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

Minutes of AUWG teleconference of 15 August

From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:59:20 -0400
Message-ID: <4E4988A8.5070700@w3.org>
To: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Minutes:  http://www.w3.org/2011/08/15-au-minutes.html

Text of Minutes:
    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                                 WAI AU

15 Aug 2011

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/08/15-au-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Jeanne, Jan, Cherie, Alastair, Jutta, Greg, SueAnn,
           Tim_Boland

    Regrets
    Chair
           Jutta

    Scribe
           jeanne

Contents

      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]1. Issues arising from WCAG-WG's reply to our comment
             response
          2. [5]Change Proposals
          3. [6]3. Splitting up the work...ideas
          4. [7]Splitting up the work
          5. [8]Testing Considerations
      * [9]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    ok

    <Jan1> Scribe: jeanne

    <Jan1> Chair: Jutta Treviranus

    <Jan1> JT: I'm running a Masters program...there are students in the
    profram who could make useful contributions

1. Issues arising from WCAG-WG's reply to our comment response

    JR: WCAG was concerned with our use of "accessible content". They
    suggested "WCAG Conformant". I replied that we couldn't use it,
    because of the WCAG requirement for accessible technologies. We want
    tools to be able to conform to ATAG even if accessible browsers
    don't yet exist. Example being SVG.

    Alastair: It is similar to early Flash, where you built
    accessibility features even though it was not yet supported.

    JR: Suggested "potentially WCAG 2 conformant"
    ... I think it should go in the Implementing document

    JS: We could put it in the home page.

    AC: Could we put it in a wiki?

    JR: We could put it in Implementing Intent, or if it goes beyond, we
    could make a "hot topics" page on /WAi/AU/

    JT: Are people in agreement with the explanation?

    AC: We want to link to it, instead of having to explain it every
    time.

    <Jan1> JT: "WCAG-capable"

    JT: WCAG capable content

    <Greg> WCAG Capable sounds good

    TB: We would have to link to the definition and discuss how to test
    it.

    JR: there are two - developer installed UIs where a company runs a
    web site where the tool is. They could make a WCAG conformant claim.
    Then there are developer tools that basically come in a box that
    gets installed into environments.
    ... should the term "WCAG-capable" cover Part A as well.

    AC: That is like a default state - soemthing like Drupal.

    JR: It's not that it is editable, it is rather that in Part A, all
    the web-based parts of the authroing tool interface must meet WCAG
    2.0 except for "accessibility supported".
    ... is it worth making a separate statement for web-based authoring
    tools?

    AC: It is not only about the tools, but it is about the
    responsibility. It may have caveats about user support, but could
    make statements about their environment.

    TB: I agree

    JR: I will take an action to write up about WCAG capable content.

    <Jan1> ACTION: JR to Write up a proposal on WCAGcapable for Part A
    and B [recorded in
    [10]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/15-au-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-353 - Write up a proposal on WCAGcapable
    for Part A and B [on Jan Richards - due 2011-08-22].

Change Proposals

3. Splitting up the work...ideas

    JR: We don't want to make changes to the documents without the
    bigger picture of all the comments still expected. I suggest marking
    them in the document
    ... then making a survey of all of them.

Splitting up the work

    <Jan1> New comment response table:
    [11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011JulSep/att-00
    55/ATAG2-21July2011PublicWD-CommentResponses-rev11aug2011.html

      [11] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011JulSep/att-0055/ATAG2-21July2011PublicWD-CommentResponses-rev11aug2011.html

    JR: I have some students who may want to take some of this on.

    [12]http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/implementation_report_10june2011.h
    tml

      [12] 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/implementation_report_10june2011.html

    <Jan1>
    [13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011JulSep/att-00
    47/ATAG2-21July2011PublicWD-ImplementationReport-rev11aug2011.html

      [13] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011JulSep/att-0047/ATAG2-21July2011PublicWD-ImplementationReport-rev11aug2011.html

    JR: It needs updating, even a simple thing like text search, doesn't
    have a lot of examples, even though we all know products exist.

    <Greg> I was muted unmuted now, Haven't had a chance to evaluate
    Edge

    JR: It looks good if there are tools that meet a broad range of
    items

    TB: How many times is it listed.

    JS: Let's keep the table as a regular data table so we can sort it
    and filter it to meet our needs.

    JT: I think it would be useful to highlight the success criteria
    that still need implementations.

    JR: That is what we are trying to do. I can make a list of the
    things that need implementations.
    ... maybe we can make 10 products and make a chart with the 10
    columns, would that be easier?

Testing Considerations

    JR: I want to write some more examples so that it is more clear what
    is needed. There is a concern that these things not accidently
    appear to introduce what seem to be normative requirements.
    ... If the folks that have tools that they are familiar with could
    work on completing the Implementation report, that would free me up
    to work more on Testing Considerations.
    ... having separate columns for each tool would give people the
    ability to say "not applicable" instead of it just not being
    positively listed.
    ... this would give a better idea if the overall tool was
    accessible.

    JT: Should we all be on the lookout, or should we divide up the
    success criteria and look for implementations.

    JR: Give me a call or email and let me know the tool that you want a
    column for?

    <Jan1> GP: Dreamweaver

    Greg: Dreamweaver CS 5.5

    <Jan1> GP: DreamweaverCS5.5

    Cherie: MS Word 2010

    <Jan1> Cherie: Cherie: MS Word 2010

    JS: Is Sharepoint also a likely tool that could be added?

    Cherie: yes

    <Jan1> AC: Sharepoint

    <Jan1> GP: InDesign

    <Jan1> JR: Atutor

    <Jan1> SN: Lotus Connections

    JS: What about IBM Eclipse? Especially because it has a built-in
    checker

    SN: There are a couple others I want to look into, but I think
    Eclipse should be on the list.

    JS: Add Drupal and Wordpress, even though I don't know yet who will
    enter the info on them.

    <scribe> chair: Jutta

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: JR to Write up a proposal on WCAGcapable for Part A
    and B [recorded in
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/15-au-minutes.html#action01]

    [End of minutes]
      _________________________________________________________
Received on Monday, 15 August 2011 20:59:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 15 August 2011 20:59:44 GMT