- From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:29:21 -0400
- To: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
minutes:
http://www.w3.org/2009/06/22-au-minutes
IRC Logs:
http://www.w3.org/2009/06/22-au-irc
Text of Minutes:
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WAI AU
22 Jun 2009
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009AprJun/0075.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/22-au-irc
Attendees
Present
AnnM, Jeanne, Jan, AndrewR, Greg_Pisocky, +1.949.542.aaaa,
SueannN, Tim_Boland
Regrets
Jutta, Treviranus
Chair
Jan Richards
Scribe
Jan
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Top to bottom review
* [6]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<AnnM> sure thing.
[7]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009AprJun/att-007
7/20090622.html
[7]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009AprJun/att-0077/20090622.html
[8]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009AprJun/att-007
7/20090622.html
[8]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009AprJun/att-0077/20090622.html
<scribe> Scribe: Jan
Top to bottom review
The Introduction includes both normative and informative sections,
as noted. This section is informative.
<scribe> ACTION: TB to Will look into whether it is ok to mix
informative and normative in Introduction section [recorded in
[9]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/22-au-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - TB
All: Approve "addressed by"
... Approve remove ", with the assumption that many authors will not
be familiar with the specific needs of end users with disabilities"
... Approve "Examples of authoring tools:" handle
... Approve remove ""conventional" "
... Approve remove "Any ATAG 2.0 guideline that require authors to
modify web content in some way, always assumes that the person has
author permission"
... Approve add "Web-based and non-web-based: ATAG 2.0 applies
equally to authoring tools of web content that are web-based,
non-web-based or a combination (e.g., a non-web-based markup editor
with a web-based help system, a web-based content management system
with a non-web-based file uploader client)."
All" Approve "debugging tools for web content "
JR: Just give thought to: "Real-time publishing: ATAG 2.0 applies to
authoring tools with workflows that involve real-time publishing of
web content (e.g., some collaborative tools). For these authoring
tools, conformance to Part B of ATAG 2.0 may involve some
combination of real-time accessibility supports and additional
accessibility supports available after the real-time authoring
session...
... (e.g., the ability to add captions for audio that was initially
published in real-time). For more information, see the Techniques -
Appendix E: Real-time content production."
All: Approve "Text Editors: ATAG 2.0 is not intended to apply to
simple text editors that can be used to edit source content, but
that include no support for the production of any particular web
content technology. In contrast, ATAG 2.0 can apply to more
sophisticated source content editors that support the production of
specific web content technologies (e.g., with syntax checking,
markup...
... prediction, etc.). "
... Remove: "sufficient techniques and advisory"
... Approve: Add "As of publishing, WCAG 2.0 is the most recent W3C
Recommendation for web content accessibility. ATAG 2.0, therefore,
makes reference to WCAG 2.0 in order to set the success criteria for
judging the accessibility of web-based authoring tool user
interfaces (in Part A) and for judging the accessibility of web
content produced by authoring tools"
... Approve "Scope of Authoring Tool User Interface"
... Approve "This includes views of the web content being edited,
and features that are independent of the web content being edited,
such as menus, button bars, status bars, user preferences,
documentation, etc."
... Approve "Reflected Content Accessibility Problems: The authoring
tool is responsible for ensuring that the web content being edited
is accessible to authors with disabilities (e.g., ensuring that an
image label in the web content can be programmatically determined).
However, where an authoring tool user interface accessibility
problem is caused directly by a web content accessibility...
... problem in the web content being edited (e.g., if an image in
the content lacks a label), then this would not be considered a
deficiency in the accessibility of the authoring tool user
interface."
... approve: Previews: Preview features are exempt from having to
meet the other requirements in Part A, if they meet Guideline A.3.7.
Previews are treated differently than editing views because authors,
including those with disabilities, will not be well-served if
preview features diverge too much from the actual functionality of
user agents.
... Remove "along with their user agents"
... Change to "Rationale: Some authors need access to the editing
view presentation because this may be used to convey both status
information added by the authoring tool (e.g., underlining
misspelled words) and, within content renderings, information about
the end user experience of the web content being edited."
... Approve: "A.2.2.2 Access to Text Presentation (Minimum): If an
editing view (e.g., WYSIWYG view) renders any of the following
presentation properties for text, then the properties can be
programmatically determined:"
... Chnage to: Rationale: Some authors need to set their own display
settings in a way that differs from the presentation that they want
to define for the published web content.
... Approve change to: A.2.3.1 Independence of Display: The
author(s) have the global option to specify display settings for
editing views that take precedence over web content renderings
without affecting the web content to be published. (Level A)
... Approve: Rationale: Some authors with limited mobility or visual
disabilities are not able to use a mouse, and instead require full
keyboard access.
... Approve: A.3.1.4 Customize Keyboard Access: The author(s) can
customize keyboard access to the authoring tool. (Level AAA)
... Approve "The search can be" wording
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: TB to Will look into whether it is ok to mix
informative and normative in Introduction section [recorded in
[10]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/22-au-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Received on Monday, 22 June 2009 21:29:45 UTC