RE: Minutes of AUWG teleconference 15 March 2010

I attended for a part of the meeting time as well
Best, Tim Boland NIST

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jeanne Spellman
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 5:06 PM
To: AUWG
Subject: Minutes of AUWG teleconference 15 March 2010

Minutes
http://www.w3.org/2010/03/15-au-minutes

IRC Log
http://www.w3.org/2010/03/15-au-irc

Text of Minutes

    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                                 WAI AU

15 Mar 2010

    [2]Agenda

       [2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0119.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/03/15-au-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Jan, Jeanne, Greg_Pisocky, Jutta, +1.301.987.aaaa

    Regrets
           Ann_M., Andrew_R, SueAnn_N.

    Chair
           Jan Richards

    Scribe
           Jan

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]0- F2F postponement
          2. [6]1- Working through survey questions
          3. [7]Whether to keep "option" in the glossary
          4. [8]Rewording A.3.6.4:
          5. [9]Rewording B.3.1.1,2,3
          6. [10]Rewording B.2.2.6
          7. [11]Removing B.2.2.7 Save Status for Repair
          8. [12]2- Proposed "metadata" requirement wording
          9. [13]3- New proposal on B.2.1.1 "Decision Support"
             attempting to address Greg's issue
         10. [14]5- Charter discussion
      * [15]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

0- F2F postponement

    JS: Haven't talked CS yet...but she wants to change.

    JR: Late May?

    GP: Last week of May is Memorial Day holiday.
    ... May 31 is mem day.

1- Working through survey questions

Whether to keep "option" in the glossary

    <jeanne> JR: The wording in the question in the survey was not
    correct. I want to just look at the definition in the glossary.

    <jeanne> ... the keywords "local" and "global" are no longer used
    and would be confusing.

    <jeanne> ... I am recommending removing local and global and keeping
    the rest of the definition

    Resolution: Use definition of option: When an author is presented
    with choices.

Rewording A.3.6.4:

    Resolution: Use rewording of A.3.6.4: PREFERENCES Assistance: The
    authoring tool includes a mechanism to help the author(s) configure
    any PREFERENCE SETTINGS related to Part A of this document. (Level
    AAA)

Rewording B.3.1.1,2,3

    Resolution: Use rewording of THREE success criteria B.3.1.1,2,3:
    Accessible Options Prominent (WCAG Level A,AA,AAA): If authors are
    provided with a choice of authoring actions for achieving the same
    authoring outcome (e.g., styling text), then options that will
    result in web content conforming to WCAG 2.0 Level A are at least as
    prominent as options that will not. (Level A)

Rewording B.2.2.6

    Resolution: Accept new "B.2.2.6 Status Report: Authors can receive
    an accessibility status report based on the results of the
    accessibility checks. (Level AA) Note: The format of the
    accessibility status is not specified. For example, the status might
    be a listing of problems detected or a WCAG conformance level, etc.
    "

    <scribe> ACTION: JR follow up with TB re: issue of testability of
    new B.2.2.6 [recorded in
    [16]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/15-au-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-266 - Follow up with TB re: issue of
    testability of new B.2.2.6 [on Jan Richards - due 2010-03-22].

Removing B.2.2.7 Save Status for Repair

    Resolution: Remove B.2.2.7 Save Status for Repair

2- Proposed "metadata" requirement wording

    [17]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20100305/results#xq4

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20100305/results#xq4

    JT: Accepts wording from:
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20100305/results#xq4

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20100305/results#xq4

    JR: This gives us enough support to go ahead...

    Resolution: B.2.2.8 Metadata Production: Authors have the option of
    associating accessibility checking results with the web content as
    metadata. (Level AA) Note: The metadata format that is implemented
    will dictate the nature of the associated results (e.g., low-level
    check results, high-level conformance claims, etc.). The INTENT
    section will include further information about metadata for...
    ... resource discovery.

3- New proposal on B.2.1.1 "Decision Support" attempting to address
Greg's issue

    <jeanne> GP: Gives example of a word processer with an image, that
    gives an error that when the format changes the alt text would be
    lost. That would be ok. But if it is video captioning, there are so
    many different ways it can be done, it is too difficult.

    <jeanne> JT: But the authoring tool doesn't support captioning in
    that case. It needs a warning it cannot be captioned in that tool.

    <jeanne> GP: so what if the caption cannot be done in that tool, but
    can be done in another tool. I don't want to see these rules
    invluence the marketplace so that people are forced to use tools
    inappropriate to the job.

    <jeanne> JR: We don't either. GP:If there are a problems in the
    workflow in the tools they have chosen, people should be warned. Not
    every tool does the captioning. Captioning is a downstream
    production using unknown tools.

    <jeanne> GP: Video workflows are not good examples. Video formats
    are so varied by the purpose.

    <jeanne> JR: No, it is what the authoring tool allows you to do with
    it. If the authoring tool supports quicktime, but not quicktime
    sprites, it should have a warning.

    <jeanne> GP: I would be happy with language that says that if the
    tool is used to edit video in other formats, then the captioning
    information will be lost. The language seems to require that the
    tools be smarter than that.

    <scribe> ACTION: Jan, Greg: To reword the decision support proposal
    at
    [19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0117.h
    tml [recorded in
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/15-au-minutes.html#action02]

      [19]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0117.html

    <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Jan,

    JS: Want there to be a simpler example...without implication of too
    much AI

    GP: Language around what accessibility supports can be provided and
    what can't be provided

5- Charter discussion

    [21]http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2010/draft_auwg_charter_09mar10.html

      [21] http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2010/draft_auwg_charter_09mar10.html

    JS: It's been a while since chaters were inline

    JR: Milestones too close?

    Resolution: Accept the draft charter at
    [22]http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2010/draft_auwg_charter_09mar10.html

      [22] http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2010/draft_auwg_charter_09mar10.html

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Jan, Greg: To reword the decision support proposal at
    [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0117.h
    tml [recorded in
    [24]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/15-au-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: JR follow up with TB re: issue of testability of new
    B.2.2.6 [recorded in
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/15-au-minutes.html#action01]

      [23]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0117.html

    [End of minutes]

Received on Monday, 15 March 2010 21:31:44 UTC