W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2009

Minutes of AUWG Face to Face Day 1 - 15 June

From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:17:17 -0400
Message-ID: <4A36BA5D.2010302@w3.org>
To: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Minutes
http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-au-minutes.html

Summary of Action Items

ACTION: JR to propose a definition of programmatically
    determined.
ACTION: JR to write a definition for Display Preferences.
ACTION: JR to write a proposed defintion of "available"
ACTION: JS to change "authors" to "author(s)"
ACTION: JS to do a global update of "photosensitive epilepsy"
    to "photosensitive seizure disorder"
ACTION: JS to provide new text for A3.2.2 and moving targets
ACTION: JS to update Glossary to move the definition of
    Authoring Tool User Interface before the def of the Web based and
    non-Web based definitions
ACTION: JS to write proporsal for A.3.2 rationale and
    Guildline text
ACTION: JT to reword the rationale for A.1.2 for clarity and
    grammar
ACTION: SN A3.4.1 come up with a recommendation on how to
    address adding WAI-ARIA like taxonomy
Text of Minutes

    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

  Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

15 Jun 2009

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-au-irc

Attendees

    Present
           AnnM, Jan_Richards, Reed_Shaffner, Sueann_Nichols,
           Jutta_Treviranus, Jeanne_Spellman, ARonksley, Tim_Boland,
           Greg_Pisocky, Ann_McMeekin, Andrew_Ronksley

    Regrets
    Chair
           jutta, jan

    Scribe
           Greg, reed, Sueann

Contents

      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Review of public comments
          2. [5]Guildline A.1.1
          3. [6]A.1.2.1
          4. [7]A.2.1
          5. [8]Guideline A.2.1
          6. [9]Guideline A.2.1 rationale
          7. [10]Guideline A.2.2 Rationale
          8. [11]Guideline A.2.3
          9. [12]Checkpoint A.3.1.1 Important Commands
         10. [13]Guideline A.3.2
         11. [14]A.3.7
      * [15]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

Review of public comments

    <jeanne> ACTION: JS to update Glossary to move the definition of
    Authoring Tool User Interface before the def of the Web based and
    non-Web based definitions [recorded in
    [16]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-au-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-156 - Update Glossary to move the
    definition of Authoring Tool User Interface before the def of the
    Web based and non-Web based definitions [on Jeanne Spellman - due
    2009-06-22].

    <Greg> Conducting review of public working draft
    [17]http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2009/ED-ATAG20-20090612

      [17] http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2009/ED-ATAG20-20090612

Guildline A.1.1

    <Greg> Resolution: Remove applicability note A.1.1 based upon public
    feedback.

    <Greg> Topic Guidelin A.1.2

    <jtrevir> Rationale: Authoring Tools that are Web applications are
    Web content that should conform to WCAG 2.0.

    <jtrevir> This will support the accessibility of the authoring tool
    user interface and will facilitate communication with assistive
    technologies via user agents.

    <Greg> A.1.2.1

A.1.2.1

    <Greg> Proposal by JR for A.1.2.1 Non-Web based authoing tool user
    interfaces follow (and cite in the conformance claim) accessibility
    standards and/or platform conventions that support accessibility.
    (Level A)

    <Jan> A.1.2.1 Non-Web-Based Accessible (Level A): Non-Web-based
    authoring tool user interfaces follow (and cite in the conformance
    claim) accessibility standards and/or platform conventions that
    support accessibility. (Level A)

    <Greg> Resolution Remove Applicability note for A.1.2.1

    <Greg> A.1.1 Rationale

    <jeanne> ACTION: JT to reword the rationale for A.1.2 for clarity
    and grammar [recorded in
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-au-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-157 - Reword the rationale for A.1.2 for
    clarity and grammar [on Jutta Treviranus - due 2009-06-22].

    <Sueann> Guideline A.2.1 [For the authoring tool user interface]
    Provide access to alternative content in the Web content.

    <Sueann> This is about non-text content - why not state that?
    Provide access to text alternatives for any non-text content in
    rendered views of Web content.

A.2.1

Guideline A.2.1

    <jeanne> JT: Make alternative content available to the author.

    <jeanne> scribe: Greg

    <Jan> A.2.1 Make alternative content available to the author.

Guideline A.2.1 rationale

    <Jan> Some authors require access to alternative content in order to
    interact with the Web content that they are authoring.

    <Sueann> A.2.1.1. The definition of alternative content is
    inadequate to address this guideline. you may in fact have a
    flexible system which may require full equivalent replacements for
    the content defined by user preferences such as a table or
    accessible datagrid equivalent for a complex visualization. The
    system may in fact generate alterative content that would be more
    accessible to an individual user. Although WCAG does not address
    this ATAG certainly could while st

    <Sueann> Although WCAG does not address this ATAG certainly could
    while still supporting WCAG. How the user specifies this equivalent
    will be based on their need. ... Think Access for All or ISO DRD/PNP

    <jeanne> ACTION: JS to change "authors" to "author(s)" [recorded in
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-au-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-158 - Change "authors" to "author(s)" [on
    Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-06-22].

    <ReedShaff> stylistic note to change authors to author(s) throughout
    the standard

    <Jan> A.2.1.1 Recognized Alternative Content: When recognized
    alternative content is available@@define??@@ for Web content being
    edited, the authoring tool makes the alternative content accessible
    to the author(s).

    <jeanne> ACTION: JR to write a proposed defintion of "available"
    [recorded in
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-au-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-159 - Write a proposed defintion of
    "available" [on Jan Richards - due 2009-06-22].

    <jeanne> send comments to the public list at:
    public-atag2-comments@w3.org

Guideline A.2.2 Rationale

    <Sueann> 2.2 wording needs to harmonize with WCAG; i.e. use
    "programmatically determinable" instead of "available via the
    platform

    <jeanne> We are taking a 15 minute break. Reconvening at xx:30

    <AnnM> will be back in 15 minutes.

    <jeanne> ACTION: JR to propose a definition of programmatically
    determined. [recorded in
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-au-minutes.html#action05]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-160 - Propose a definition of
    programmatically determined. [on Jan Richards - due 2009-06-22].

    <AnnM> yup

    <Jan> A.2.2.1 Purpose of Added Presentation: If an editing view
    modifies the presentation of Web content to provide authors with
    additional information, then that additional information can be
    *programmatically determined*. (Level A)

    <Jan> A.2.2.2 Access to Text Presentation (Minimum): If any of the
    following properties are present in the Web content and are rendered
    in an editing view (e.g., WYSIWYG view) they can be
    *programmatically determined*. (Level A): @@wordsmith?@@

    <Jan> (a) text font,

    <Jan> (b) text style (e.g., italic, bold),

    <Jan> (c) text color, and

    <Jan> (d) text size.

    <jeanne> zakim Adobe also has Greg_Pisocky

Guideline A.2.3

    <Jan> Rationale: Some authors need to set display settings for
    themselves that differ from the presentation that they define for
    the published Web content.

    <jeanne> Here is the link to the updated comments document:
    [22]http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2009/ED-ATAG20-20090612/atag20_pubWD_21
    may2009_comment_responses.html

      [22] 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2009/ED-ATAG20-20090612/atag20_pubWD_21may2009_comment_responses.html

    <Sueann> The definition of visual and audio display settings states
    nothing about where they are set. These should reflect "platform"
    settings and user-defined application settings (Firefox, Safari 4,
    IE zoom features).

    <jeanne> ACTION: JR to write a definition for Display Preferences.
    [recorded in
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-au-minutes.html#action06]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-161 - Write a definition for Display
    Preferences. [on Jan Richards - due 2009-06-22].

    <Jan> A.2.3.1 Independence of Display: Editing views that render
    content (e.g., WYSIWYG) allow the authors' own display preferences
    @@JR DEFINE@@ to take precedence in the editing view without
    affecting the Web content being edited (i.e., no effect on markup,
    style sheets, etc.). (Level A)

    <jeanne> 4.1.8 Important Command Functions: Important command
    functions (e.g. related to navigation, display, content, information
    management, etc.) are available in a single keystroke. (Level AA)

    <jeanne> ... from UAAG

Checkpoint A.3.1.1 Important Commands

    <Jan> A.3.1.1 Keyboard: All functionality of the authoring tool is
    operable through a keyboard interface without requiring specific
    timings for individual keystrokes, except where the underlying
    function requires input that depends on the path of the user's
    movement and not just the endpoints. (Level A)

    <Jan> Note 1: This exception relates to the underlying function, not
    the input technique. For example, if using handwriting to enter
    text, the input technique (handwriting) requires path-dependent
    input but the underlying function (text input) does not.

    <Jan> Note 2: This does not forbid and should not discourage
    providing mouse input or other input methods in addition to keyboard
    operation.

    <Jan> A.3.1.3 Keyboard Shortcuts: The authoring tool provides
    keyboard shortcuts. (Level AA)

    <Jan> A.3.1.4 Customize Keyboard Access: The authoring tool allows
    authors to customize keyboard access. (Level AAA)

    Lunch 1 hour will resume at 2:05 eastern

    resumed at 2:05

Guideline A.3.2

    Jeanne looking for an explanation of the "moving targets" in the
    rationale

    <ReedShaff> scribe: reed

    <jeanne> scribenick:ReedShaff

    <RS and Sueann> commenting on contradictions in time limits

    discussing WCAG wording as is and what to take over

    <JR> Just grab text from WCAG?

    Agreement from group

    A.3.2.2 to be replaced with WCAG 2.2.1

    Change A3.2

    Changed to Provide authors with enough time

    JT: Sounds a little off still

    JR: It could also apply to use of help system

    s

    JR: Can someone take on A3.2.2?

    <scribe> ACTION: JS to provide new text for A3.2.2 and moving
    targets [recorded in
    [24]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-au-minutes.html#action07]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-162 - Provide new text for A3.2.2 and
    moving targets [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-06-22].

    <jeanne> ACTION: JS to write proporsal for A.3.2 rationale and
    Guildline text [recorded in
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-au-minutes.html#action08]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-163 - Write proporsal for A.3.2 rationale
    and Guildline text [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-06-22].

    <jeanne> close action 163

    Sueann: not sure I get the moving targets piece, what does moving
    targets have to do with time limits?

    <Sueann> I'm not sure how

    <Sueann> A.3.2.3 Moving Targets: If a user interface component that
    accepts mouse input is capable of movement (e.g., animated vector
    graphic), provide authors with the option to stop the movement.
    (Level A)

    <Sueann> relates to A.3.2 - since moving targets doesn't seem to
    have anything to do with time limits. Maybe A.3.2 should be more
    broadly worded. I think the original wording (from the techniques
    document Enable time-independent interaction. makes more sense.

    TB: why capable of movement and not is moving?

    JR: Yeah, like that

    JS: can we take out accepts mouse input?

    JR: it doesn't always have to be editable

    JT: if a user interface component is moving

    JR: yeah, alright
    ... should I get rid of eg?
    ... If JS can work something in about why stopping a moving target
    provides enough time, would that make it better?

    Sueann: stretch

    JS: I now have 4

    comments on this section

    JS seems to have proposal that will satisfy

    <jeanne> People who have difficulty typing, operating the mouse, or
    processing information can be prevented from using systems with
    short time limits or requiring a short reaction speed, such as
    clicking on a moving target.

    JS: probably should be short reaction time
    ... fast reaction speed?

    <Jan> Rationale: Some authors who have difficulty typing, operating
    the mouse, or processing information can be prevented from using
    systems with short time limits or requiring a fast reaction speed,
    such as clicking on a moving target.

    JR: Can we move on to A3.3

    on A 3.3

    JR: checking to see what WCAG uses

    JS: I will take this as an editorial change

    <jeanne> ACTION: JS to do a global update of "photosensitive
    epilepsy" to "photosensitive seizure disorder" [recorded in
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-au-minutes.html#action09]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-164 - Do a global update of
    "photosensitive epilepsy" to "photosensitive seizure disorder" [on
    Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-06-22].

    JR: rationale, we do this because it's difficult for an authoring
    tool to prevent the multitude of content and predicting what will
    flash, we try and solve that at the global level
    ... even if we had levels, how would that work on things like videos

    JS: maye we could call it option for static view

    Moving on

    <Sueann> A.3.4.1 The definition of structured element sets is too
    limiting. It should not just in include organized elements. Headings
    are considered structural yet in and by themselves they do not imply
    a collection of oranized elements. ARIA landmarks should be included
    as well. The definition of structured element should be that of a
    significant semantic areas of the page which in turn support the
    structure of the web page. You might even refer to the WAI-ARIA
    taxono

    <jeanne>
    [27]http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-wai-aria-20090224/#state_prop_taxon
    omy

      [27] 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-wai-aria-20090224/#state_prop_taxonomy

    JR: send as an action item to someone, no issue with things being a
    structured element set, just definition
    ... other than that?
    ... oh there was asuggest about moving navigate by heading to level
    A

    <scribe> Closed on A3.4 for now

    Moved to A3.5

    <Sueann> ACTION: SN A3.4.1 come up with a recommendation on how to
    address adding WAI-ARIA like taxonomy [recorded in
    [28]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-au-minutes.html#action10]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-165 - A3.4.1 come up with a recommendation
    on how to address adding WAI-ARIA like taxonomy [on Sueann Nichols -
    due 2009-06-22].

    atrribute and formatting added in response to comment

    comment: seems werid thisn refers to UI when this really talking
    about searching for content

    JR: that's why i say of the content

    Sueann: in 3.5 dont understand use of web content here, shouldn't
    this apply to editing views, this applies that the web content is
    output of the tool, should this be covered in B

    JR: maybe we make a slight tweek to clarify it's within the web
    content being authored

    Leaving A3.5

    Moving to A3.6

    <Jan> Rationale: Authors who have difficulty typing or operating the
    mouse benefit from the ability to navigate to arbitrary points
    within the Web content being authored.

    Any comments on A3.6?

    <jeanne> scribe:Sueann

    move to a.3.7

A.3.7

    If authoring tools are required to be WCAG compliant, why are
    previews a special case? It would seem that they should be subject
    to the same set of rules.

    - Why is there a reference to UAAG 1.0? Has the ATAG working group
    looked at UAAG 1.0 and identified guidelines that if employed would
    be counter WCAG 2.0 and ATAG 2.0 objectives or today's best
    practices? For example, guideline 4.1 is outdated in UAAG. All user
    agents today provide full magnification rather than just text which
    is much more accurate. Should you still be require font size
    increases.

    This is a preview and reflects the current state in the authoring
    process

    4.1 Applicability note - It is acceptable for certain committing
    actions (e.g., "save", "publish") to to make all previous authoring
    actions irreversible. (to to) typo

    Jan looking to remove applicability note in 4.2

    A.4.2.1 and A.4.2.2 - needs editorial work. When I first read it, I
    didn't get it as all product features are required to meet part A.
    But then I realized it's trying to say that if your product has
    implemented functions in support of the requirements in Part A, you
    have to document those functions

    15 min break...

    Continuing

    Jan recommending removing the AAA requirement for tutorials A.4.2.2,
    additional concern where would we get an implementation.

    <Jan> Rationale: Some authors may not be able to understand or
    operate the authoring tool user interface without proper
    documentation.

    <scribe> Agenda: review of levels with a focus on AAA to ensure the
    requirements can be implemented

    on to part B

    change in 3. Existing Technologies

    Jean would like 1. Author Availability editing changes

    and 4. Authoring Systems

    <Jan> Existing Technologies: The success criteria in Part B only
    apply to support for production of Web content using the Web content
    technologies that are included in the conformance profile.

    Jan: remove b.1.1 add clarification in the AGAG 2.0 conformance
    profile

    IBM comment:Guideline B.1.1

    This seems to restrictive. An authoring tool may support include
    support for all kinds of markup. If one markup, like SVG, which does
    not fully support assistive technologies is chosen the whole rest of
    the tool fails? Recommend that the author be given the choice of
    choosing only accessible technologies. In that mode it should be
    considered to satisfy this guideline - unless there are none.

    This section should also allow for the selection of equivalent
    alternatives that are accessible. Take a Mashup authoring tool. A
    chart may be inaccessible but a table equivalent may be acceptable.
    You might even take into account user preferences.

    The section refers to accessible Web content but the definition of
    accessible web content refers to a particular level of WCAG. Why
    should an ATAG 2.0 compliant tool support WCAG 1.0 when in fact the
    guidelines for being ATAG 2.0 compliant require that the authoring
    tool meet WCAG 2.0 requirements? I disagree that this should include
    all versions of WCAG.

    Need to add a note to handle the case when a technology that can not
    be made accessible is used an alternative solution can be used to
    provide an accessible alternative.

    getting rid of b.1.1 and fixing the conformance claim

    add a bullet item under conformance claim 5 to include web
    technologies used to provide an alternative conforming version

    Jean raised the question should this be a moved out of the claim,
    and be a guideline in b.2.1

    <scribe> new guideline to support the idea that alternative content,
    alternative technology be used, and made available by the tool

    for the creation of an alterntive to the content that is not
    accessible.

    not sure where this will go -Jean suggested b.2.1

    <scribe> new guideline "if a web content technology included in the
    conformance profile cannot be used to create accessible Web content,
    then a "conforming alternative version" in another web content
    technology must also be make available prior to publication.

    this still needs work

    issues: there are lots of different "tools" that make up parts of an
    entire web content solution.

    Jean: original comment was to address mashups, not part of the
    conformance claim.

    first issue is the task that is being performed, in the case of an
    animation there the author would not use html. the image or "paint"
    program won't be accessible.

    Jan: can we change the definition of web content technologies to
    include a conforming alternative for technologies that are not
    accessible.

    <jeanne> Sueann: We need a definition of "Accessible Web Content
    Technologies" that is the sum of the parts of the Web Content
    TEchnologis.

    Jean suggested we table this and several of us take this and
    proposals

    next step: come up with an agenda for Tue.

    <scribe> agenda: brainstorm people and organizations to invite to
    review

    review levels - AAA

    complete the review of feedback in Section B

    triage comments - what needs to be worked f2f vs. assigned for
    action

    techniques?

    would be very helpful to have a tool that has mapped to the atag
    success criteria to see what the conformance is

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: JR to propose a definition of programmatically
    determined. [recorded in
    [29]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-au-minutes.html#action05]
    [NEW] ACTION: JR to write a definition for Display Preferences.
    [recorded in
    [30]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-au-minutes.html#action06]
    [NEW] ACTION: JR to write a proposed defintion of "available"
    [recorded in
    [31]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-au-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: JS to change "authors" to "author(s)" [recorded in
    [32]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-au-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: JS to do a global update of "photosensitive epilepsy"
    to "photosensitive seizure disorder" [recorded in
    [33]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-au-minutes.html#action09]
    [NEW] ACTION: JS to provide new text for A3.2.2 and moving targets
    [recorded in
    [34]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-au-minutes.html#action07]
    [NEW] ACTION: JS to update Glossary to move the definition of
    Authoring Tool User Interface before the def of the Web based and
    non-Web based definitions [recorded in
    [35]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-au-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: JS to write proporsal for A.3.2 rationale and
    Guildline text [recorded in
    [36]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-au-minutes.html#action08]
    [NEW] ACTION: JT to reword the rationale for A.1.2 for clarity and
    grammar [recorded in
    [37]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-au-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: SN A3.4.1 come up with a recommendation on how to
    address adding WAI-ARIA like taxonomy [recorded in
    [38]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-au-minutes.html#action10]

    [End of minutes]
      _________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [39]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([40]CVS log)
     $Date: 2009/06/15 21:15:29 $
      _________________________________________________________

      [39] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [40] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 15 June 2009 21:17:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:57 UTC