Re: AUWG Teleconference on Monday, 15 November 2004

I also sent regrets (but it was at the end of a message I sent to the list on 
glossary)..

Tim Boland NIST

Quoting Karen Mardahl <karen@mardahl.dk>:

> 
> 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 Tuesday, 16 November 2004 22:20:10 UTC