W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2011

Minutes of AUWG teleconference of 14 February 2011

From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:48:51 -0500
Message-ID: <4D59B153.4080304@w3.org>
To: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>

Text of Minutes:

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

                                - DRAFT -

                                 WAI AU

14 Feb 2011



    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/14-au-irc


           Jeanne, Jan, Alexandro, Cherie, Alex, Sueann, Jutta, Greg,

           Andrew_R., Greg_P., Alastair_C.

           Jutta Treviranus



      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Schedule Discussion
          2. [6]2. Feb 14 Survey
          3. [7]Closing out comments
          4. [8]AUWG Survey for 14 February
          5. [9]Survey
          6. [10]Proposal to remove B.2.1.1
          7. [11]Proposal on document convention: WCAG
          8. [12]New note under "Specialized Tools":
          9. [13]Definition of author
         10. [14]Move "Live Authoring Tools" note
         11. [15]Definition of authors
      * [16]Summary of Action Items



Schedule Discussion

    <Jan> Not meeting Feb 21 due to absence of multiple US, CDN

    <Jan> So a pre-CSUN TR draft will not be happening

2. Feb 14 Survey

    <scribe> scribe: jeanne

Closing out comments

AUWG Survey for 14 February

    <Jan> [18]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20110211/results

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20110211/results

    Jutta: Discuss with your company commenters to make sure that there
    is agreement with how we have handled the comments. Also any other
    issues from within the group need to be handled, so that we do not
    rehash issues that we have already worked through - especially with
    people internal to the group.
    ... so any comments that come forward at this stage should be
    significant and not issues we have already addressed.

    Tim: Is there a process to get feelers to see if there are any other

    Jutta: This next draft is a way to ask people to see if there are
    any issues left before we go into Last Call.


Proposal to remove B.2.1.1

    <Jan> [19]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20110211/results#xq2

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20110211/results#xq2

    <Jan> JT: We will revisit

Proposal on document convention: WCAG

    <Jan> [20]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20110211/results#xq1

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20110211/results#xq1

    <Jan> Resolution: All accept

New note under "Specialized Tools":

    <Jan> [21]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20110211/results#xq3

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20110211/results#xq3

    <Jan> Note on Accessibility Checker: While accessibility checking
    functionality is an important part of an ATAG 2.0 conforming
    authoring tool, a stand-alone accessibility checker with no
    automated or semi-automated repair functionality is not considered
    an authoring tool because it is not used to edit web content for use
    by other people.

    Jutta: While we are not going to be considering an accessibility
    checker with no repair or edit functions, when a checker is
    including in the authoring tool or when it is bundled with an
    authoring tool, it will be included

    <Jan> JR: Agree to GP's request for a note that checkers can be
    considered part of tool

    Jutta: Creating, modifying content is what we want.

    Alex: We are excluding specific categories, like Simple Text Editor,
    and Checkers that don't have repair, but we aren't giving the
    criteria for something being included/excluded which isn't sound.
    ... We need to have specific if/then statements in the criteria

    Jan: We have it in most success criteria.

    Alex: Any given product can go through ATAG and go through the
    if/then statements in a yes/no. So a specialized tool like a checker
    will only say yes to the ones that apply. Then conformance doesn't
    have to deal with collections.

    Jan: A lot of tools don't haave built-in checkers, so we wanted to
    encourage bundling with a checker

    Jutta: We need to make it clear that if the Success Criteria doesn't
    apply, then we don't have to restrict our definition of authoring

    <Jan> ACTION: JR to To write a note about what "not applicable"
    means and how to use it [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-322 - Write a note about what "not
    applicable" means and how to use it [on Jan Richards - due

    Jan: If it applies or not, then evaluate whether you met it. The
    conformance section section then says that you meet all the success
    criteria that apply to your tool.

Definition of author

Move "Live Authoring Tools" note

    <Jan> Resolution: all accept

Definition of authors

    <Jan> [23]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20110211/results#xq5

      [23] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20110211/results#xq5

    <Jan> ACTION: JR to Provide more explanation around why unaware
    people to be excluded as authors [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-323 - Provide more explanation around why
    unaware people to be excluded as authors [on Jan Richards - due

    rssagent, make logs public

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: JR to Provide more explanation around why unaware
    people to be excluded as authors [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: JR to To write a note about what "not applicable"
    means and how to use it [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [27]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([28]CVS log)
     $Date: 2011/02/14 22:04:01 $
Received on Monday, 14 February 2011 22:49:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:00 UTC