RE: Minutes of AUWG teleconference of 24 November 2008

Late regrets.

 

---

Roberto Scano (rscano@iwa-italy.org
<http://itlists.org/mailman/listinfo/webaccessibile> )

IWA/HWG International Project Manager and EMEA Coordinator 

International Webmasters Association / HTML Writers Guild 

W3C Advisory Commitee Representative for IWA/HWG W3C 

WCAG Working Group Member - W3C ATAG Working Group Member 

Expert of ISO/TC 159/SC 4/WG 5 'Software ergonomics and human-computer
dialogues'

 <http://www.iwanet.org/> http://www.iwanet.org -  <http://www.hwg.org/>
http://www.hwg.org

E-Mail: emea@iwanet.org <http://itlists.org/mailman/listinfo/webaccessibile>
- w3c-rep@iwanet.org <http://itlists.org/mailman/listinfo/webaccessibile> 

Personal web site:  <http://www.robertoscano.info/>
http://www.robertoscano.info

 

From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Jeanne Spellman
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 11:40 PM
To: AUWG
Subject: Minutes of AUWG teleconference of 24 November 2008

 

Minutes <http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes> 

IRC Log <http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-irc> 

Action Items
ACTION: jeanne Propose some example workflows for B.3.2.1
ACTION: JR to propose a rewording for the survey that takes into account
WCAG Levels
ACTION: JR to propose a rewording for the survey that takes into account
WCAG Levels for B.3.1.1 
ACTION: JR Try to find a home for the B.3 note within the document 
ACTION: JS to Add new wording for B.3.1 Rationale to next week's survey.
(and changed to or) 
ACTION: JS to draft some examples for B.3.2.1 (insert image: dreamweaver
example vs. Fortune 500 CMS system 


Text of Minutes
W3C
Authoring Tool Working Group
24 Nov 2008

See also: IRC log
Attendees

Present
    Andrew, Jan, Jeanne, Jutta, Sueann
Regrets
    TimB
Chair
    Jan
Scribe
    Andrew

Contents

    * Topics
         1. Going over the results of the survey
         2. Proposed Rewording B.3.1 Rationale
         3. Proposed Rewording B.3.2.1
    * Summary of Action Items

<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20081117/results

<JR> Scribe: Andrew
Going over the results of the survey

<JR> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20081117/results

<JR> http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/

the first proposal was to remove the note from principle B.3

no other principles have notes

<JR> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20081117/results

JR - if we create an understanding document it could go in there

JR - although it doesn't really relate to any checkpoints

JR - if the accessibility features do not fit in with the rest of the tool
it will be detrimental

JT - could we integrate it into a rationale somewhere?

JR - if it's not doing any harm can we keep it for now with an editors note
to say this isn't the final home for this?

JR - i've seen tools that have done accessibility in a bad way

JR - it can be a real "killer"

<scribe> ACTION: JR Try to find a home for the B.3 note within the document
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-52 - Try to find a home for the B.3 note within
the document [on Jan Richards - due 2008-12-01].

JS - maybe it belongs in the introduction?
Proposed Rewording B.3.1 Rationale

JR - say the author has to make something bold

JR - they are likely to use the first way they encounter

<jeanne> +1 to OR

+ 1 to or

<jeanne> ACTION: JS to Add new wording for B.3.1 Rationale to next week's
survey. (and changed to or) [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-53 - Add new wording for B.3.1 Rationale to next
week's survey. (and changed to or) [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2008-12-01].

Topci: Proposed Rewording B.3.1.1

JR - do we need to tie "accessible outcome" into the WCAG Levels somehow?

JS - what would be an example where someone would implement this but not
adhere to WCAG?

JS - not sure we need to jump through a lot of hoops to tie it to WCAG

JS - as long as we're not leaving any big loop holes in the document

JR - take colour contrast as an example

JR - there is 5:1 and also 7:1 in WCAG

JR - a highlight button in a tool could conform to either levels

JS - i'm concerned this may be too granular

JR - what about making something a heading?

JS - the tool should never give the user the option to make something a
heading just by making it bold

JS - the bold tag has been deprecated

JS - and styling something as bold doesn't communicate any semantic
information

JR - i'm just thinking how users work at the moment

JR - when there are 2 ways to do something that both make something look the
same way, the tool should promote the more accessible way of doing it

JR - i.e. the idea of "mainstream rendered outcome"

JS - bold is a bad example

JS - colour contrast is a better example

<jeanne> color contrast is a good example because there is a choice to the
user.

<scribe> ACTION: JR to propose a rewording for the survey that takes into
account WCAG Levels [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-54 - Propose a rewording for the survey that takes
into account WCAG Levels [on Jan Richards - due 2008-12-01].

<scribe> ACTION: JR to propose a rewording for the survey that takes into
account WCAG Levels for B.3.1.1 [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Propose a rewording for the survey that takes
into account WCAG Levels for B.3.1.1 [on Jan Richards - due 2008-12-01].
Proposed Rewording B.3.2.1

JR - we used to have something like the proposed new rewording

JR - comments came back saying "how do we know this is integrated"

JR - this is why we added the part about the accessibility options being
included before the first opportunity to finish

JS - some large organisations might have a more distributed workflow

JS - e.g. the person adding an image may not be the person adding the alt
text

JR - there are wizards where the "finish" button is greyed out until all
mandatory steps are complete

JR - but Jeanne has a good point

<jeanne> I like Jutta's wording, because it is inclusive of different
workflows

JS - large companies would never have a visual person writing alt text for
example

<jeanne> A CMS designed for large companies would be designed for different
departments working on the workflow.

JR - i think we need to add some example of workflows to our guideline

<scribe> ACTION: jeanne Propose some example workflows for B.3.2.1 [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Propose some example workflows for B.3.2.1
[on Jeanne Spellman - due 2008-12-01].

<jeanne> ACTION: JS to draft some examples for B.3.2.1 (insert image:
dreamweaver example vs. Fortune 500 CMS system [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-57 - Draft some examples for B.3.2.1 (insert
image: dreamweaver example vs. Fortune 500 CMS system [on Jeanne Spellman -
due 2008-12-01].

<jeanne> close Action-56

<trackbot> ACTION-56 Propose some example workflows for B.3.2.1 closed

close Action-54

<trackbot> ACTION-54 Propose a rewording for the survey that takes into
account WCAG Levels closed
Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: jeanne Propose some example workflows for B.3.2.1 [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to propose a rewording for the survey that takes into
account WCAG Levels [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to propose a rewording for the survey that takes into
account WCAG Levels for B.3.1.1 [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: JR Try to find a home for the B.3 note within the document
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: JS to Add new wording for B.3.1 Rationale to next week's
survey. (and changed to or) [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: JS to draft some examples for B.3.2.1 (insert image:
dreamweaver example vs. Fortune 500 CMS system [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2008/11/24-au-minutes.html#action06]

[End of minutes]

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1811 - Release Date: 25/11/2008
8.29