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

Minutes of AUWG teleconference of 1 October 2012

From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 16:02:02 -0400
Message-ID: <5069F6BA.1090007@w3.org>
To: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2012/10/01-au-minutes.html

Text of Minutes:

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

                                - DRAFT -

                                  WAI AU

01 Oct 2012



    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/10/01-au-irc


           Jeanne, Jan, Cherie, Jutta, +1.571.765.aaaa, Greg,
           +1.970.349.aabb, Sueann, Tim_Boland




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]1. Voting on whether to publish the "Implementing
             ATAG 2.0" (NOTE) Editor's Draft as our required
             heart-beat publication.
          2. [6]3. brief testing approach description (Jan)
      * [7]Summary of Action Items

    <jeanne> trackbot, start meeting

    <trackbot> Meeting: Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines
    Working Group Teleconference

    <trackbot> Date: 01 October 2012

    <scribe> Scribe: Jan

1. Voting on whether to publish the "Implementing ATAG 2.0" (NOTE)
Editor's Draft as our required heart-beat publication.

    JT: As noted, this will give reviewers a sneak peek of changes
    we have made to the ATAG2 spec
    ... Taking vote

    SN: Agree

    CE: Fine

    <jeanne> +1 to publishing

    Jan: +1

    <Greg> Greg says yes

    TB: Is it aligned with LC?

    JR: Not exactly, it does include changes we have made based on
    LC comments

    TB: Should have note, could be confusing

    JT: We can add a not explaining that
    ... The motion is passed, so we will publish...when can we?

    JS: ASPA...probably next week...def before TPAC
    ... It was important not to muddle LC status of the rec track

    Resolution: All agreed to publish the Implementing ATAG doc

    TB: Extended teleconference on Oct 31?

    JT: That was a proposal

    JS: Last I remember we didn't agree on something

    <Greg> The last time we discussed a f to f was questioning the
    wisdom of holding one during hurricane season in Boca

    JR: I think that text was from last year
    ... The main thing we need to do work on are the tests

    JT: So the main thing we are doing is writing tests for the SCs
    ... We also need to gather evaluators and reviewers?

    JS: Yes, that needs to be done.

    JT: Implementors of ATAG2 and then evalutors/reviewers - people
    to check those implementations.
    ... Question is what kind of meeting do we need to put together
    all of this?

    JS: I remember from wcag2 testing that there was not a lot of
    group work...there was a lot of coord and a lot of individual
    ... I could certainly see a meeting to draft and agree on CR
    exit conditions....but thats it for group work...
    ... What we really need is a run trhough of testing.

    SN: Are you looking for people or implementations?\

    JT: People

    SN: So we have SCs with tests then we need implementations?

    JT: So to clarify, you and I had been talking about gathering
    some people to do the testing.

    JS: Right and then the WG needs to stand behind those testers

    JR: Clarigy?

    JS: Well, the WG reviews the work that the reviewers do and
    then they take a vote to say that we think we are done with CR.
    ... Would take at least 6 weeks after we vote to become a Rec

    GP: How many implementations do we really need? Is it ok if we
    have one tool that meets just one SC... etc.

    JS: Its a tricky answer...largely we decide that...but we have
    to be credible...we have to show implementations in the real
    ... I know JB would like to see examples in various different
    market niches...blogs, CMSs,, LMSs, etc

    GP: Our problem is a process issues....need to be able to track
    whether there is an example for SC...and then show where that
    ... Until we get examples for each we cant move forward?

    JS: Well, we can declare that certain SCs are "at risk".
    ... Need at least two examples,
    ... JR had that spreadsheet showing that



    JR: There is a newer one...with more columns....I can update

    JT: Great make sure to update the spreadhseet
    ... And people not working on the testing pls help with that
    ... Any other issues?

    OK, then lets move to the 2 agenda items

3. brief testing approach description (Jan)





    <Greg> I vote for Integration

    <Greg> Happy Thanksgivign

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]

Jeanne Spellman
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 20:02:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:03 UTC