- From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:01:19 -0400
- To: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Minutes:
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html
IRC Log:
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-irc
Action Items:
[NEW] ACTION: GP to write a proposal on who can be a claimant with
Jeanne Spellman [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to write a proposal on path, speed and pressure
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to write proposal for conformance with Tim Boland
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to write proposal on Programmatically determined
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to write proposal Preserve Accessibility Information
for B.1.2.4(a) in responseto WCAGWG25 [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: JS to write a proposal on how to test whether a template
is accessible. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: SN to write proposal on A.1.2.1 non-web based accessible
(comment IBM15). [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action05]
Text of Minutes
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
17 Sep 2010
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-irc
Attendees
Present
Andrew, Greg, Sueann, Jutta, Jeanne, Jan, Alex_Li_(guest)
Regrets
Chair
Jutta
Scribe
jeanne
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Conformance and Compatible Conformance
2. [5]MS12: Edit by Structure
3. [6]MS17: Third-party user agents
4. [7]MS21: End product cannot preserve accessibility
information.
5. [8]MS23 comment on B.2.1.1 Decision Support.
6. [9]MS24 B.2.1.2 Set Accessible Properties
7. [10]MS3 - Conformance condition published on the web. WCAG
doesn't require it.
8. [11]MS6 Purpose of Added Information.
9. [12]MS8 Keyboard Interface
10. [13]MS10 language difference from WVAG
11. [14]MS11 Static View Option
12. [15]MS13: A.3.4.1 Navigate by structure
13. [16]MS12 - A.3.4 Navigate by Structure.
14. [17]MS18 A.4.1.1 Undo content
15. [18]MS22 "prior to publishing"
16. [19]MS26 B.2.1.3 Other Technologies
17. [20]MS31 - B.2.2.3 - Author Judgement
18. [21]MS35 Relevant sources
19. [22]MS36 Used Properly
20. [23]MS39 Short cut keys
21. [24]MS41 A.3.5.1 text search
22. [25]MS42 A.3.6.1 inconsistencyu of level from 3.1.4
23. [26]MS45 A.4.2.2 Document all features
24. [27]MS47 B.1.2 Copy and Paste to another format
25. [28]MS49 Metadata
26. [29]MS51, 53, 54 B.2.5.4 Templates
27. [30]MS57 B.3.2.4 "Compariable" is not testable
28. [31]GL1 Programmatically Determined
* [32]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 17 September 2010
zakim this will be WAI_AUWG
can you skype to the 617 number?
+44.203.318.0479 (new) is the new UK number. Sorry, zakim needs to
be updated
zakim ??P14 is ARonksley
zakim who is here?
<Jan> Conformance idea:
[33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JulSep/0089.h
tml
[33]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JulSep/0089.html
<Jan> Tim's comment:
[34]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JulSep/0090.h
tml
[34]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JulSep/0090.html
Conformance and Compatible Conformance
JT: There us a circle of Tool Compliance for part A and B. There is
Partial Compliance which is Part A or Part B
There is compatible Component which is Part A and Part B and
optionally B4.
Jeanne: I want to insure that the conformance labels are clear so
that buyers and purchasing agents can easily tell whether they are
getting a system that is fully ATAG conformant, or getting a system
with partial or component ATAG conformance.
the group takes a look a the examples of Authoring Tools, so see if
they conform to this new conformance proposal.
HTML Editors = ATAG component
Direct editor = ATAG Component
Converting to Web = ATAG Component
Integrated Devleopment environment could be either a Component or a
System if they chose to add the web libraries and accessibility
checkers.
[some discussion about the definition of authoring tool and whether
evaluation tools are Authoring Tools. ]
SN: I don't think eval tools are authoring tools because they don't
create content, the same way that debuggers are not authoring tools.
JR: [gives an example of an authoring tool component like
spellcheckers that provide a feature but don't actually write
content]
Blogs, wikis =ATAG Components
CMS, LMS = Atag Component or Full ATAG System
Email client that create html emails - may be a component, but there
is discussion that it is publishing so it really is a system.
SN: Compatible component needs more definition
JR: Example of a tool creating a format, for which a checker doesn't
exist.
SN: So we always have to go back to the criteria always
... People already have to meet 508 and criteria of WCAG and the
levels. ATAG added to this is adding complexity. I think there will
be problems of uptake.
GP: At least of you catagorize yourself as a system or a component,
at least people know what they are looking at.
JT: If what we are trying to do is get web content then we have to
look @@ missed @@
SN: I am a system, but I don't meet all the requirements, so then
that makes me a component?
... no, you are still a system.
... there is a difference because I am still a system but I fail
some criteria
So how do we determine what is a system?
JS: Is Wordpress a component or a system?
JR: We leave it flexible so Wordpress can decide if they are a
system or component.
SN: So as soon as someone knows that they won't make it, they stop
trying.
... I am very concerned about communicating it, because I'm not sure
it is communicatable.
... this breaks the normal conformance model that people are used
to. If you want people to follow this, we need to be able to
communicate it.
JR: if the system allows the introduction of accessibility problems,
then it doesn't need checking.
SN: It is whether or not they met the criteria making a claim of
what it met and didn't meet.
... I think creating other classifications is going to make it
difficult to get back accurate information.
JS: So is a blog a system? They would say they are a system - and
they can use an external for check and repair. And that would make
them not a system?
SN: "You have to have checking, but if you don't, that's ok". Do we
want to do that?
... what is ATAG, if we don't demand checking.
GP: Let Wordpress and Deque bundle and offer a compliant package.
Alex Li, Microsoft, has joined the call. Alex discloses that he has
not been able to complete the IP rights declaration.
Jeanne confirms with Judy Brewer that because Microsoft has
previously signed a patent disclosure agreement, that Alex Li can
attend as a guest.
JR: MS39: Variations from WCAG on the excemption for a path of the
user movements. ATAG also offers an exemption for pressure, force,
angle.
AL: Use "path" as the common denominator. Force, angle and speed are
all path dependent.
MS12: Edit by Structure
AL: If you have just a basic web form, if the form results in a
generation of web based output, then it becomes the authoring tool.
Then this is not in the control of the author, it is controlled by a
back-end system.
JR: We are aware of the problem and are working on it.
MS17: Third-party user agents
JR: We are not requiring UAAG conformance, because an author is not
served by an unrealistic world view.
AL: Then how will it fail?
JR: If someone creates their own HTML parser.
... Ideas include: existing user agents, publically available
AL: commercially available.
MS21: End product cannot preserve accessibility information.
AL: If it is a Microsoft propriatary format, we would be ok. If it
was not a microsoft format, then we do have a legal issue of
liability of MS making a statement saying "information will be
lost".
I do not want to cause difficulties with partners. I talked with
legal, and they said it was not ok. It would cause us too much
trouble.
JR: I have seen that warning with Excel saving as csv.
AL: It is very different saying that accessibility is lost, because
of the legal requirements around accessibility.
... If we say in a very generic way "information may be lost" that
is ok, but if there is any mention of accessibility information
being lost, that is no-go from a legal viewpoint.
MS23 comment on B.2.1.1 Decision Support.
JR: PDF has accessibility support, but a tool may have a Save As
option to create a flat, unstructured PDF.
AL: I will talk to legal and see if they will accept the nuance of
it.
... I see a subtle difference between this and the previous item. I
will talk to the legal team.
MS24 B.2.1.2 Set Accessible Properties
AL: If there are multiple interfaces to control various properties,
like the menu, the ribbon, a right-click menu. If I have different
mechanisms, would i have to set accessibility property in every
mechanism?
JS: example of image, that whereever the height, width and border
are set, and the alt is set.
JT: We want an integrated approach to including the accessibility
properties, if the UI is distributed, then the bounds on where the
accessibility mechanisms are located is also distributed.
<gpisocky> Discussion of MS23 brings to mind another concern
regarding the impact on proponents of targetted formats
GP: that a vendor could give warnings to give advantage to one
format over another.
AL: Where we have anti-trust issue, that would be a problem.
MS3 - Conformance condition published on the web. WCAG doesn't require
it.
JR: Because we are not closely prescriptive, we want people to know
the background of what the developer is claiming.
AL: But WCAG doesn't require it.
JT: But it is important to be public.
AL: I see the inconsistency with WCAG.
JT: Then I think our next step would be to go to WCAG and ask them
to make it a change.
AL: If WCAG made a normative errata publication, I would not object
to it. In fact, the only WCAG compliance statements are on the web,
so it is how it works in reality.
MS6 Purpose of Added Information.
JT: We agreed to say that we will write a definition of Added
Information
MS8 Keyboard Interface
JT: The definitions were taken from WCAG.
AL: I will look at WCAG.
MS10 language difference from WVAG
JR: ATAG goes beyond what WCAG was addressing.
Section (a) is the chrome of the widget, section (b) is the embedded
widget that grabs control of focus.
JR: There is a complex relationship between the editing view and the
user interface.
JT: There are behaviors and properties of the editing tool that are
unique to the authoring tool perspective.
AL: So how would you exit out of (b) to (a)?
JR: There could be a keystroke that the authoring tool reserves for
itself that could be used for returning control to the auhtoing tool
user interface.
MS11 Static View Option
JT: It is visual only, and would only apply to content. It mostly
means requiring a stop button.
AL: There is a big difference between a @@ and a stop button.
JT: we will reword it.
MS13: A.3.4.1 Navigate by structure
JT: If there is structure, then we want to use it for navigation.
AL: The structure may not be there for the author, but may be
applied by the tool.
JR: Structured at the time of editing, not the way it will be
structured in the end product.
MS12 - A.3.4 Navigate by Structure.
AL: Does that apply to the comment MS12 - all structures.
JR: We don't want to specify
AL: There is so much web structure, not all of them apply to
navigation.
MS18 A.4.1.1 Undo content
JT: We agreed that one is sufficient, but are considering an
additional SC to require more.
... [reads MS 18, 19, 21, 22] these are all items we agreed with the
MS comments, so there is no discussion.
MS22 "prior to publishing"
AL: doesn't address real time publishing.
... I'm also considering all real-time information - stock
information, banking application, supply chain, etc.
JT: but banking, that will only affect myself.
AL: But the bank officer will also see it. It can go all the way to
regulartory authorities and other banking systems.
JR: because the input is so contrained that this may or may not
introduce an accessibility problem.
AL: But we don't know where the accessibility problems can arise.
Where is the value chain end in authoring? Does it go to the
database and how the database is related to other systems? At what
point does it become an authoring tool.
... that is something we need to address in the definition of
authoring tool.
TB: Whenever you create content, you don't know where it will end
up.
MS26 B.2.1.3 Other Technologies
JT: We have agreed to work on the condition. The read-only issue is
not relevant, because of the wrapper.
AL: the word document with a graphic is created with read-only. the
author cannot make the graphic accessible.
JR: That is covered in another applicability note about author
permission
MS31 - B.2.2.3 - Author Judgement
AL: I think it is all based on WCAG. You need to say the following
normative list requires judgement.
JR: But it will vary by the tool.
AL: A contrast checker will only check contrast.
JR: does the image need long description? The tool will ask a prompt
for a decision, or the tool may look at a 1x1 white image and decide
not to prompt.
AL: the authoring tool developer is deciding when to ask for author
decision.
JR: The UI needs to provide some support to help the author in
making the decision.
AL: the developers are asking for a finite list.
JR: ANytime the author is asked for a decision, we need to provide
some support in helping the author make that decision.
AL: ok
MS32 B.2.2.4 Help Authors Locate
JT: It is help in determining the bounds of where the problem may be
located.
AL: It implies too much intelligence on the part of the tool.
... people will ask "do you meet 2.2.4, you don't show the location
of this kind of error"
JR: Agreed, we need to tighten up our language.
MS35 Relevant sources
JR: Relevant sources is just the handle.
AL: it is a "slushy" term.
MS36 Used Properly
AL: If the notes are normative, they have to be testable.
MS39 Short cut keys
AL: Imagine using a web form to do an authoring? Do you need
short-cut key?
JT: One of the weaknesses in WAI has been the support for users with
mobility problems. We want to support authors with alternative
interfaces.
AL: for web-form, it is too much. Web apps need shortcuts, but a
simple form does not.
JR: Make it complexity based
MS41 A.3.5.1 text search
JR: It could claim the find feature of the web browser in the
conformance claim.
... the user agent platform has to be identified since they have
different capabilities.
MS42 A.3.6.1 inconsistencyu of level from 3.1.4
JT: A.3.6.1. applies to more than just keystrokes. We have changed
the wording of this to "perference settings"
... it is hard enough to set the preferences to access the tool, so
we want to save the preferences that the user does not have to set
it again.
... we took out the "control and display" settings and replace it
with "preference settings".
AL: I don't dispute the validity of the success criteria, I just
spotted the inconsistency. I will need to think about whether it
impacts the inconsistency.
MS 44, agreed, agreed
MS45 A.4.2.2 Document all features
JT: We mean features that users can use. We don't mean that hidden
features need to be documented.
AL: SOme of the tools have so many features, we don't know if we
ever could document all features.
JT: "All features available to the author".
AL: If the tool is big enough, something will always be
undocumented.
JR: we see the issue and it is not the spirit we disagree on, just
the details.
MS47 B.1.2 Copy and Paste to another format
AL: Nobody does this.
JR: MS48 - provide a real life option with (c). We have not found
any examples of this.
MS49 Metadata
JT: There is advocacy to make it double AA because there are other
systems that want to use this metadata.
This seems more of a future development than current. We agree
theoretically, but it is not today.
JT: It is common practice in Dublin Core in education environments.
It is current.
AL: I will have to think about it more. Having the check is fine,
but associating it as meta data, I don't think it is not as
practical.
JT: We can send you examples, and speak with Bob Sinclair. It would
be good to have a conversation within Microsoft about it. AL: NPII
is not close to implementation.
... But this is a precursor to implementation.
... ATAG is not just to codify what already exists, it is also to
move the agenda of accessibility further.
AL: I see your point.
MS51, 53, 54 B.2.5.4 Templates
JT: We simply want a label of accessibility, not a ranking.
AL: Most of these people don't know what they are doing with
accessible templates. They will check the box, and they will create
a lot of misinformation. it will be wrong most of the time.
SN: We would have to create a list of criteria that a template must
meet to be accessible.
JS: WCAG criteria?
AL: People won't check WCAG
MS57 B.3.2.4 "Compariable" is not testable
JR: The spirit we are trying to get to is comparable prominence. The
example of a spellchecker with underlined words is much more
prominent than a checker that needs to be run from a 3rd level menu.
GL1 Programmatically Determined
<Zakim> Adobe_room has Greg, Sueann, Jutta, Jeanne, Jan
<scribe> chair: Jutta
SN: iAccessible2 and DOMs are an important part of the platform
accessibility architecture.
Adding Iaccessible2 to the definition of Platform Architecture
should be sufficient.
<scribe> ACTION: JR to write proposal for conformance with Tim
Boland [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-295 - Write proposal for conformance with
Tim Boland [on Jan Richards - due 2010-09-24].
<scribe> ACTION: GP to write a proposal on who can be a claimant
with Jeanne Spellman [recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-296 - Write a proposal on who can be a
claimant with Jeanne Spellman [on Greg Pisocky - due 2010-09-24].
<scribe> ACTION: JR to write proposal on Programmatically determined
[recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-297 - Write proposal on Programmatically
determined [on Jan Richards - due 2010-09-24].
<scribe> ACTION: JR to write a proposal on path, speed and pressure
[recorded in
[38]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-298 - Write a proposal on path, speed and
pressure [on Jan Richards - due 2010-09-24].
<scribe> ACTION: SN to write proposal on A.1.2.1 non-web based
accessible (comment IBM15). [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-299 - Write proposal on A.1.2.1 non-web
based accessible (comment IBM15). [on Sueann Nichols - due
2010-09-24].
<scribe> ACTION: JS to write a proposal on how to test whether a
template is accessible. [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-300 - Write a proposal on how to test
whether a template is accessible. [on Jeanne Spellman - due
2010-09-24].
<scribe> ACTION: JR to write proposal Preserve Accessibility
Information for B.1.2.4(a) in responseto WCAGWG25 [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-301 - Write proposal Preserve
Accessibility Information for B.1.2.4(a) in responseto WCAGWG25 [on
Jan Richards - due 2010-09-24].
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: GP to write a proposal on who can be a claimant with
Jeanne Spellman [recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to write a proposal on path, speed and pressure
[recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to write proposal for conformance with Tim Boland
[recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to write proposal on Programmatically determined
[recorded in
[45]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to write proposal Preserve Accessibility
Information for B.1.2.4(a) in responseto WCAGWG25 [recorded in
[46]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: JS to write a proposal on how to test whether a
template is accessible. [recorded in
[47]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: SN to write proposal on A.1.2.1 non-web based
accessible (comment IBM15). [recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html#action05]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [49]scribe.perl version 1.135
([50]CVS log)
$Date: 2010/09/17 19:55:30 $
_________________________________________________________
[49] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[50] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Scribe.perl diagnostic output
[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20
Check for newer version at [51]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002
/scribe/
[51] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/
Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)
Succeeded: s/Partial Compliance which is Part A and Part B/Partial Comp
liance which is Part A or Part B/
Succeeded: s/gues./guest./
Succeeded: s/NPII is not close to implementation. /AL: NPII is not clos
e to implementation./
WARNING: Possible internal error: join/leave lines remaining:
<jeanne> Alex Li, Microsoft, has joined the call. Alex disclos
es that he has not been able to complete the IP rights declaration.
No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: jeanne
Inferring Scribes: jeanne
Present: Andrew Greg Sueann Jutta Jeanne Jan Alex_Li_(guest)
Found Date: 17 Sep 2010
Guessing minutes URL: [52]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html
People with action items: gp jr js sn
[52] http://www.w3.org/2010/09/17-au-minutes.html
WARNING: Possible internal error: join/leave lines remaining:
<scribe> Alex Li, Microsoft, has joined the call. Alex disclos
es that he has not been able to complete the IP rights declaration.
WARNING: Possible internal error: join/leave lines remaining:
<scribe> Alex Li, Microsoft, has joined the call. Alex disclos
es that he has not been able to complete the IP rights declaration.
End of [53]scribe.perl diagnostic output]
[53] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
Received on Friday, 17 September 2010 20:01:30 UTC