Re: minutes of AUWG Teleconference of 8 December

I had an action item to bring the note further up. I moved it into the 
first paragraph after "Conformance Levels" and expanded the "see 
definition" to "see Definition of authoring tool". There are no other 
changes:


Conformance levels

Authoring tools (see Definition of authoring tool) may claim conformance 
to ATAG 2.0 at either a "full" or "partial" conformance level. Note: The 
Working Group remains committed to the principle that: "Everyone should 
have the ability to create and access Web content" and, therefore, 
recommends that developers use the partial conformance levels as a step 
towards meeting the full conformance levels in the future.

The full conformance levels are:

- Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level "A"
The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A success criteria.
- Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level "Double-A"
The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A and Level AA success 
criteria.
- Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level "Triple-A"
The authoring tool satisfies all of the success criteria.

The partial conformance levels are:

- Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "A": Authoring Tool User Interface
The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A success criteria in Part 
A. Nothing is claimed about Part B.
- Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "Double-A": Authoring Tool User 
Interface
The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A and Level AA success 
criteria in Part A. Nothing is claimed about Part B.
- Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "Triple-A": Authoring Tool User 
Interface
The authoring tool satisfies all of the success criteria in Part A. 
Nothing is claimed about Part B.
- Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "A": Content Production"
The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A success criteria in Part 
B. Nothing is claimed about Part A.
- Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "Double-A": Content Production"
The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A and Level AA success 
criteria in Part B. Nothing is claimed about Part A.
- Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "Triple-A": Content Production"
The authoring tool satisfies all of the success criteria in Part B. 
Nothing is claimed about Part A.





Jeanne Spellman wrote:
> Minutes <http://www.w3.org/2008/12/08-au-minutes>
> 
> IRC Log <http://www.w3.org/2008/12/08-au-irc>
> 
> *Summary of Action Items*
> ACTION: JR to reword proposal on Conformance to bring the Conformance 
> Level note up to before the Partial Conformance section. It turns the 
> note into an Introduction.
> ACTION: JS to add examples of the accessibility platform architecture to 
> #7 of the Conformance claim
> ACTION: JS to update draft to fix the authoring tools link in the 
> Conformance levels section so that the link text is descriptive.
> ACTION: JS to update draft with Jutta's edits from action 40. See email 
> from Jan for details.
> 
> *Text of Minutes*
> 
> WAI AU
> 08 Dec 2008
> 
> Agenda
> 
> See also: IRC log
> Attendees
> 
> Present
>     Jutta, Jeanne, Jan, Greg, Dana, Sueann
> Regrets
>     Roberto, Andrew, Tim, Anne
> Chair
>     Jutta
> Scribe
>     jeanne
> 
> Contents
> 
>     * Topics
>          1. Conformance Section survey results
>          2. Outstanding Action Items
>          3. Next heartbeat draft
>          4. Alternative text for images
>          5. Next Meeting
>     * Summary of Action Items
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> <JR> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2008OctDec/0040.html
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20081205/results
> Conformance Section survey results
> 
> <JR> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2008OctDec/0067.html
> 
> JR: proposal follows the WCAG 2.0 wording. Proposal is in response to 
> Tim's comments
> 
> Tim's comments: 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2008OctDec/0048.html
> 
> JT: Is everyone clear on the difference between the ??? and the claim?
> 
> no questions
> 
> JR: [Reviews the proposal]
> 
> JT: Can a claimant be an evaluator who is not affiliated to the product?
> 
> JR: Yes. The details are further into the proposal.
> 
> <scribe> ACTION: JS to add examples of the accessibility platform 
> architecture to #7 of the Conformance claim [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/12/08-au-minutes.html#action01]
> 
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-64 - Add examples of the accessibility 
> platform architecture to #7 of the Conformance claim [on Jeanne Spellman 
> - due 2008-12-15].
> 
> JR: #8 has been added: to declare whether each SC has been met. Does the 
> group think that this is too much of a burden?
> ... There is an option to decribe how it has been met.
> 
> JT: Should there be a link to the definition of Authoring Tool?
> ... Should the note go before the description of partial conformance?
> 
> JS: Notes should go before, because they are overlooked at the end.
> 
> <scribe> ACTION: JR to reword proposal on Conformance to bring the 
> Conformance Level note up to before the Partial Conformance section. It 
> turns the note into an Introduction. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/12/08-au-minutes.html#action02]
> 
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-65 - Reword proposal on Conformance to bring 
> the Conformance Level note up to before the Partial Conformance section. 
> It turns the note into an Introduction. [on Jan Richards - due 2008-12-15].
> 
> <Greg> none here
> 
> JS: no concerns or comments
> 
> <JR> Authoring tools (see definition of Authoring Tool)...
> 
> <JR> Used to say "Authoring tools (see definition)"...
> 
> <scribe> ACTION: JS to update draft to fix the authoring tools link in 
> the Conformance levels section so that the link text is descriptive. 
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/08-au-minutes.html#action03]
> 
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-66 - Update draft to fix the authoring tools 
> link in the Conformance levels section so that the link text is 
> descriptive. [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2008-12-15].
> Outstanding Action Items
> 
> 51 closed
> 
> greg will work on action item 38 today
> 
> action 40 has been forwarded to Jeanne
> 
> <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 40
> 
> <scribe> ACTION: JS to update draft with Jutta's edits from action 40. 
> See email from Jan for details. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/12/08-au-minutes.html#action04]
> 
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-67 - Update draft with Jutta's edits from 
> action 40. See email from Jan for details. [on Jeanne Spellman - due 
> 2008-12-15].
> Next heartbeat draft
> 
> ATIA conference is Jan 28-31. A heartbeat draft in mid-January would be 
> done in time.
> 
> JS: We would have the conformance section revised. What other sections 
> would be done?
> 
> JR: A heartbeat publication wouldn't require substantive changes. We 
> want to fix the typographical error.
> Alternative text for images
> 
> <JR> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2008OctDec/0040.html
> 
> There is discussion in different groups about automatically generated 
> alternative text. We want to encourage authors to use meaningful alt, 
> for example, saving meaningful alt and suggesting reuse.
> 
> [review of issues]
> 
> JT: There is a proposal to allow automated generated of alt. If we know 
> that it has been machine-generated, what does that do to other checkers?
> ... Have we ever reached a conclusion about the role of the authoring tool?
> 
> JR: What information should that format hold?
> ... it shouldn't only be alt, although alt is the most overloaded.
> 
> JT: What happens when the Authoring Tool presents machine-authored text 
> to the author? JR: Won't the author just take the text offered?
> 
> JS: There are new technologies emerging that can generate good (but not 
> great) captions for video. We don't want to block that.
> 
> JT: The issue isn't blocking it, the issue is informing the listener 
> where the alternative came from.
> 
> JR: It was required in HTML 4, and HTML 5 suggested removing the 
> requirement of alt for validation. There was pushback from some members 
> of the disability community that removing the validity requirement would 
> negatively impact accessibility.
> ... another proposal being discussed is the use of the attribute "noalt".
> 
> JT: Look forward to seeing it in a survey.
> Next Meeting
> 
> Next meeting Monday, 15 December
> 
> JT: That is a holiday in Spain.
> 
> meeting adjourned.
> Summary of Action Items
> [NEW] ACTION: JR to reword proposal on Conformance to bring the 
> Conformance Level note up to before the Partial Conformance section. It 
> turns the note into an Introduction. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/12/08-au-minutes.html#action02]
> [NEW] ACTION: JS to add examples of the accessibility platform 
> architecture to #7 of the Conformance claim [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/12/08-au-minutes.html#action01]
> [NEW] ACTION: JS to update draft to fix the authoring tools link in the 
> Conformance levels section so that the link text is descriptive. 
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/08-au-minutes.html#action03]
> [NEW] ACTION: JS to update draft with Jutta's edits from action 40. See 
> email from Jan for details. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/12/08-au-minutes.html#action04]
>  
> [End of minutes]
> 

-- 
Jan Richards, M.Sc.
User Interface Design Lead
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
Faculty of Information (i-school)
University of Toronto

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896

Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2008 16:26:23 UTC