W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2012

Minutes of AUWG teleconference of 13 February 2012

From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:05:50 -0500
Message-ID: <4F397B2E.5010604@w3.org>
To: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Minutes:
http://www.w3.org/2012/02/13-au-minutes.html

Text of Minutes:
    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

  Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

13 Feb 2012

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2012/02/13-au-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Jeanne, Alex, Sueann, Tim_Boland, Cherie, Jan

    Regrets
    Chair
           Jutta

    Scribe
           jeanne

Contents

      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Intent-Examples-Resources for B.1.2.2 Copy-Paste Inside
             Authoring Tool (WCAG)
          2. [5]Whether to move theses appendices to the Implementing
             doc?:
          3. [6]Finalizing responses to the few remaining outstanding
             comments.
             http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0
             028.html
          4. [7]Last Call planning
      * [8]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    <trackbot> Date: 13 February 2012

    <scribe> scribe: jeanne

    [9]http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ED-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20120210/#sc
    _b122

       [9] 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ED-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20120210/#sc_b122

    Appendix E: Checklist

    Appendix F: Comparison of ATAG 1.0 guidelines to ATAG 2.0

    Since Alex needs to leave early, Jutta requested his input on the
    topic.

    AL: Why do we even need a checklist?

    JT: It was in the document for a long time, it hasn't been updated
    in a long time.

    TB: It has use in providing more information and material to the
    author.

    AL: I am not opposed to moving the appendixes to the Implementing
    document

Intent-Examples-Resources for B.1.2.2 Copy-Paste Inside Authoring Tool
(WCAG)

    [10]http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ED-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20120210/#g
    l_b12

      [10] 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ED-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20120210/#gl_b12

    SN: It is somewhat ambiguous, is there other text that provides more
    guidance?
    ... I don't know where anyone else talks about properties of copy
    and paste? How would you validate and test for it?

    JT: How would you determine if accessibility information survived
    the copy/paste process.
    ... the application may only be intermediary.

    SN: You could only validate that the originating information was
    sent.

    JT: An example of copy/paste a video or portions of a video and its
    captions
    ... or copy and pasting an image, if the authoring tool also copies
    the alt text.

    SN: What does WCAG do?
    ... this situation can occur outside the tool, not necessarily tool
    related - mostly happens in the OS.

    JS: I don't think WCAG addresses it, because it is an authoring
    function

    TB: I am looking at the guideline and it doesn't address copy-paste
    -- just within the authoring tool. In the implementing document, we
    are talking about moving between authoring tools.

    JT: This was written because of questions that the implications of
    B.1.2.2 included copy-paste.
    ... the concern is that B.1.2.2 could be interpreted to include
    copy-paste, and we needed examples of how copy-paste would be
    adhered to. That is what led to this text.

    TB: This says the authoring tool doing the copy would also be doing
    the pasting.

    SN: I don't know what this says, I think it is ambiguous and how do
    you test for it, how do you test for all the conditions. At some
    point, someone would have to verify that you could do it.

    JS: I can think of a fairly simple test where you copy an image with
    alternative text and then paste it back into the document and look
    to see if the alternative text was copied over.

    SN: So why did we split out copy and paste?

    JT: Because Alex expressed concern about copy-paste and asked for
    illustrative examples.

    SN: I think it could be a little clearer

    JT: Could you suggest some changes?

Whether to move these appendices to the Implementing doc?:

    JS: I see both sides -- WCAG 2.0 deliberately moved away from
    checklists, but have been criticized for lack of checklist and other
    people have written checklists.

    TB: If we move it to the Implementing document, people may not see
    them.

    RESOLUTION: Move the checklist into the Implementing document, but
    keep a reference to them in the Guidelines document

Finalizing responses to the few remaining outstanding comments.
[11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0028.html

      [11] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0028.html

    JT: Before he had to leave, Alex reviewed them and had no criticism.
    ... we are referencing a Note, the NOte may add more detail into the
    examples.

    SN: Looks fine to me.

    TB: Fine with me.

    RESOLUTION: Accept the edits to outstanding comments from
    [12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0028.h
    tml

      [12] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0028.html

Last Call planning

    JS: Once we vote for Last Call, it takes two weeks to publish, then
    I expect to request a 6 week turnaround. Does any company need more
    than 6 weeks?

    SN: I would be very hard pressed to get feedback in 6 weeks given
    the major conferences and spring break. There are also deadlines for
    508 work that the same people are involved in. I think 8 weeks are
    more reasonable.

    JR: I think in the big picture, 8 weeks is not unreasonable.

    JS: I think that those reasons are defensible, so I am ok with
    requesting 8 weeks.

    <Tim> next week is Presidents Day in U.S. so must send regrets

Summary of Action Items
Received on Monday, 13 February 2012 21:05:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 13 February 2012 21:05:40 GMT