- From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocadu.ca>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 20:20:12 +0000
- To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Hi all, To see a more concrete example of W3C "Exit Criteria" and "Criteria at Risk", take a look at WCAG's "Exit Criteria" section when it went to CR: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/CR-WCAG20-20080430/ Cheers, Jan (MR) JAN RICHARDS PROJECT MANAGER INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC) OCAD UNIVERSITY T 416 977 6000 x3957 F 416 977 9844 E jrichards@ocadu.ca > -----Original Message----- > From: Richards, Jan > Sent: September-17-12 4:17 PM > To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org > Subject: ATAG 2.0 test writing assignments > > See format here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai- > au/2012JulSep/0035.html > > Guideline A.3.1: (For the authoring tool user interface) Provide keyboard > access to authoring features - Tim Guideline A.4.2: (For the authoring tool > user interface) Document the user interface including all accessibility > features. - Jan (also doing B.1.1 and 2) Guideline A.3.7: (For the authoring > tool user interface) Ensure that previews are at least as accessible as in- > market user agents. - Greg Guideline A.3.6: (For the authoring tool user > interface) Manage preference settings. - Jeanne > > Cheers, > Jan > > > (MR) JAN RICHARDS > PROJECT MANAGER > INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC) > OCAD UNIVERSITY > > T 416 977 6000 x3957 > F 416 977 9844 > E jrichards@ocadu.ca > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Richards, Jan > > Sent: September-17-12 4:07 PM > > To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org > > Subject: Minutes from AUWG Teleconference on 17 Sept 2012 3:00pm- > > 4:00pm ET (Today) > > > > http://www.w3.org/2012/09/17-au-minutes.html > > > > Full text: > > WAI AU > > 17 Sep 2012 > > > > Agenda > > > > See also: IRC log > > Attendees > > > > Present > > Jan, Jeanne, Alex, Jutta, Cherie, +1.571.765.aaaa, Greg, > > Tim_Boland Regrets > > Jutta, T. > > Chair > > Jan Richards > > Scribe > > jeanne > > > > Contents > > > > Topics > > 1. What to do with B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information > > 2. Other issues from the larger group? > > Summary of Action Items > > > > <scribe> scribe: jeanne > > > > <Jan> scribe: Jeanne > > > > <Jan> > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0040.html > > 1. What to do with B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information > > > > JR: This came up while writing tests. > > > > <Jan> B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information: If the authoring tool > > supports production of any web content technologies for publishing for > > which the authoring tool does not provide support for the production > > of accessible web content (WCAG), then this is documented. (Level AA) > > Note: This success criterion concerns the presence or absence of > > support features, such as accessibility checkers, not... > > > > <Jan> ...any intrinsic property of web content technologies. > > > > JR: Tools come in many formats, so you need to document in the tool > > that any formats that do not meet ATAG need to be documented. > > ... this is difficult to do from a testing viewpoint > > > > <Jan> 6. A list of the *web content technologies produced by the > > authoring tool that are included in the claim*. If there are any web > > content technologies produced by the authoring tool that are *not > > included* in the conformance claim, these must be listed separately. > > <NEW>If the authoring tool produces any web content technologies by > > default, then these must be *included*.</NEW> > > > > JR: and the documentation can be buried in a manual, so it would not > > be useful. > > ... So if a tool produces a web content technology by default, then > > that must be included for ATAG conformance. > > ... you cannot side-step the ATAG conformance. > > > > GP: If the default content is NOT a web content technology, then it > > does not apply. > > > > JR: Example: a word processing program does not produce a web content > > technology by default, but does have a save as HTML option ... it can > > conform for the HTML, but does not have to file on the .doc document > > format > > > > GP: it seems ok > > ... On the flip side, the default format can be accessible, even if it > > is not a web content technology. > > > > AL: I know what a "default" is, but I can anticipate that some people > > might ask what the default is for that tool. Other tools may produce > > many different formats without a default. > > > > <Jan> 6. A list of the *web content technologies produced by the > > authoring tool that are included in the claim*. If there are any web > > content technologies produced by the authoring tool that are *not > > included* in the conformance claim, these must be listed separately. > > <NEW>If the authoring tool produces any web content technologies by > > default, then these must be *included*.</NEW> > > > > <Jan> All: No objections heard... > > > > JR: SO B.4.1.3 will be deleted and this will be added to B.4.1.1 > > > > <Jan> Resolved: Add the new sentence to 6. A list of the *web content > > technologies produced by the authoring tool that are included in the > claim*. > > If there are any web content technologies produced by the authoring > > tool that are *not included* in the conformance claim, these must be > > listed separately. <NEW>If the authoring tool produces any web content > > technologies by default, then these must be... > > > > <Jan> ...*included*.</NEW> > > > > <Jan> Resolved: To remove SC B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information 2. > > Other issues from the larger group? > > > > GP: Can you recap where we are? > > > > JR: We have finished Last Call and we could go into CR at any time, > > but we are settling our testing before we set up our exit criteria from CR. > > > > GP: so how many test cases have to go through this before we are > > satisfied and W3C is satisfied. > > > > JR: We set a test cases, a test approach and our exit criteria. > > ... then we go and talk to those powers. > > > > JS: An important part of the Exit Criteria is idenfying problem areas > > and what we will do about them. otherwise we have to go back to Last > > Call to change the document. > > > > AL: then we need to be very flexible and accept tools that only do a > > few things > > > > JR: well, we need to write the exit criteria so that we are credible. > > > > JS: We can't just cherry pick implementations to find 2 > > implementations, we have to show that types of tools meet the criteria > that apply to that tool . > > > > JR: Those of you who are not writing test cases, please go through the > > document and look for the success criteria that are either hard to > > test, or may not have sufficient implementations. > > > > <Jan> We will discuss on Dept 24 > > > > JR: We will discuss this next week. Look for at-risk success criteria. > > > > <Jan> End of the first part of the call > > > > <Greg> Provide link to the test location? > > > > <Jan> This is the most recent: > > http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2- > > 10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20120730 > > > > <Jan> There were some more tests submitted after that point... > > > > <Jan> e.g. from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai- > > au/2012JulSep/0035.html > > > > <Jan> Guideline A.3.1: (For the authoring tool user interface) Provide > > keyboard access to authoring features - Tim Boland > > > > <Jan> Guideline A.4.2: (For the authoring tool user interface) > > Document the user interface including all accessibility features. - > > Jan Richards > > > > GP: A.3.7.1 & 2 - Greg will take them > > > > <Jan> Guideline A.3.7: (For the authoring tool user interface) Ensure > > that previews are at least as accessible as in-market user agents. - > > Greg Pisocky > > > > A.3.6 to Jeanne > > > > <Jan> Guideline A.3.6: (For the authoring tool user interface) Manage > > preference settings. - Jeanne Spellman > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (MR) JAN RICHARDS > > PROJECT MANAGER > > INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC) OCAD UNIVERSITY > > > > T 416 977 6000 x3957 > > F 416 977 9844 > > E jrichards@ocadu.ca > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Richards, Jan [mailto:jrichards@ocadu.ca] > > > Sent: September-17-12 1:08 PM > > > To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org > > > Subject: AUWG Teleconference on 17 Sept 2012 3:00pm-4:00pm ET > > > (Today) > > > > > > There will be an AUWG teleconference on Monday 17 September 2012 at > > > 3:00 pm- 4:00 pm ET: > > > Call: (617) 761-6200 ext. 2894# > > > Zakim: +1.617.761.6200 (Boston) > > > 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. > > > > > > Last Call Drafts > > > =========== > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/ > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20/ > > > > > > Agenda > > > ====== > > > 1. What to do with B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0020.html > > > > > > 2. Other issues from the larger group? > > > > > > (then the meeting will pass over to the testing sub-group) > > > > > > 3. brief testing approach description (Jan) > > > > > > 3. Tests so far: > > > http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2- > > > 10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20120730 > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Jan > > > > > > (MR) JAN RICHARDS > > > PROJECT MANAGER > > > INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC) OCAD UNIVERSITY > > > > > > T 416 977 6000 x3957 > > > F 416 977 9844 > > > E jrichards@ocadu.ca > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 17 September 2012 20:20:37 UTC