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

Minutes for AUWG Teleconference on 12 Dec 2011 3:00pm-4:00pm ET

From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocadu.ca>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:03:18 +0000
To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB039CF0DA@ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca>
Text from IRC:
[15:10]	Jan	Topic: 1. Conformance re-write survey:
[15:10]	Jan	Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111202/
[15:10]	Jan	Survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111202/results
[15:12]	Zakim	+Tim_Boland
[15:13]	Jan	Resolution: All accept "Addition of the "Success Criteria Satisfaction" sub-section to the Conformance section" https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111202/results#xq9
[15:13]	Jan	Next section: ATAG 2.0 Conformance (Level A, AA, or AAA)
[15:14]	-->|	Tim (qw3birc@128.30.52.28) has joined #au
[15:14]	Jan	JT: Want to know if "without additional authoring process components" is clear?
[15:20]	Jan	JT: Suggests "ATAG 2.0 Conformance (Level A, AA, or AAA) This conformance option may be selected when an authoring tool can be used to produce ACCESSIBLE web content without additional authoring process components.. The level of conformance is determined as follows: "
[15:20]	-->|	Sueann (624016c5@109.169.29.95) has joined #au
[15:21]	Jan	TB: Brings up issue of accessible web content...
[15:24]	Jan	JR: We are still working that out with WCAG-WG
[15:25]	Jan	Resolution: All accept wording in https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111202/results#xq10 except for the addition of ACCESSIBLE as follows: "ATAG 2.0 Conformance (Level A, AA, or AAA) This conformance option may be selected when an authoring tool can be used to produce ACCESSIBLE web content without additional authoring process components. The level of conformance is determined as follows: "
[15:26]	Jan	JT: Moving on to Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance
[15:26]	Jan	https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111202/results#xq11
[15:27]	Jan	JT: Reads ACs comments: For "Web Content Technologies Produced", that implies that you would make a conformance claim for each technology, is that right? Presumably you don't have to claim for associated technologies like CSS & JS?
[15:27]	Jan	I'm not 100% sure on this bit: "as long as the subset includes any technologies that the developer either sets for automatically-generated content or sets as the default for author-generated content"
[15:27]	Jan	Is that trying to say that the default output should be the one covered by the claim? The "default for author-generated content" seems to be the stronger concept, do we need the auto-generated bit?
[15:28]	Jan	JR: We need both...but maybe the issue is or vs and
[15:29]	Jan	JR: We mean both if both apply to the tool
[15:31]	Jan	JT: Use either and/or
[15:32]	Jan	JR: If an authoring tool is capable of producing multiple web content technologies, then the conformance may include only a subset of these technologies as long as the subset includes BOTH technologies that the developer either sets for automatically-generated content AND/or sets as the default for author-generated content.
[15:34]	Jan	SN: Not sure the term "authoring process components" is clear. It's when an external product, plug-in not provided by the tool being assessed is required in addition to the tool to provide a ATAG defined (complete) solution.
[15:34]	Jan	JT: I think we need to change some of the language to be clearer - especially introducing terms such as "exemption", and "ignoring" no responses.
[15:35]	Jan	JT: Seems to imply we have a full conformance then another type where no's are ignored
[15:36]	Jan	JT: Doeesn't like this: "Authoring tools do not qualify for the exemption if they prevent additional authoring process components from meeting the failed success criteria (e.g. for security reasons)."
[15:37]	Jan	JT: What it really is is the ability to use Partial Conformance
[15:38]	Jan	JT: Authoring tools would not be able to meet partial conformance if they prevent additional authoring process components from meeting the failed success criteria (e.g. for security reasons)."
[15:39]	Jan	JT: Also issue with "The level of conformance (A, AA, or AAA) is determined as above, except that "No" answers are ignored on the condition that, for all "No" answers, the tool would not prevent the success criteria from being met by another authoring process component as part of a complete authoring system. "
[15:39]	Jan	JT: In order to make a partial conformance claim, if there is a no answer, the tool must not prevent the success criteria from being met by another authoring process component as part of a complete authoring system. "
[15:40]	jeanne	+1 to making the corrections
[15:42]	Jan	Resolution: All agree to add text to the document and mark it TENTATIVE: Changes are "Authoring tools would not be able to meet partial conformance if they prevent additional authoring process components from meeting the failed success criteria (e.g. for security reasons)." AND "In order to make a partial conformance claim, if there is a no answer, the tool must not prevent the success...
[15:42]	Jan	...criteria from being met by another authoring process component as part of a complete authoring system. "
[15:42]	Jan	JT: ON to "Conformance Claims Note"
[15:42]	Jan	https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111202/results#xq4
[15:43]	Jan	JS: Judy felt this needs to be sent to W3C Legal
[15:44]	Jan	JS: But we can add it and mark it TENTATIVE
[15:44]	Jan	JS: Its just different than what we usually say
[15:44]	Jan	JS: we=W3C
[15:45]	Jan	JT: Is there some way to clarify the language to not raise legal flags?
[15:46]	Jan	JT: "Note: As with any software application, authoring tools can be collections of components. A conformance claim can only be made by a responsible entity. Any other attempted "claims" are, in fact, reviews. "
[15:47]	Jan	Resolution: All accept as tentative text... "Note: As with any software application, authoring tools can be collections of components. A conformance claim can only be made by a responsible entity. Any other attempted "claims" are, in fact, reviews. "
[15:47]	Jan	Topic: 2. Other issues in the current draft (marked @@):
[15:51]	Jan	JR: Platform limitations: When Part A success criteria depend on the platform having specific features (e.g., platform accessibility service being present, a keyboard interface, or keyboard shortcuts), these success criteria do not apply on platforms that do not include these features. If a conformance claim is made, the explanation for the success criteria being not applicable must explain...
[15:51]	Jan	...what platform features are missing.
[15:52]	Jan	Resolution: All accept "Platform limitations: When Part A success criteria depend on the platform having specific features (e.g., platform accessibility service being present, a keyboard interface, or keyboard shortcuts), these success criteria do not apply on platforms that do not include these features. If a conformance claim is made, the explanation for the success criteria being not...
[15:52]	Jan	...applicable must explain what platform features are missing."
[15:53]	Jan	JT: Moving on to "@@Unrecognizable content:"
[15:57]	jeanne	use case is iOS not supporting keyboard shortcuts
[15:59]	jeanne	... which I think Our A.3.1 already covers.
[15:59]	Zakim	-Sueann
[15:59]	Zakim	-Tim_Boland
[15:59]	Zakim	-Cherie
[15:59]	Zakim	-Jeanne
[15:59]	|<--	Tim has left irc.w3.org:6665 (Quit: Page closed)
[16:00]	Zakim	-Jutta
[16:00]	Zakim	-Jan
[16:00]	Zakim	WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has ended
[16:00]	Zakim	Attendees were Jan, Cherie, Jeanne, Jutta, Sueann, Tim_Boland
[16:00]	|<--	Sueann has left irc.w3.org:6665 (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
[16:00]	Jan	SN: Raises an issue...so it was not resolved.



-- 
(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
jrichards@ocadu.ca | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957 | fax: 416-977-9844
Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) | http://idrc.ocad.ca/
Faculty of Design | OCAD University


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richards, Jan
> Sent: December 9, 2011 5:06 PM
> To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> Subject: AUWG Teleconference on 12 Dec 2011 3:00pm-4:00pm ET
> 
> There will be an AUWG teleconference on Monday 12 December 2011 at 3:00
> pm - 4:00 pm ET:
> 
> Call: (617) 761-6200       ext. 2894#
> IRC: server: irc.w3.org, port: 6665, channel: #au
> 
> If people think they will arrive more than 15 minutes late, please send me an
> email beforehand.
> 
> The dial-in numbers for Zakim are now ONLY:
> ===========================================
> +1.617.761.6200       (Boston)
> 
> 
> Editor Drafts:
> ==============
> ATAG 2.0
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/ED-ATAG20-20111202/
> Implementing ATAG 2.0
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/ED-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20111202/
> 
> Agenda:
> ========
> 
> 1. Conformance re-write survey:
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111202/
> 
> 2. Other issues in the current draft (marked @@):
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/ED-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20111202/
> 
> Future meetings (needs updating):
> ================
> Nov 2011: Last Call WD
> Feb 2012: Candidate Recommendation
> - this is more speculative, since we are guessing how long we will be in CR
> June 2012: Proposed Recommendation August 2013: Recommendation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (MR) JAN RICHARDS
> PROJECT MANAGER
> INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)
> 
> T 416 977 6000 x3957
> F 416 977 9844
> E jrichards@ocad.ca
> 
> Twitter @OCAD
> Facebook www.facebook.com/OCADUniversity
> 
> OCAD UNIVERSITY
> 100 McCaul Street, Toronto, Canada  M5T 1W1 www.ocadu.ca
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2011 16:06:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 13 December 2011 16:06:31 GMT