Minutes for Nov 7 Conference Call

ATAG Conference Call Minutes

Date: November 7, 2005

Participants:
Tim Boland NIST
Barry Feigebaum IBM
Greg Pisocky Adobe
Jan Richards ATRC
Jutta Treviranus ATRC

Agenda:

1. Proposed new checkpoint for Part A

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2005JulSep/0080.html

ATAG Checkpoint A.1.?: Ensure that information, functionality, and
structure can be separated from presentation. Rationale: Separating
content and structure from presentation allows user interfaces of
authoring tools to be presented differently to meet the needs and
constraints of different authors without losing any of the information
or structure. For example, information can be presented via speech or
braille (text) that was originally intended to be presented visually.

Agreed, the checkpoint should be included.

2nd part, what should the success criteria be.

Success Criteria (as a place holder, all success criteria to be revised):

- If information is conveyed by variations in the presentation of text

(e.g. by the spatial location of text), then the information must also

either be conveyed in text or be made available programmatically.

- If information is conveyed by color, then the information must also be:

+ be conveyed in text or be made available programmatically, and

+ conveyed in a way that is visually evident when color is not available

(e.g. by shape)

- If content is structured (e.g. form controls grouped), then that

structure must be made available programmatically.

- If the sequence of content affects its meaning, then the sequencing

information must be made available programmatically.

- If information is conveyed by variations in the presentation of text
(e.g. by the spatial location of text), then the information must also
either be conveyed in text or be made available programmatically.

2. Publication planning

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2005OctDec/0015.html

Issues (marked with @@):

- Definition of authoring tool.

- Conformance Claims section

- Tactile, reading level, cognitive? comment in A.1.3

- undo for Web-based tools (A.2.7)

- the "@@" in A.3.1 is a mistake, please ignore

- definition of "technologies" - we decided to go with "content type" at
the Washington DC F2F.

Regarding the above, the following changes are being proposed:

Reference:

http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2005/WD-ATAG20-20051005/WD-ATAG20-20051005.html

- Definition of authoring tool.

*=Use the proposed definition since it has been crafted to handle

multi-tool conformance solutions:

ATAG 2.0 defines an "authoring tool" as: any software, or collection of

software components, that authors use to create or modify Web content

for publication. A collection of software components are any software

products used together (e.g. base tool and plug-in) or separately (e.g.

markup editor, image editor, and validation tool), regardless of whether
there has been any formal collaboration between the developers of the
products.

- Conformance Claims section

*=keep it as shown in the internal draft.

- Tactile, reading level, cognitive? comment in A.1.3

*=leave this out.

- undo for Web-based tools (A.2.7)

*=Expand A.2.7 note to read:

"For all Web-based interface components, meeting checkpoint A.0.1 will

serve to meet this checkpoint. Web-based browsers may rely on the undo

function of the browser to perform the undo function of editing that

does not involve server communication (e.g. typing in a text area). For

this reason, the browser specified in the conformance profile must have

the ability to perform at least one level of text entry undo."

- definition of "technologies" - we decided to go with "content type" at
the Washington DC F2F.

This needs discussion:

We started using Content Type, but WCAG uses "Technology". Perhaps it

would be best to return to "Technology" and use the WCAG definition with
our own added examples:

Technology

Technology means a data format, programming or markup language, protocol

or API. (e.g. HTML, CSS, SVG, PDF, Flash)

Flag this as a potential area that should be discussed at the Face to Face

Last call comment table:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2005AprJun/att-0053/Last_call_comment_table.html 





3. Techniques work:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2005OctDec/0026.html

Sign Up sheet for taking on techniques for a particular checkpoint. Are
the words we are using to describe the relative importance of the
techniques sufficient (i.e., sufficient, important, required)?

Tim Boland to have a go at the introductory text. If people want to
volunteer, they may ping the list.

4. F2F planning

http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2005/12/dec2005_meeting.html

Meeting page, but do not be concerned regarding the registration page.
Until a reg page is up contact Jan or Jutta directly.

Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2005 18:47:42 UTC