AUWG Teleconference on Monday, 15 November 2004

MINUTES from AUWG Teleconference on Monday, 15 November 2004

Attendees

BF: Barry Feigenbaum
JT: Jutta Treviranus
KM: Karen Mardahl
MM: Matt May
GP: Greg Pisocky

Regrets:
JR: Jan Richards:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004OctDec/0080.html

-------
Agenda:
-------

>> 1. Revision of Last Call plan

JT: Still need
- Harmonization of rationale
- Edits of a few success criteria
- Finalization of  glossary (Tim has sent summary from glossary)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004OctDec/0079.html
- and general editing and going over document's accesssibility.

MM: re: deadline of Nov. 18. To make the next advisory meeting, we need to
announce that we have a draft ready Nov. 18. This alerts webmaster that a
document will be ready latest Nov. 22nd. Last calls last around 1 month. If
we did it in December (next time frame), we really lose time time with
people on leave and not being able to publish anything due to vacation. Next
real opportunity is publishing second week of January.
Last calls are usually 1 month. Doing something in December really loses a
few weeks for us. No big event in W3C until March. Great opportunity to get
ATAG out now when over 300 people are gathered and can give us feedback.

We should try to focus on
a) finishing action items
b) putting off minor things until after last call or until next draft.
c) dropping issues if not substantial enough to merit attention.

JT: let's look at issues and make decision at end of call. Went over some
minor issues in last phone call Nov. 8th with Tim and JR. Just have 3.1,
4.1, and 2.4 left.

>> 2. Discussion of recent proposals on 3.1, 4.1, and 2.4

JT: submitted proposal for rewording 4.1 and 3.1 success criteria
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004OctDec/0073.html

Success criteria for 4.1 
Previous: When the author is  presented with a list of choices, that
includes choices of formats  or authoring practices that do not support
content that conforms  to WCAG, these should be *marked* to indicate that
the choice may  produce content that is inaccessible.

Proposed rewording:
Any choices of formats or *authoring practices* presented to the author
(e.g., in menus, toolbars or dialogs) that will lead to the creation of
content that does not comply to WCAG must be marked or labeled so that the
author is aware of the consequences prior to making the choice.

Proposal approved by BF, GP, KM

Success criteria for 3.1

Old:
[see previous link for further discussion and various past proposals]

Proposed rewording:
Whenever the tool provides instructions to the author, either the
instructions (if followed) must lead to the creation of Web content that
conforms to WCAG, or the author must be warned that following the
instructions would lead to Web content accessibility problems.

BF: "warned" must be an obvious, not a footnote.

JT: Changed "warned" to "informed"?

GP: Proposed wording - will post to list later.

Success criteria for 2.4

JT: Has been a bit of debate:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004OctDec/0076.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004OctDec/0078.html

"Any Web content (e.g., templates, clip art, example pages, etc.) that is
bundled with the authoring tool or preferentially licensed to the users of
the authoring tool (i.e. provided for free or sold at a discount), must
conform to WCAG when inserted."

BF: Should be OK as as long as we can clarify in techniques document.

Wording OK for all.

Rewording of 3.1 rationale
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004OctDec/0075.html

Current wording: Rationale: Appropriate assistance should increase the
likelihood that typical authors will create content that conforms  to WCAG.
Different tool developers will accomplish this goal in ways that are
appropriate to their products, processes, and authors.

Proposed rewording:
Less effort is required to author content that conforms to WCAG when
accessibility problems are prevented rather than corrected. Different tool
developers will help prevent authors from making decisions or omissions that
cause accessibility problems in ways that are appropriate to their products,
processes, and authors.

GP, KM: OK

BF's raised some issues:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004OctDec/0067.html

BF: Success criteria for 1.5 should begin "At least one" instead of "All".
Was debate at f2f between these two phrases

JT: "At least one comprehensive editing viewing"??

BF/KM: OK

KM: "Editing view" is in glossary. Perhaps we need comprehensive?

BF: [from link] Also criteria for 1.4 should not imply only select, cut,
copy and paste need to be supported.  Any service (such as print, email,
etc) that is provided for the element should be similarly accessible. We
might want to edit the criteria from "In any element hierarchy..." to "In
any presentation of any element hierarchy..."   The underling model should
not be required to support these behaviors, just viewers and editors. 

BF: Concerned that our current wording would limit developers. 

MM: But we're just talking about text-based edits and device-independence.
"To operate any contextual menu" - just interaction with text.

JT: Suggested rewording? Contextual menu can be limiting if it doesn't
exist.

JT: "to select and then perform editing functions"

GP: "select content and perform editing functions"

JT: can you send wording to the list?

>> 3. Review of glossary changes and plan.

JT: Running out of time and we still have glossary to go through and
rationales. Can we say it's ready to go the 18th and then have it ready the
22nd?

GP: Can we have extensive editing afterwards?

MM: Varies. All kinds. Feels we have enough foundation, that we have been
only working on details for a long time. I.e. fundamental matters have been
in place for some time now. 

JT: Can we have general agreement from group that we can send proposed
rewordings to list and vote on them?

JT: latest edits on Jan's site. MM is now primary editor of document now.

MM: Will send a new link to document shortly.

JT/KM: We'll talk about glossary edits.
[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004OctDec/0079.html]

<end of minutes>

Received on Monday, 15 November 2004 23:13:05 UTC