Minutes from AUWG Teleconference on 9 Mar 2009 4:00pm-5pm ET

Minutes:
http://www.w3.org/2009/03/09-au-minutes.html

NEXT CALL:
23 Mar 2009 (we are skipping a week)

Cheers,
Jan

PS: Updated .doc is attached.




Full text:
WAI AU
09 Mar 2009

Agenda

See also: IRC log
Attendees

Present
     +1.617.324.aaaa, jeanne, JR, Greg_Pisocky, SueAnn, JuttaT
Regrets
     Andrew_R., Tim_B., Roberto_S.
Chair
     Jan Richards
Scribe
     Greg

Contents

     * Topics
          1. F2F Planning
          2. ARIA review
          3. Finish (hopefully) the glossary review
          4. assistive technology
          5. equivalent alternative vs. altenative content
          6. Prominence
     * Summary of Action Items





<JR> * Zakim, this will be AUWG

<JR> Scribe: Greg
F2F Planning

TPAC face to face planning

<JR> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JanMar/0060.html

Does AWUG intend to participate in the meeting in Santa Clara, 
California USA

November 2 - 6 2009

Final decision to be made next Monday. Jean will put it on a survey

<jeanne> ACTION: JS to put question on attending TPAC on next week's 
survey [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/09-au-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-125 - Put question on attending TPAC on next 
week's survey [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-03-16].
ARIA review

<JR> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JanMar/0049.html

ARIA Review - ARIA has a last call, ATAG should take a look just to 
satisfy itself. The new deadline is April 17, 2009

<JR> New deadline April 17

Reviews to the group by April 6, 2009 looking at ARIA through the lens 
of ATAG.

Complete the glossary review
Finish (hopefully) the glossary review

<JR> 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JanMar/att-0055/ATAG2_Glossary_Review__Rev11_.doc

<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20090227/results
assistive technology

<JR> assistive technology [adapted from WCAG 2.0]

<JR> Software (or hardware), separate from the authoring tool, that 
provides functionality to meet the requirements of users with 
disabilities. Some authoring tools may also provide direct accessibility 
features.

<JR> Examples of assistive technologies include, but are not limited to, 
the following:

<JR> • screen magnifiers, and other visual reading assistants, which are 
used by people with visual, perceptual and physical print disabilities 
to change text font, size, spacing, color, synchronization with speech, 
etc. in order to improve the visual readability of rendered text and images;

<JR> • screen readers, which are used by people who are blind to read 
textual information through synthesized speech or braille;

<JR> • text-to-speech software, which is used by some people with 
cognitive, language, and learning disabilities to convert text into 
synthetic speech;

<JR> • speech recognition software, which may be used by people who have 
some physical disabilities;

<JR> • alternative keyboards, which are used by people with certain 
physical disabilities to simulate the keyboard (including alternate 
keyboards that use head pointers, single switches, sip/puff and other 
special input devices);

<JR> • alternative pointing devices, which are used by people with 
certain physical disabilities to simulate mouse pointing and button 
activations.

<JR> direct accessibility features

<JR> Features of an authoring tool that provide functionality to meet 
the requirements of users with disabilities (e.g., keyboard navigation, 
zoom functions, text-to-speech). Additional or specialized functionality 
may still be provided by external assistive technology.

<jeanne> ACTION: JS to update glossary with the new wording of the first 
paragraph of Assistive Technology [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2009/03/09-au-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-126 - Update glossary with the new wording of 
the first paragraph of Assistive Technology [on Jeanne Spellman - due 
2009-03-16].

<jeanne> +1

<JR> All: No problem wqith either defn

<jeanne> ACTION: JS to update glossary with new definition of direct 
accessibility features [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2009/03/09-au-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-127 - Update glossary with new definition of 
direct accessibility features [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-03-16].
equivalent alternative vs. altenative content

<JR> Content that is used in place of other content that a person may 
not be able to access. An equivalent alternative fulfills essentially 
the same function or purpose as the original content. Examples include 
text alternatives for non-text content, captions for audio, audio 
descriptions for video, sign language for audio, media alternatives for 
time-based media. See WCAG for more information

<JR> All: Agree on "Alternative Content"

<JR> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JanMar/0062.html

<jeanne> ACTION: JS to update glossary with the term "alternative 
content" deleting "equivalent". Inside the definition as well. [recorded 
in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/09-au-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-128 - Update glossary with the term 
\"alternative content\" deleting \"equivalent\". Inside the definition 
as well. [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-03-16].
Prominence

<JR> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JanMar/0062.html

<JR> prominence

<JR> A heuristic measure of how likely users are to notice items 
(controls or

<JR> groups of controls) in a user interface that they are operating.

<JR> Prominence is affected by numerous factors, including: the number of

<JR> navigation steps required, the reading order position, visual 
properties

<JR> (e.g., size, spacing, colour), and even the modality of use (e.g., 
mouse

<JR> vs. keyboard use). For purposes of conformance to ATAG 2.0, item A is

<JR> considered to be *at least as prominent* as item B if:

<JR> * (a) both items occur in the same item container (e.g., menu for menu

<JR> items, list for list items, dialog box for text boxes)

<JR> * (b) item A is highlighted if item B is highlighted.

<JR> * (c) item A occurs higher in the reading order or immediately follows

<JR> item B.

<JR> JS: I noticed our examples talk about text

<JR> JS: Like to see text, controls, groups of controls

<JR> (2a) Rewording B.1.1.2, B.1.1.4, B.1.1.6 for clarity:

<JR> B.1.1.2 Author Choice of Technologies (Level A): If the authoring tool

<JR> provides authors with Web content technology options, THEN ANY

<JR> *ACCESSIBLE technology* (WCAG Level A) options THAT ARE SUITABLE 
FOR THE

<JR> TASK ARE *AT LEAST AS PROMINENT* AS ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS. 
(Level A)

<JR> (2b) Add this sentence to the end of the definition of "Technology":

<JR> An *accessible technology* is a technology that may be used in a way

<JR> that is "accessibility supported" (For more information on

<JR> "accessibility supported", see WCAG 2.0).

<JR> (3) Rewording B.2.1.1, B.2.1.2, B.2.1.3:

<JR> B.2.1.1 Guide Accessible (Level A): If authors are prompted for any

<JR> information as content is being added or updated (e.g., by an image

<JR> modification dialog), then:

<JR> (a) PROMPTS ARE INCLUDED for any accessibility information required for

<JR> that content to meet WCAG Level A (Level A)

<JR> (b) THE ACCESSIBILITY PROMPTS ARE *AT LEAST AS PROMINENT*.

<JR> ACTION: JR to Modify proposal for Rewording B.2.1.1, B.2.1.2, 
B.2.1.3 to not use "At least as prominent" but to use some workflow 
typoe language instead [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2009/03/09-au-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-129 - Modify proposal for Rewording B.2.1.1, 
B.2.1.2, B.2.1.3 to not use \"At least as prominent\" but to use some 
workflow typoe language instead [on Jan Richards - due 2009-03-16].

<JR> (4) Rewording B.2.5.3:

<JR> B.2.5.3 Template Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a

<JR> template selection mechanism, then (Level A):

<JR> (a) the selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of

<JR> templates (if known), AND

<JR> (b) any accessible template options ARE *AT LEAST AS PROMINENT* AS 
other

<JR> TEMPLATE options.

<JR> (5) Rewording B.2.5.7:

<JR> B.2.5.7 Pre-Authored Content Selection Mechanism: If authors are

<JR> provided with a selection mechanism for pre-authored content other than

<JR> templates (e.g., clip art gallery, widget repository, design themes),

<JR> then (Level AA):

<JR> (a) the selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of the

<JR> pre-authored content (if known), AND

<JR> (b) any accessible options ARE *AT LEAST AS PROMINENT* AS other

<JR> PRE-AUTHORED CONTENT options.

<JR> (7) Rewording B.3.1.1:

<JR> B.3.1.1 Accessible Options Prominent : If authors are provided with

<JR> multiple options for an authoring task, options that will result in

<JR> content conforming to *WCAG* Level A ARE *AT LEAST AS PROMINENT* AS

<JR> OPTIONS THAT WILL NOT. (Level A)

<JR> (8) Minor edit to B.3.3.4:

<JR> B.3.3.4 At Least as Prominent: Accessible content support features are

<JR> *at least as prominent* [DEL] as comparable features related to other

<JR> types of Web content problems (e.g., invalid markup, syntax errors,

<JR> spelling and grammar errors). (Level AA)

<JR> (6) Rewording the rationale of B.3.1:

<JR> Guideline B.3.1 Rationale: When authors are learning a new authoring

<JR> tool, they may find and learn to use the first authoring action they

<JR> encounter that achieves their intended outcome. Since they may be

<JR> unaware of the issue of accessibility, it preferable that accessible

<JR> content be an additional unintended outcome, rather than inaccessible

<JR> content.

<JR> NEXT CALL Mar 23
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: JR to Modify proposal for Rewording B.2.1.1, B.2.1.2, 
B.2.1.3 to not use "At least as prominent" but to use some workflow 
typoe language instead [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2009/03/09-au-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: JS to put question on attending TPAC on next week's survey 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/09-au-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: JS to update glossary with new definition of direct 
accessibility features [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2009/03/09-au-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: JS to update glossary with the new wording of the first 
paragraph of Assistive Technology [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2009/03/09-au-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: JS to update glossary with the term "alternative content" 
deleting "equivalent". Inside the definition as well. [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2009/03/09-au-minutes.html#action04]

[End of minutes]