W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: Minutes of AUWG F2F Meeting of 24 October

From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:21:52 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20081024112119.00c53ec8@mail.nist.gov>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
I also attended by phone for part of the meeting

Best, Tim Boland NIST

At 11:16 AM 10/24/2008 -0400, you wrote:
><http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html>Minutes
>
><http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-irc>IRC Log
>
>Action Items
>ACTION: JR to Level A->Minimum, Level AA->??, Level AAA->???
>ACTION: JR to Look at B.1.2 Applicability Notes
>ACTION: JR to Look at B.1.2.3 Notification Prior to Deletion
>ACTION: JR to Look into MacOS equiv of MSAA
>ACTION: JR to Proposal to add a AA recordkeeping item to B.2.2
>ACTION: JS to check with W3C internal to confirm the wording of the 
>Conformance Disclaimer section. #conf-disclaimer
>ACTION: JS to draft proposal for new success criteria for B.2.3 Repair
>ACTION: JS to draft Technique use cases for video associated with B.1.2.1 
>& 2 Issue-169
>ACTION: JS to follow up with Andrew Arch on cross-over of with WAI Age 
>document 
><http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/comparative-WAI.html>http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/comparative-WAI.html 
>
>ACTION: JT to Send (untransposed) draft with grammar edits
>
>
>Text of Minutes
>
>W3C
>WAI AU
>24 Oct 2008
>
>Agenda
>
>See also: IRC log
>Attendees
>
>Present
>     Ann_McMeekin, Jutta_Treviranus, Jan_Richards, Jeanne_Spellman, 
> Andrew_Ronksley, Sally_Cain(observing), Reed_Shaffner, Cynthia_Shelly, 
> Andrew_Arch(0bserving)
>Regrets
>Chair
>     Jan Richards (on-site)
>Scribe
>     Andrew, AndrewR, rshaffner, rshaffne
>
>Contents
>
>     * Topics
>          1. Tooling for WAI-ARIA (Sally Cain)
>          2. Part B
>          3. Guideline B.1.1 Support Web content technologies that enable 
> the creation of content that is accessible.
>          4. Guideline B.1.2 Ensure that the authoring tool preserves 
> accessibility information.
>          5. Guideline B.1.3 Ensure that automatically generated content 
> is accessible.
>          6. PRINCIPLE B.2: Authors must be supported in the production of 
> accessible content
>          7. Guideline B.2.1 Guide authors to create accessible content.
>          8. Guideline B.2.2 Assist authors in checking for accessibility 
> problems.
>          9. Conformance
>     * Summary of Action Items
>
>
>
>
>
><jeanne> meeting: WAI AUWG F2F D2
>
><jeanne> chair: Jutta(phone) and Jan(on site)
>
><jeanne> lastest version: 
><http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2008/WD-ATAG20-20081024/WD-ATAG20-20081024>http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2008/WD-ATAG20-20081024/WD-ATAG20-20081024
>
><AndrewR> Scribe: Andrew
>
><jeanne> scribe:AndrewR
>Tooling for WAI-ARIA (Sally Cain)
>
>one vendor is working on ARIA
>
>nothing available at the moment
>
>browser development tools are WCAG 1 focussed at minuted
>
>targeting IE / FF at present
>
>not much for other browsers
>
>ARIA is not always a simple yes / no answer for pass and fail
>
>ARIA roles and properties are not supported at present in the validaotors
>
>strategies - enhancing Firebug for ARIA
>
>JS - have you discussed anything with the Eclipse group?
>
>Eclipse Accprobe
>
><http://www.eclipse.org/actf/downloads/tools/accprobe/index.php>http://www.eclipse.org/actf/downloads/tools/accprobe/index.php
>
>JR - would be good to work together to work on how tools can help to 
>prompt for roles / states etc
>Part B
>Guideline B.1.1 Support Web content technologies that enable the creation 
>of content that is accessible.
>Guideline B.1.2 Ensure that the authoring tool preserves accessibility 
>information.
>
>Reed - from a usability point of view you don't want to save something on 
>the users computer where they may not find it
>
>Reed - what if the content is something beyond just text?
>
><jeanne> B.1.2.1.(c) I would like to see the addition of requiring that 
>the most accessible action is the default action.
>
>Reed - for some things such as text, adding it as a comment is fine
>
>Reed - for somthing like style relations, it becomes more complex
>
>Reed - the author needs to be aware if they are going to lose info
>
>Reed - what is the appropriate level people should be notified at?
>
>the whole document or element level etc
>
>JS - that's a vendor choice
>
><Reed> the phone shut off sorry
>
><Reed> it got unplugged
>
><AnnM> welcome call
>
><AnnM> welcome back even
>
>breaking this into 2 seperate guidelines
>
>what to do if the technology can preserve the accessibility inffo
>
>and what to do if the technology can't preserve the accessibility info
>
>Reed - what is the appropriate level for this?
>
>Reed - technically it's hard
>
>Reed - would be harsh to inlcude this at level A
>
>JS - what's our use case for this guideline?
>
>JS - a likely one is translating an MP4 into AVI or SMIL etc
>
>JS - what would you do with the caption track?
>
>JS - are you required to keep that track and what do you do with it?
>
>looking at the options
>
><JR> B.1.2.1 Target Preserves Accessibility Information (Level A): If the 
>target technology of the transformation or conversion can preserve 
>*recognized* accessibility information that is required for that content 
>to conform to WCAG Level A, then the accessibility information is 
>preserved and available for end users in the resulting content. (Level A)
>
><JR> B.1.2.1 Target Cannot Preserve Accessibility Information: If the 
>target technology of the transformation or conversion cannot preserve 
>*recognized* accessibility information that is required for that content 
>to conform to WCAG Level A, then the authoring tool (Level A):
>
><JR> - provides the author with the option to retain the information in 
>another way if possible (e.g., as a "comment", by saving a backup copy) and
>
><JR> - authors are notified that this will result in accessibility 
>problems in the target.
>
><jeanne> Issue: Look at detailed techniques for B.1.2.1 & 2 (at all levels)
>
><trackbot> Created ISSUE-169 - Look at detailed techniques for B.1.2.1 & 2 
>(at all levels) ; please complete additional details at 
><http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/169/edit>http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/169/edit 
>.
>
><jeanne> ACTION: JS to draft Technique use cases for video associated with 
>B.1.2.1 & 2 Issue-169 [recorded in 
><http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action01>http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action01]
>
><trackbot> Created ACTION-31 - Draft Technique use cases for video 
>associated with B.1.2.1 & 2 Issue-169 [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2008-10-31].
>
><AnnM> suggestion of slight reword for second bullet, for readability - 
>notifies the author that this will result in accessibility problems in the 
>target
>
><JR> B.1.2.1 Target Cannot Preserve Accessibility Information: If the 
>target technology of the transformation or conversion cannot preserve 
>*recognized* accessibility information that is required for that content 
>to conform to WCAG Level A, then the authoring tool (Level A):
>
><JR> - provides the author with the option to retain the information in 
>another way if possible (e.g., as a "comment", by saving a backup copy) and
>
><JR> - notifies the author that this will result in accessibility problems 
>in the target.
>
><JR> ACTION: JR to Look at B.1.2.3 Notification Prior to Deletion 
>[recorded in 
><http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action02>http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action02]
>
><trackbot> Created ACTION-32 - Look at B.1.2.3 Notification Prior to 
>Deletion [on Jan Richards - due 2008-10-31].
>
><JR> ACTION: JR to Look at B.1.2 Applicability Notes [recorded in 
><http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action03>http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action03]
>
><trackbot> Created ACTION-33 - Look at B.1.2 Applicability Notes [on Jan 
>Richards - due 2008-10-31].
>Guideline B.1.3 Ensure that automatically generated content is accessible.
>
><JR> publishing
>
><JR> The point at which authors or the authoring tool make content 
>available to end users (e.g., uploading a Web page, committing a change in 
>a wiki).
>
><JR> B.1.2.1 Target Preserves Accessibility Information (Level A): If the 
>target technology of the transformation or conversion can preserve 
>*recognized* accessibility information that is required for that content 
>to conform to WCAG Level A, then the accessibility information is 
>preserved and available for end users in the resulting content. (Level A)
>
>Reed - as long as the tool does it at some point it's fine
>
>Reed - we shouldn't really define when the tool should do it
>
><JR> B.1.3.1 Automatic Accessible (Level A): If the authoring tool 
>automatically generates content, then that content meets WCAG Level A 
>prior to *publishing*.
>
><JR> ACTION: JR to Level A->Minimum, Level AA->??, Level AAA->??? 
>[recorded in 
><http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action04>http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action04]
>
><trackbot> Created ACTION-34 - Level A->Minimum, Level AA->??, Level 
>AAA->??? [on Jan Richards - due 2008-10-31].
>PRINCIPLE B.2: Authors must be supported in the production of accessible 
>content
>
>applicability notes are a bit in limbo
>Guideline B.2.1 Guide authors to create accessible content.
>
>JS - do we need the word "always" in "If an authoring action or 
>instruction will always lead"
>
>Reed - excessive prompting will produce a poor user experience
>
>JS - one warning per authoring session?
>
>JR - can see it working with a set of instructions
>
>e.g. inserting an image instructions
>
>JR - we're getting quite low level here
>
>Reed - "cannot be made to meet" is easy to get around
>
>JS - "cannot meet" is better
>
>JR - cannot check a whole calendar widget and say "fix that"
>
>Reed - is this going to be testable?
>
>JR - getting quite fuzzy here
>
>Reed - do i have to flag for everything that might not meet "A"?
>
>Reed - checkers don't have to run at the end
>
>Reed - they can be checking all the time
>
><JR> See also: For more information on how to prompt, see ATAG 2.0 
>Techniques - Appendix A: Prompting for Different Types of Accessibility 
>Information. Repair features (see Guidelin B.2.3) are also an important 
>aspect of author guidance.
>Guideline B.2.2 Assist authors in checking for accessibility problems.
>
>JR - for automated tools having line numbers would be good
>
>JR - having something to click on to take you there would be great
>
>JS - what are we trying to accomplish with this one?
>
>We're just trying to help authors locate things
>
><JR> B.2.2.3 Help authors locate:
>
><jeanne> ... the author must be given sufficient information to identify 
>the problem (e.g. display the content in situ, display image)/\.
>
>JS - is an alternative page provided? Is a sign language alternative provided?
>
><JR> B.2.2.3 Help Authors Locate: For any checks that require author 
>judgment to determine whether a potential accessibility problem is 
>correctly identified (i.e., manual checking and semi-automated checking), 
>the relevant content is identified (e.g., displaying the surrounding text, 
>"Is a sign lanuage interpreation provided?")
>
>JS - we need to make it clear that this can be done with an outside tool
>
>as part of the "authoring system"
>
>Andrew Arch (W3C) joins for an overview of WAI-AGE
>
><jeanne> AA: Did a large literature review of what older people do 
>on-line. There are many things we can learn from these studies in other 
>parts of WAI.
>
><jeanne> ... the complexity of the user agent.
>
><jeanne> ...how to increase the font size
>
><jeanne> ...the declining ability for fine motor control.
>
><jeanne> ...making things easier to activate and control - like buttons 
>and scroll bars.
>
><jeanne> AA: the retirement age is rising or becoming arbitrary, so more 
>older workers are staying in the workplace.
>
><jeanne> AA:The accessibility of Content Management Systems is key as the 
>web becomes more and more 2-way.
>
><jeanne> AA: What most people have identified as requirements of Ageing 
>are covered by WCAG, but mostly in the advisory techniques.
>
><jeanne> ...contrast between colors significantly deteriorates.
>
><jeanne> RS: We have to be careful, because some bright colors help some 
>conditions and not others.
>
><JR> RS: Our research show older people shun AT's when they are associated 
>with disability
>
><JR> SC: Agree
>
><JR> RS: There can be social stigma around disability
>
><JR> RS: What are we doing about wording "disability"...
>
><JR> AA: Part of scope is awareness of overlap...especially among support 
>agencies
>
><JR> AA: No studies on training talking about adaptive 
>strategies...closest is go to store and try different mouse
>
><JR> RS: So little definitive research in this area....need to be careful 
>when setting standards in this area
>
><JR> SC: THis is why I'm excited about personalization
>
><JR> JS: Actually research is there...but locked up in corporate
>
><JR> AA: Some of it....but there are some universities working in this area.
>
><JR> AA: Amount of research in journals now is increasing significantly - 
>likely to be definitive things in 5 yrs
>
><JR> RS: We at MS have some data but not by age
>
><JR> JS: I worked at a place that was doing really good stuff
>
><JR> AA: RNIB did some good work on vision decline
>
><amj> 
><http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-wai-age-literature-20080514/#what>http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-wai-age-literature-20080514/#what
>
><JR> RS: Never should be standard UI
>
><JR> JS: Right...but also ability to change not only appearance but less 
>complexity
>
><JR> RS: But what does simpler mean?
>
><JR> AA: Work in browser...what do I need to browse vs. do other things 
>the Web does
>
><JR> AA: Haven't seen definitive stuff on authoring tools
>
><JR> AA: "Newer" older users don't want to change the setup
>
><JR> AA: Even after a couple of years
>
><JR> JR: Wrapping up....
>
><amj> 
><http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/comparative-WAI.html>http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/comparative-WAI.html
>
><JR> AA: OK We've put together this table
>
><JR> AA: It's our initial attempt to map WAI guidelines to the Age 
>requirements
>
><JR> AA: We'd be keen to work with AUWG to do a double check
>
><JR> RS: Studies cited?
>
><JR> AA: Yes at bottom of litt review
>
><amj> 
><http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-wai-age-literature-20080514/#refs>http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-wai-age-literature-20080514/#refs
>
>There's probably some overlap with interfaces people have been working on 
>for people with learning disabilities using exisiting site APIs to create 
>new "skins"
>
><http://icant.co.uk/easy-youtube/>http://icant.co.uk/easy-youtube/
>
>http://code.google.com/p/accessible-maps/
>
><JR> AA: And if anyone has seen studies we'd be pleased to see them
>
><JR> AR: Brings up "ethical mashups"
>
><SallyC> <http://www.softwareexpress.co.uk/>http://www.softwareexpress.co.uk/
>
><JR> AA: Sometimes hard to diff. unfamiliarity with mild cognitive 
>impairment (forgetfulness)
>
><JR> SC: I've just put in a link to compny that makes skins of browsers 
>and email
>
><SallyC> It is an application interface to the computer that includes web, 
>email, word and any main functionality of a computer that someone would 
>want to do.
>
><jeanne> issue: create an Appendix on Ageing population requirements in 
>conjunction with WAI-AGE project
>
><trackbot> Created ISSUE-170 - Create an Appendix on Ageing population 
>requirements in conjunction with WAI-AGE project ; please complete 
>additional details at 
><http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/170/edit>http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/170/edit 
>.
>
><JR> > 
><http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/comparative-WAI.html>http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/comparative-WAI.html
>
><jeanne> ACTION: JS to follow up with Andrew Arch on cross-over of with 
>WAI Age document 
><http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/comparative-WAI.html>http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/comparative-WAI.html 
>[recorded in 
><http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action05>http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action05]
>
><trackbot> Created ACTION-35 - Follow up with Andrew Arch on cross-over of 
>with WAI Age document 
><http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/comparative-WAI.html>http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/comparative-WAI.html 
>[on Jeanne Spellman - due 2008-10-31].
>
><rshaffne> scribe:rshaffner
>
><rshaffne> scribe: rshaffne
>Conformance
>
><jeanne> new version: 
><http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2008/WD-ATAG20-20081024/WD-ATAG20-20081024>http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2008/WD-ATAG20-20081024/WD-ATAG20-20081024
>
>JR: talked with archer and we may add appendix talking about aging
>
>JR
>
>JT: I wanted to relay that yesterday that I was at the free software 
>symposium (open source) fairly lengthy discussion on alt text
>... resolution was that this needed to be dealt with for flikr and other 
>uploaded images
>
>JR: Html may make alt no longer required
>
>JT: I was trying to relay to them that ATAG couldn't handle unless dealt 
>with in WCAG
>... as well
>
>JR: it's not completely decided WAIs position is to make it mandatory
>
>JT: we are thought to be promoting WCAG compliance, implication seems to 
>be that we would have requirements that go beyond WCAG
>... more strenuous support for alt text in the authoring tool than in the 
>content guidelines
>
>JR: do you mean automatically, or do you mean like 1000 picture dump where 
>you shouldn't get to publish without mandatory alt contribution?
>
><jeanne> issue: more strenuous support of alt in ATAG than in the WCAG 
>guidelines.
>
><trackbot> Created ISSUE-171 - More strenuous support of alt in ATAG than 
>in the WCAG guidelines. ; please complete additional details at 
><http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/171/edit>http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/171/edit 
>.
>
>JT: what would the UI look like that forces people to do this?
>... they gave examples of other batch uploads where there was metadata 
>requirement
>
>JR: at the end if the user just wants to get pictures up, shouldn't they 
>be able to do that?
>
>JT: I agree
>... the issues is the feeling that ATAG could be more strenuous than ATAG
>
>JR: moving to conformance again
>
>NOTE MOVING BACK TO CONFORMANCE SECTION
>
>RS: we should add something to make people not liable for claims made on 
>their behalf
>
>discussing whether it is appropriate to have links everywhere
>
>what is right level of conformance disclosure
>
><JR> Whenever the claimed conformance level is published (e.g., product 
>information website), the URI for the on-line published version of the 
>conformance claim must be included.
>
><JR> Claimants are solely responsible for the accuracy of their claims 
>(including claims that include products for which they are not 
>responsible) and keeping claims up to date.
>
>Discussing required components
>
><JR> (e.g., "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, 24 October 2008, 
>Editor's Draft ")
>
>JS: we should make the line the same about responsibility
>
>JR: ok
>
>Moving up section about claimants being solely responsible
>
>burden is on claimant
>
><JR> Claimants are solely responsible for the accuracy of their claims and 
>keeping claims up to date. The burden is on the conformance claimant 
>rather than the developer of any of the software components.
>
><JR> (a) The ATAG 2.0 conformance level that has been satisfied (see 
>Donformance Levels)
>
><JR> (a) The ATAG 2.0 conformance level that has been satisfied (see 
>Conformance Levels)
>
>This is replacing a
>
>JR: the only thing changing is what it in the brackets
>... moving on to B
>
>JS: let's slow down, we made a major change to this in July, need to amke 
>sure it's still accurate
>... don't need bullet saying need at leasst one piece of content
>
>RS: does it matter if HTML and JS are used...
>
>all, let's just kill both bullets
>
>JR: moving onto C
>
>JS: can we strike C?
>
>RS: I think so
>
>CS <observing>:does that mean other techs wont be listed?
>
>yes
>
>ok
>
>REMOVED
>
>JR: D is for completeness
>
>RS: d is a heads up for what won't work
>
>Moving to part e
>
>JR: there will only be one version of WCAG
>
>RS: in fact keeping it means people can site the old version
>
><JR> provide the name and version information of the user agent(s).
>
>OK, changing to just provide the name and version of the user agents
>
>JR: are we OK leaving that as is?
>
>yes
>
>JS: wait so we didn't finish up platforms?
>
>JR: yeah, is that still ok?
>... we will link to examples for the accessibility platform architectures
>
><JR> AXAPI for MacOS
>
><JR> UA for MacOS
>
>JR: can we go onto optional components?
>
><JR> ACTION: JR to Look into MacOS equiv of MSAA [recorded in 
><http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action06>http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action06]
>
><trackbot> Created ACTION-36 - Look into MacOS equiv of MSAA [on Jan 
>Richards - due 2008-10-31].
>
><SallyC> 
><http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Accessibility/Conceptual/AccessibilityMacOSX/OSXAXModel/chapter_4_section_1.html>http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Accessibility/Conceptual/AccessibilityMacOSX/OSXAXModel/chapter_4_section_1.html
>
>JS: is there a reason why normative is there?
>
>JR: nope, good point
>
>JS: unclear where they said they did it
>
>JR: that's what implied by conformance level
>... example, I complied to ATAG 2.0 Level A and therefore I met all A 
>requirements
>
>JS: they should at least have to list not applicables
>
>TB: don't they have to do that today? if they don't, they should have to?
>
>JR: it's there
>
>JS: ok let's just move it over to conformance so they do it
>
>JR: for each one they say whether they did it, or they say why it was N/A
>
>JS: let's making it missing c
>
><JR> (c) For each success criteria, a declaration of whether or not the 
>success criterion has been satisfied or a declaration that the success 
>criteria is not applicable to the authoring tool and a rationale for why not.
>
>Jan is currently drafting up changesx
>
>(c) For each success criteria, a declaration of whether or not the success 
>criterion has been satisfied or a declaration that the success criteria is 
>not applicable to the authoring tool and a rationale for why not.
>
>repost for Jeanne post drop
>
>no changes aboce
>
>above
>
><jeanne2> (c)For each success criterion: a declaration of whether or not 
>the success criterion has been satisfied or
>
><jeanne2> a declaration that the success criterion is not applicable and a 
>rationale for why not.
>
>JR: remove or web content accessibility benchmark document
>
><jeanne2> ACTION: JS to check with W3C internal to confirm the wording of 
>the Conformance Disclaimer section. #conf-disclaimer [recorded in 
><http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action07>http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action07]
>
><trackbot> Created ACTION-37 - Check with W3C internal to confirm the 
>wording of the Conformance Disclaimer section. #conf-disclaimer [on Jeanne 
>Spellman - due 2008-10-31].
>
>JS: I will check on it and based on what lawyers say, is everyone ok with 
>that?
>
>TB: do you have to actually identify who made the claim?
>
>JS: where should it go??
>
>thanks zakim
>
><scribe> scribe: rshaffner
>
><scribe> scribe:rshaffne
>
>JR: we are back up at the tope
>
>top
>
>JR: we are at levels of conformance
>
>RS: i like partial conformance
>
><AndrewR> +1 for that
>
>JS: I hate to just see one thing stop conformance
>
>JR: but if you give a mouse a cookie..
>
>JS: do we want to expand partial conformance?
>
>e.g. should it not just be a or b
>
>JR: let's remove the note
>
>JS did
>
>JR: 10min left, let's try and zip back to B2.2.3
>
>Like Jutta's idea around record keeping
>
><JR> ACTION: JR to Proposal to add a AA recordkeeping item to B.2.2 
>[recorded in 
><http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action08>http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action08]
>
><trackbot> Created ACTION-38 - Proposal to add a AA recordkeeping item to 
>B.2.2 [on Jan Richards - due 2008-10-31].
>
><Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to discuss the checking SC -- aren't location 
>and advise needed in B.2.3?
>
>JS: we will need more specific examples for the repair section
>
>JR: let's at least make some notes on what we need to do here
>
><jeanne2> Issue: provide additional success criteria in B.2.3 on repair
>
><trackbot> Created ISSUE-172 - Provide additional success criteria in 
>B.2.3 on repair ; please complete additional details at 
><http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/172/edit>http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/172/edit 
>.
>
><jeanne2> ACTION: JS to draft proposal for new success criteria for B.2.3 
>Repair [recorded in 
><http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action09>http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action09]
>
><trackbot> Created ACTION-39 - Draft proposal for new success criteria for 
>B.2.3 Repair [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2008-10-31].
>
><JR> Adding SC's to Repair:
>
><JR> - Availability: Repair is available prior to publishing...
>
><JR> - Help Authors Locate...
>
><JR> - Help Authors Decide...
>
><jeanne2> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/>http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/
>
><SallyC> Would like to say thank you for letting me observe and 
>participate in today's group. It has been really helpful and interesting.
>
><JR> ACTION: JT to Send (untransposed) draft with grammar edits [recorded 
>in 
><http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action10>http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action10]
>
><trackbot> Created ACTION-40 - Send (untransposed) draft with grammar 
>edits [on Jutta Treviranus - due 2008-10-31].
>
>Milestones
>Public WD +2 wks from freeze date (JS: to talk with Judy)
>Actions out of this meeting
>- Back to weekly meetings
>- Aim to publish next Heartbeat WD in January
>- Last Call - Before CSUN March - paper at CSUN?
>F2F ideas
>- ATIA in January?
>- IBM, Microsoft possible
>- RNIB runs Fall conference in London (Techshare)
>
>Summary of Action Items
>[NEW] ACTION: JR to Level A->Minimum, Level AA->??, Level AAA->??? 
>[recorded in 
><http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action04>http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action04]
>[NEW] ACTION: JR to Look at B.1.2 Applicability Notes [recorded in 
><http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action03>http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action03]
>[NEW] ACTION: JR to Look at B.1.2.3 Notification Prior to Deletion 
>[recorded in 
><http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action02>http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action02]
>[NEW] ACTION: JR to Look into MacOS equiv of MSAA [recorded in 
><http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action06>http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action06]
>[NEW] ACTION: JR to Proposal to add a AA recordkeeping item to B.2.2 
>[recorded in 
><http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action08>http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action08]
>[NEW] ACTION: JS to check with W3C internal to confirm the wording of the 
>Conformance Disclaimer section. #conf-disclaimer [recorded in 
><http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action07>http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action07]
>[NEW] ACTION: JS to draft proposal for new success criteria for B.2.3 
>Repair [recorded in 
><http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action09>http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action09]
>[NEW] ACTION: JS to draft Technique use cases for video associated with 
>B.1.2.1 & 2 Issue-169 [recorded in 
><http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action01>http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action01]
>[NEW] ACTION: JS to follow up with Andrew Arch on cross-over of with WAI 
>Age document 
><http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/comparative-WAI.html>http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/comparative-WAI.html 
>[recorded in 
><http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action05>http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action05]
>[NEW] ACTION: JT to Send (untransposed) draft with grammar edits [recorded 
>in 
><http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action10>http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action10]
>
>[End of minutes]
Received on Friday, 24 October 2008 15:22:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:55 UTC