the proposal for auto-generation from
    email:
    [47]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.h
    tml [recorded in
    [48]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-minutes.html#action03]

Text of Minutes:

    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                                 WAI AU

12 Nov 2010

    [2]Agenda

       [2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0072.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Alastair, AlexLi, AndrewR, Cherie, Greg, Jan, Jeanne, Jutta,
           Sueann, TimB

    Regrets
    Chair
           Jan Richards

    Scribe
           jeanne

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Def'n of Programmatically Determinable (GL1...)
          2. [6]B.1.2.1 Preserve Accessibility Information (WCAGWG15...)
          3. [7]A.1.2.1 Non-Web-Based Accessible (WCAGWG10...)
          4. [8]A.2.2.1 Purpose of Added Presentation (MS6...)
          5. [9]A.3.4.1 Edit by Structure A.3.4.2 Navigate By Structure
             (MS12...)
          6. [10]"...prior to publishing." (MS22, MS29)
          7. [11]B.2.1.3 Other Technologies (MS26)
          8. [12]B.2.5.1 Templates Accessible (MS36)
          9. [13]A.3.1.3 Keyboard Shortcuts (MS39)
         10. [14]Developer Responsibility:
         11. [15]ATAG2 Minor proposal on "Included" technologies wording
      * [16]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    Yes, please

    <Jan> Scribe: jeanne

    <Jan>
    [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0072.h
    tml

      [17] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0072.html

Def'n of Programmatically Determinable (GL1...)

    <Jan>
    [18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0060.h
    tml

      [18] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0060.html

    JR: This term is used in WCAG and section 508, so we are changing
    our term to match there. Programmatically Determinable

    <Jan> programmatically determined (programmatically determinable):

    <Jan> When information is encoded in a way that allows different
    software, including assistive technologies, to extract and present
    the information in different modalities. For non-web-based user
    interfaces, this can mean making use of platform accessibility
    services, general-purpose APIs, and in some cases a Document Object
    Model (DOM). For web-based user interfaces, this means following
    WCAG 2.0...

    <Jan> ...so that user agents can pass on the information.

    SN: In some cases the DOM has the context of being web-based

    <Jan> programmatically determined (programmatically determinable):
    When information is encoded in a way that allows different software,
    including assistive technologies, to extract and present the
    information in different modalities. For non-web-based user
    interfaces, this can mean making use of platform accessibility
    services, general-purpose APIs, and in some cases a document object
    model. For...

    <Jan> ...web-based user interfaces, this means following WCAG 2.0 so
    that user agents can pass on the information.

    JR: SO you suggest you remove DOM

    <Jan> Resolution: Alll accept the new wording: programmatically
    determined (programmatically determinable): When information is
    encoded in a way that allows different software, including assistive
    technologies, to extract and present the information in different
    modalities. For non-web-based user interfaces, this can mean making
    use of platform accessibility services, general-purpose APIs, and
    in...

    <Jan> ...some cases a Document Object Model (DOM). For web-based
    user interfaces, this means following WCAG 2.0 so that user agents
    can pass on the information.

B.1.2.1 Preserve Accessibility Information (WCAGWG15...)

    <Jan>
    [19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0062.h
    tml

      [19] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0062.html

    JR: There were potential legal issues to potentially disparaging a
    3rd party format

    <Jan> Text Alternatives Preserved: If the authoring tool provides
    transformations that preserve non-text content, then text
    alternatives for the non-text content are preserved if possible in
    the output technology. (Level A)

    <Jan> Text Alternatives Preserved: If the authoring tool provides
    transformations that preserve non-text content, then text
    alternatives for the non-text content are preserved if the output
    technology has equivalent mechanisms for encoding that accessibility
    information (WCAG). (Level A)

    GP: It shouldn't have to be equivalent, also provides a mechanism is
    enough.

    <Jan> Text Alternatives Preserved: If the authoring tool provides
    transformations that preserve non-text content and the output
    technology has mechanisms for encoding text alternatives for the
    non-text content, then text alternatives for the non-text content
    are preserved. (Level A)

    <Jan> No objections: "If the authoring tool provides transformations
    that preserve non-text content, and the output technology has
    equivalent mechanisms for encoding that accessibility information
    (WCAG), then text alternatives for the non-text content are
    preserved."

    AC: The new wording is good, but it is another area where you have
    to do a WCAG audit between two sites, we need to highlight the parts
    of WCAG That people should be looking at.

    JR: An included technology, is any one or technologies that the
    claimant choses to conform to ATAG. There may be many different
    formats, but the (For example) html to pdf is conforming, but html
    to svg may not be in the conformance claim.

    GP: @@ has the issue of transforming gif images. Would this only
    concern the gif, or would it also include the gif and the enclosing
    html with the alternative text?

    JR: It would not really be a transformation, it would include the
    enclosing html
    ... The problems were legal problems with "preserve" and "warn",
    because the warning had legal ramifications. There needed to be a
    third option that didn't involve a warning.
    ... we went back to basic need to alert the user that information
    was being lost, therefore we went to included.
    ... so if the developer doesn't want to warn, they can check, which
    would give the alert to the user that the alt is missing.

    <Jan> Resolution: All accept: "Optimizations Preserve Accessibility:
    If the authoring tool provides "optimizing" transformations then any
    *accessibility information (WCAG)* in the input is preserved in the
    output. (Level A) "

    <Jan> Resolution: All accept: "If the authoring tool provides
    transformations that preserve non-text content, and the output
    technology has equivalent mechanisms for encoding that accessibility
    information (WCAG), then text alternatives for the non-text content
    are preserved."

    <Jan> "Restructuring and Recoding Transformations (WCAG): If the
    authoring tool provides "restructuring" or "re-coding"
    transformations, then at least one of the following is true:

    <Jan> Note: This only applies to transformations in which the output
    technology is an *"included" technology* for conformance.

    <Jan> (a) Preserve: accessibility information (WCAG) is preserved in
    the output; or

    <Jan> (b) Warning: authors have the default option to be warned that
    accessibility information may be lost (e.g., when saving a vector
    graphic into a raster image format); or

    <Jan> (c) Checking Active: accessibility checking is active on the
    output; or

    <Jan> (d) Checking Suggested: authors have the default option to
    have accessibility checking suggested."

    <Jan> JS: Would like to choose a different e.g. maybe captions

    <Jan> (e.g., when converting from a video format that has text
    tracks to store captions to a video format with no text tracks)

    JR: I've seen software that can transform 50 or more formats, some
    will be accessible, some will not.

    <scribe> ACTION: Jan to take the examples discussed and add them to
    the implementing document for B.1.2.1 [recorded in
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-309 - Take the examples discussed and add
    them to the implementing document for B.1.2.1 [on Jan Richards - due
    2010-11-19].

A.1.2.1 Non-Web-Based Accessible (WCAGWG10...)

    [21]http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2010/ED-ATAG20-20101108/

      [21] http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2010/ED-ATAG20-20101108/

    JR: Platform conventions" term was added several years ago when not
    all major platforms had accessibility APIs.
    ... I proposed splitting it up where the accessibility APIs exist,
    and follow platform guidelines where they don't exist. So there will
    be two success criteria. All the different APIs will be explained in
    the supporting document.

    SN: It seems like a reasonable approach. I think it covers it.

    <Jan>
    [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0061.h
    tml

      [22] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0061.html

    <Jan> Resolution: All accept: A.1.2.1 Non-Web-Based Accessible:
    Non-web-based authoring tool user interfaces follow user interface
    accessibility guideline(s) for the platform. (Level A) Note: If a
    conformance claim is made, then the claim cites the guidelines
    followed.

    JR: both are level A

    <Jan> Resolution: All accept A.1.2.2 Non-Web-Based Accessible:
    Non-web-based authoring tools implement communication with platform
    accessibility service(s). (Level A) Note: If a conformance claim is
    made, then the claim cites the platform accessibility service(s).

    <Jan> Resolution: All accept: "Change "platform accessibility
    architecture" to "platform accessibility services" as IBM commenters
    requested (this also agrees with Section 508 refresh)."

    harmonization is desirable.

A.2.2.1 Purpose of Added Presentation (MS6...)

    <Jan>
    [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0039.h
    tml

      [23] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0039.html

    JR: We are clear that it is status information. Instead of sending
    the API "this is underlined in green", the API receives, "this is a
    grammar error"

    AC: rewording is good.

    <Jan> Resolution: All accept: A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status
    Information: If an editing-view modifies the presentation to convey
    status information, then that status information can be
    programmatically determined. Status information conveyed by
    modifying the presentation of editing-views may include, but is not
    limited to, spelling, grammar and syntax errors. (Level A)

    JS: I like to include the note in the SC where possible, because I
    see that WCAG is copied and pasted by others and the notes are often
    lost.

    <Jan>
    [24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0039.h
    tml

      [24] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0039.html

A.3.4.1 Edit by Structure A.3.4.2 Navigate By Structure (MS12...)

    <alastairc>
    [25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0071.h
    tml

      [25] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0071.html

    <Jan>
    [26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0071.h
    tml

      [26] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0071.html

    AC: TinyMCE would then pass because if you move the focus into a
    heading, and you move into it, the dropdown menu allows you to
    select the next one.

    JR: Greg Gay and I added a feature to TinyMCE to display where you
    are in the hierarchy and it allows you to move to the next easily.
    What we want is to reduce the number of keystrokes, so it deals with
    structural chunks rather than having the user have to drag select.

    <Jan> A.3.4.1 Navigate By Structure: If editing-views expose the
    markup elements in the web content being edited, then the following
    are true: (Level AA)

    <Jan> (a) content representing markup elements are selectable (e.g.,
    content renderings, source content, etc.)

    <Jan> (b) navigation mechanisms are provided to move the selection
    focus between elements

    <Jan> Resolution: All accept A.3.4.1 Navigate By Structure: If
    editing-views expose the markup elements in the web content being
    edited, then the following are true: (Level AA) (a) content
    representing markup elements are selectable (e.g., content
    renderings, source content, etc.) (b) navigation mechanisms are
    provided to move the selection focus between elements

    <Jan> Resolution: All Accept: A.3.4.2 Navigation of Programmatic
    Relationships: If editing-views allow editing of programmatic
    relationships within web content, then mechanisms are provided
    supporting navigation between the related content. (Level AAA) Note:
    Depending on the web content technology and the nature of the
    authoring tool, relationships can include element nesting, headings,
    labelling,...

    <Jan> ...programmatic definitions, ID relationships, etc.

    <gpisocky> Sorry to interrupt: Tim Boland is trying to get in,
    getting a conference is full message no more parties can be added,
    wants to know what to do.

"...prior to publishing." (MS22, MS29)

    <Jan>
    [27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.h
    tml

      [27] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.html

    <Jan>
    [28]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.h
    tml

      [28] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.html

    JR: there is a new definition. author actions prevent generation of
    accessible web content (there are so many I thought this deserved
    its own defn):

    When the actions of authors prevents authoring tools from generating
    accessible web content (WCAG). Examples include:

    - turning off accessibility options

    - ignoring prompts for accessibility information (WCAG)

    - providing faulty accessibility information (WCAG) at prompts

    - modifying the authoring tool (e.g., via scripting, macros, etc.)

    - installing plug-ins

    - etc.

    AL: it repeats information that is required in other places.

    JR: the ffrustration that we are trying to counter, is when the
    transformation introduces an accessibility problem and the author
    doesn't discover it until much later in the process.

    AL: So we are trying to push discoverability earlier in the process.

    JS: the biggest complaint I received from users at an accessibility
    conference was that CMS systems stripped accessibility information.

    AL: automatic means that there is no human intervention. It sounds
    like there is a human intervention when you split it.

    JR: Humans often initiate the intervention - a user may select a
    color red, the tool creates the code the insert that code.

    AL: I look at it more at a macro level. Example of a weather problem
    in FexEx that would produce a cascade of automatic information to
    reroute and reschedule packages.

    <Jan> (was B.1.3.1) Auto-Generate Accessible Content for Publishing
    (WCAG): *Authors* have the default option that when *web content* is
    *automatically-generated* for *publishing* after the *end of an
    authoring session*, the content meets the WCAG 2.0 success criteria.
    NOTE: This applies only to automatic processes specified by the
    authoring tool developer. This does not apply when *author
    actions...

    <Jan> ...prevent generation of accessible web content*.

    <Jan> ResolutioN: All accept: (was B.1.3.1) Auto-Generate Accessible
    Content for Publishing (WCAG): *Authors* have the default option
    that when *web content* is *automatically-generated* for
    *publishing* after the *end of an authoring session*, the content
    meets the WCAG 2.0 success criteria. NOTE: This applies only to
    automatic processes specified by the authoring tool developer. This
    does not...

    <Jan> ...apply when *author actions prevent generation of accessible
    web content*.

    <Jan> (NEW SC) Auto-Generate Accessible Content for Authoring
    (WCAG): *Authors* have the default option that when *web content* is
    *automatically-generated* for an *authoring session* then one of the
    following is true:

    <Jan> (a) Accessible: the content meets the WCAG 2.0 success
    criteria without author input; or

    <Jan> (b) Prompting: during the automatic generation process,
    authors are prompted for any required accessibility information
    (WCAG); or

    <Jan> (c) Checking Active: after the automatic generation process,
    accessibility checking is active on the output; or

    <Jan> (d) Checking Suggested: authors have the default option to
    have accessibility checking suggested.

    <Jan> NOTE: This applies only to automatic processes specified by
    the authoring tool developer. This does not apply when actions of
    authors prevent generation of accessible web content (e.g., by
    providing faulty accessibility information, by installing additional
    plug-ins, by writing custom automated scripts, etc.).

    <Jan> - 3 WCAG levels

    <scribe> ACTION: AlexLi to review the proposal for auto-generation
    from email:
    [29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.h
    tml [recorded in
    [30]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-minutes.html#action02]

      [29] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.html

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

    <scribe> ACTION: Li to review the proposal for auto-generation from
    email:
    [31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.h
    tml [recorded in
    [32]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-minutes.html#action03]

      [31] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.html

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-310 - Review the proposal for
    auto-generation from email:
    [33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.h
    tml [on Alex Li - due 2010-11-19].

      [33] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.html

    <Jan> Resolution: Remove SC B.2.2.2 Availability.

    <Jan> ResolutioN: All accept: Publishing: ANY point at which the
    authors or authoring tool make web content available to end users
    (e.g., uploading a web page, committing a change in a wiki, LIVE
    STREAMING).

    AL: What is the difference between the proposals?

    JR: The difference is to make commenters understand that we have
    considered the complexities of when content may be published.

    <Jan> Resolution: Accept: Implementing ATAG 2.0 Appendix E on
    "Real-Time Content Production" renamed "Authoring Tools for Live Web
    Content" to match WCAG 2.0's use of "Live"

    JR: rename to "Live" web content - based on WCAG

B.2.1.3 Other Technologies (MS26)

    <Jan>
    [34]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0064.h
    tml

      [34] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0064.html

    JR: I propose to remove it in response to a number of comments. All
    of the examples I can think of are already covered by WCAG, so if a
    tool is meeting WCAG, then it doesn't matter that it can't edit
    images.

    <Jan> Resolution: Remove B.2.1.3 Other Technologies

B.2.5.1 Templates Accessible (MS36)

    <Jan>
    [35]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0070.h
    tml

      [35] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0070.html

    AL: there are templates that are filled out by a wizard process, so
    the author may not be aware of where it comes from.
    ... what if the template is relatively accessible, but has no
    instructions?

    JR: If someone requests a template that is a form template, and you
    asked what questions you wanted to ask for the form, and the tool
    didn't create labels for the form.

    AL: I am thinking more about WCAG instructions for the descriptive
    title.

    <Jan> ACTION: JR to Consider how
    [36]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0070.h
    tml might be made more consistent with new auto-generate wording
    [recorded in
    [37]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-minutes.html#action04]

      [36] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0070.html

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-311 - Consider how
    [38]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0070.h
    tml might be made more consistent with new auto-generate wording [on
    Jan Richards - due 2010-11-19].

      [38] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0070.html

A.3.1.3 Keyboard Shortcuts (MS39)

    <Jan>
    [39]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0065.h
    tml

      [39] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0065.html

    <Jan> A.3.1.3 Efficient Keyboard Access: The authoring tool user
    interface includes mechanisms to make keyboard access more
    efficient. (AA)

    AC: How to test "efficient"

    AL: Just test for Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, F4, etc.

    JR: In TinyMCE instead of toolbars, you can jump right into the
    content area.

    AC: How would it apply to a wiki that is essentially just text?

    JR: It would skip right to the start of the content. It is AA.

    AL: would it be applicable for a toolbar?

    JR: If you can move between toolbars and then move down, that would
    apply.

    AL: Something has to make it more efficient, and how do you measure
    that?

    JR: More efficient than straight-line keyboard navigation through
    the interface.

    AC: That there is some change made or effort made to improve the
    navigation

    <Jan> A.3.1.3 Efficient Keyboard Access: The authoring tool user
    interface includes mechanisms to make keyboard access more efficient
    than basic sequential keyboard naviagation. (AA)

    "more efficient than basic sequential navigation"

    scribe: Keyboard shortcuts, bypass links, navigation shortcuts all
    count.

    AL: "More efficient than" may require a definition.

    <Jan> Resolution: All accept: A.3.1.3 Efficient Keyboard Access: The
    authoring tool user interface includes mechanisms to make keyboard
    access more efficient than basic sequential keyboard naviagation.
    (AA) with def'n

Developer Responsibility:

    <Jan>
    [40]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0058.h
    tml

      [40] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0058.html

    JT: How would this relate to tools that are mashups? That is
    frequently the case in learning management systems

    JR: We draw a box around what is declared to be the authoring tool.
    (These 4 pieces together are claiming ATAG conformance)

    <Jan> Resolution: All accept:
    [41]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0058.h
    tml

      [41] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0058.html

ATAG2 Minor proposal on "Included" technologies wording

    <Jan> AC: Would like to think more about it.

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: AlexLi to review the proposal for auto-generation from
    email:
    [42]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.h
    tml [recorded in
    [43]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jan to take the examples discussed and add them to the
    implementing document for B.1.2.1 [recorded in
    [44]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: JR to Consider how
    [45]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0070.h
    tml might be made more consistent with new auto-generate wording
    [recorded in
    [46]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: Li to review the proposal for auto-generation from
    email:
    [47]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.h
    tml [recorded in
    [48]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-minutes.html#action03]

      [42] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.html
      [45] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0070.html
      [47] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.html

    [End of minutes]
Received on Friday, 12 November 2010 17:02:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 12 November 2010 17:02:58 GMT