- From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 12:02:05 -0500
- To: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Minutes:
http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-minutes
IRC:
http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-irc
Summary of Action Items:
[NEW] ACTION: Jan to take the examples discussed and add them to the
implementing document for B.1.2.1 [recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to Consider how
[45]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0070.h
tml might be made more consistent with new auto-generate wording
[recorded in
[46]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Li to review the proposal for auto-generation from
email:
[47]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.h
tml [recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-minutes.html#action03]
Text of Minutes:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WAI AU
12 Nov 2010
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0072.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-irc
Attendees
Present
Alastair, AlexLi, AndrewR, Cherie, Greg, Jan, Jeanne, Jutta,
Sueann, TimB
Regrets
Chair
Jan Richards
Scribe
jeanne
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Def'n of Programmatically Determinable (GL1...)
2. [6]B.1.2.1 Preserve Accessibility Information (WCAGWG15...)
3. [7]A.1.2.1 Non-Web-Based Accessible (WCAGWG10...)
4. [8]A.2.2.1 Purpose of Added Presentation (MS6...)
5. [9]A.3.4.1 Edit by Structure A.3.4.2 Navigate By Structure
(MS12...)
6. [10]"...prior to publishing." (MS22, MS29)
7. [11]B.2.1.3 Other Technologies (MS26)
8. [12]B.2.5.1 Templates Accessible (MS36)
9. [13]A.3.1.3 Keyboard Shortcuts (MS39)
10. [14]Developer Responsibility:
11. [15]ATAG2 Minor proposal on "Included" technologies wording
* [16]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Yes, please
<Jan> Scribe: jeanne
<Jan>
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0072.h
tml
[17]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0072.html
Def'n of Programmatically Determinable (GL1...)
<Jan>
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0060.h
tml
[18]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0060.html
JR: This term is used in WCAG and section 508, so we are changing
our term to match there. Programmatically Determinable
<Jan> programmatically determined (programmatically determinable):
<Jan> When information is encoded in a way that allows different
software, including assistive technologies, to extract and present
the information in different modalities. For non-web-based user
interfaces, this can mean making use of platform accessibility
services, general-purpose APIs, and in some cases a Document Object
Model (DOM). For web-based user interfaces, this means following
WCAG 2.0...
<Jan> ...so that user agents can pass on the information.
SN: In some cases the DOM has the context of being web-based
<Jan> programmatically determined (programmatically determinable):
When information is encoded in a way that allows different software,
including assistive technologies, to extract and present the
information in different modalities. For non-web-based user
interfaces, this can mean making use of platform accessibility
services, general-purpose APIs, and in some cases a document object
model. For...
<Jan> ...web-based user interfaces, this means following WCAG 2.0 so
that user agents can pass on the information.
JR: SO you suggest you remove DOM
<Jan> Resolution: Alll accept the new wording: programmatically
determined (programmatically determinable): When information is
encoded in a way that allows different software, including assistive
technologies, to extract and present the information in different
modalities. For non-web-based user interfaces, this can mean making
use of platform accessibility services, general-purpose APIs, and
in...
<Jan> ...some cases a Document Object Model (DOM). For web-based
user interfaces, this means following WCAG 2.0 so that user agents
can pass on the information.
B.1.2.1 Preserve Accessibility Information (WCAGWG15...)
<Jan>
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0062.h
tml
[19]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0062.html
JR: There were potential legal issues to potentially disparaging a
3rd party format
<Jan> Text Alternatives Preserved: If the authoring tool provides
transformations that preserve non-text content, then text
alternatives for the non-text content are preserved if possible in
the output technology. (Level A)
<Jan> Text Alternatives Preserved: If the authoring tool provides
transformations that preserve non-text content, then text
alternatives for the non-text content are preserved if the output
technology has equivalent mechanisms for encoding that accessibility
information (WCAG). (Level A)
GP: It shouldn't have to be equivalent, also provides a mechanism is
enough.
<Jan> Text Alternatives Preserved: If the authoring tool provides
transformations that preserve non-text content and the output
technology has mechanisms for encoding text alternatives for the
non-text content, then text alternatives for the non-text content
are preserved. (Level A)
<Jan> No objections: "If the authoring tool provides transformations
that preserve non-text content, and the output technology has
equivalent mechanisms for encoding that accessibility information
(WCAG), then text alternatives for the non-text content are
preserved."
AC: The new wording is good, but it is another area where you have
to do a WCAG audit between two sites, we need to highlight the parts
of WCAG That people should be looking at.
JR: An included technology, is any one or technologies that the
claimant choses to conform to ATAG. There may be many different
formats, but the (For example) html to pdf is conforming, but html
to svg may not be in the conformance claim.
GP: @@ has the issue of transforming gif images. Would this only
concern the gif, or would it also include the gif and the enclosing
html with the alternative text?
JR: It would not really be a transformation, it would include the
enclosing html
... The problems were legal problems with "preserve" and "warn",
because the warning had legal ramifications. There needed to be a
third option that didn't involve a warning.
... we went back to basic need to alert the user that information
was being lost, therefore we went to included.
... so if the developer doesn't want to warn, they can check, which
would give the alert to the user that the alt is missing.
<Jan> Resolution: All accept: "Optimizations Preserve Accessibility:
If the authoring tool provides "optimizing" transformations then any
*accessibility information (WCAG)* in the input is preserved in the
output. (Level A) "
<Jan> Resolution: All accept: "If the authoring tool provides
transformations that preserve non-text content, and the output
technology has equivalent mechanisms for encoding that accessibility
information (WCAG), then text alternatives for the non-text content
are preserved."
<Jan> "Restructuring and Recoding Transformations (WCAG): If the
authoring tool provides "restructuring" or "re-coding"
transformations, then at least one of the following is true:
<Jan> Note: This only applies to transformations in which the output
technology is an *"included" technology* for conformance.
<Jan> (a) Preserve: accessibility information (WCAG) is preserved in
the output; or
<Jan> (b) Warning: authors have the default option to be warned that
accessibility information may be lost (e.g., when saving a vector
graphic into a raster image format); or
<Jan> (c) Checking Active: accessibility checking is active on the
output; or
<Jan> (d) Checking Suggested: authors have the default option to
have accessibility checking suggested."
<Jan> JS: Would like to choose a different e.g. maybe captions
<Jan> (e.g., when converting from a video format that has text
tracks to store captions to a video format with no text tracks)
JR: I've seen software that can transform 50 or more formats, some
will be accessible, some will not.
<scribe> ACTION: Jan to take the examples discussed and add them to
the implementing document for B.1.2.1 [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-309 - Take the examples discussed and add
them to the implementing document for B.1.2.1 [on Jan Richards - due
2010-11-19].
A.1.2.1 Non-Web-Based Accessible (WCAGWG10...)
[21]http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2010/ED-ATAG20-20101108/
[21] http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2010/ED-ATAG20-20101108/
JR: Platform conventions" term was added several years ago when not
all major platforms had accessibility APIs.
... I proposed splitting it up where the accessibility APIs exist,
and follow platform guidelines where they don't exist. So there will
be two success criteria. All the different APIs will be explained in
the supporting document.
SN: It seems like a reasonable approach. I think it covers it.
<Jan>
[22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0061.h
tml
[22]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0061.html
<Jan> Resolution: All accept: A.1.2.1 Non-Web-Based Accessible:
Non-web-based authoring tool user interfaces follow user interface
accessibility guideline(s) for the platform. (Level A) Note: If a
conformance claim is made, then the claim cites the guidelines
followed.
JR: both are level A
<Jan> Resolution: All accept A.1.2.2 Non-Web-Based Accessible:
Non-web-based authoring tools implement communication with platform
accessibility service(s). (Level A) Note: If a conformance claim is
made, then the claim cites the platform accessibility service(s).
<Jan> Resolution: All accept: "Change "platform accessibility
architecture" to "platform accessibility services" as IBM commenters
requested (this also agrees with Section 508 refresh)."
harmonization is desirable.
A.2.2.1 Purpose of Added Presentation (MS6...)
<Jan>
[23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0039.h
tml
[23]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0039.html
JR: We are clear that it is status information. Instead of sending
the API "this is underlined in green", the API receives, "this is a
grammar error"
AC: rewording is good.
<Jan> Resolution: All accept: A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status
Information: If an editing-view modifies the presentation to convey
status information, then that status information can be
programmatically determined. Status information conveyed by
modifying the presentation of editing-views may include, but is not
limited to, spelling, grammar and syntax errors. (Level A)
JS: I like to include the note in the SC where possible, because I
see that WCAG is copied and pasted by others and the notes are often
lost.
<Jan>
[24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0039.h
tml
[24]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0039.html
A.3.4.1 Edit by Structure A.3.4.2 Navigate By Structure (MS12...)
<alastairc>
[25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0071.h
tml
[25]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0071.html
<Jan>
[26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0071.h
tml
[26]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0071.html
AC: TinyMCE would then pass because if you move the focus into a
heading, and you move into it, the dropdown menu allows you to
select the next one.
JR: Greg Gay and I added a feature to TinyMCE to display where you
are in the hierarchy and it allows you to move to the next easily.
What we want is to reduce the number of keystrokes, so it deals with
structural chunks rather than having the user have to drag select.
<Jan> A.3.4.1 Navigate By Structure: If editing-views expose the
markup elements in the web content being edited, then the following
are true: (Level AA)
<Jan> (a) content representing markup elements are selectable (e.g.,
content renderings, source content, etc.)
<Jan> (b) navigation mechanisms are provided to move the selection
focus between elements
<Jan> Resolution: All accept A.3.4.1 Navigate By Structure: If
editing-views expose the markup elements in the web content being
edited, then the following are true: (Level AA) (a) content
representing markup elements are selectable (e.g., content
renderings, source content, etc.) (b) navigation mechanisms are
provided to move the selection focus between elements
<Jan> Resolution: All Accept: A.3.4.2 Navigation of Programmatic
Relationships: If editing-views allow editing of programmatic
relationships within web content, then mechanisms are provided
supporting navigation between the related content. (Level AAA) Note:
Depending on the web content technology and the nature of the
authoring tool, relationships can include element nesting, headings,
labelling,...
<Jan> ...programmatic definitions, ID relationships, etc.
<gpisocky> Sorry to interrupt: Tim Boland is trying to get in,
getting a conference is full message no more parties can be added,
wants to know what to do.
"...prior to publishing." (MS22, MS29)
<Jan>
[27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.h
tml
[27]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.html
<Jan>
[28]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.h
tml
[28]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.html
JR: there is a new definition. author actions prevent generation of
accessible web content (there are so many I thought this deserved
its own defn):
When the actions of authors prevents authoring tools from generating
accessible web content (WCAG). Examples include:
- turning off accessibility options
- ignoring prompts for accessibility information (WCAG)
- providing faulty accessibility information (WCAG) at prompts
- modifying the authoring tool (e.g., via scripting, macros, etc.)
- installing plug-ins
- etc.
AL: it repeats information that is required in other places.
JR: the ffrustration that we are trying to counter, is when the
transformation introduces an accessibility problem and the author
doesn't discover it until much later in the process.
AL: So we are trying to push discoverability earlier in the process.
JS: the biggest complaint I received from users at an accessibility
conference was that CMS systems stripped accessibility information.
AL: automatic means that there is no human intervention. It sounds
like there is a human intervention when you split it.
JR: Humans often initiate the intervention - a user may select a
color red, the tool creates the code the insert that code.
AL: I look at it more at a macro level. Example of a weather problem
in FexEx that would produce a cascade of automatic information to
reroute and reschedule packages.
<Jan> (was B.1.3.1) Auto-Generate Accessible Content for Publishing
(WCAG): *Authors* have the default option that when *web content* is
*automatically-generated* for *publishing* after the *end of an
authoring session*, the content meets the WCAG 2.0 success criteria.
NOTE: This applies only to automatic processes specified by the
authoring tool developer. This does not apply when *author
actions...
<Jan> ...prevent generation of accessible web content*.
<Jan> ResolutioN: All accept: (was B.1.3.1) Auto-Generate Accessible
Content for Publishing (WCAG): *Authors* have the default option
that when *web content* is *automatically-generated* for
*publishing* after the *end of an authoring session*, the content
meets the WCAG 2.0 success criteria. NOTE: This applies only to
automatic processes specified by the authoring tool developer. This
does not...
<Jan> ...apply when *author actions prevent generation of accessible
web content*.
<Jan> (NEW SC) Auto-Generate Accessible Content for Authoring
(WCAG): *Authors* have the default option that when *web content* is
*automatically-generated* for an *authoring session* then one of the
following is true:
<Jan> (a) Accessible: the content meets the WCAG 2.0 success
criteria without author input; or
<Jan> (b) Prompting: during the automatic generation process,
authors are prompted for any required accessibility information
(WCAG); or
<Jan> (c) Checking Active: after the automatic generation process,
accessibility checking is active on the output; or
<Jan> (d) Checking Suggested: authors have the default option to
have accessibility checking suggested.
<Jan> NOTE: This applies only to automatic processes specified by
the authoring tool developer. This does not apply when actions of
authors prevent generation of accessible web content (e.g., by
providing faulty accessibility information, by installing additional
plug-ins, by writing custom automated scripts, etc.).
<Jan> - 3 WCAG levels
<scribe> ACTION: AlexLi to review the proposal for auto-generation
from email:
[29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.h
tml [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-minutes.html#action02]
[29]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.html
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - AlexLi
<scribe> ACTION: Li to review the proposal for auto-generation from
email:
[31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.h
tml [recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-minutes.html#action03]
[31]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.html
<trackbot> Created ACTION-310 - Review the proposal for
auto-generation from email:
[33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.h
tml [on Alex Li - due 2010-11-19].
[33]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.html
<Jan> Resolution: Remove SC B.2.2.2 Availability.
<Jan> ResolutioN: All accept: Publishing: ANY point at which the
authors or authoring tool make web content available to end users
(e.g., uploading a web page, committing a change in a wiki, LIVE
STREAMING).
AL: What is the difference between the proposals?
JR: The difference is to make commenters understand that we have
considered the complexities of when content may be published.
<Jan> Resolution: Accept: Implementing ATAG 2.0 Appendix E on
"Real-Time Content Production" renamed "Authoring Tools for Live Web
Content" to match WCAG 2.0's use of "Live"
JR: rename to "Live" web content - based on WCAG
B.2.1.3 Other Technologies (MS26)
<Jan>
[34]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0064.h
tml
[34]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0064.html
JR: I propose to remove it in response to a number of comments. All
of the examples I can think of are already covered by WCAG, so if a
tool is meeting WCAG, then it doesn't matter that it can't edit
images.
<Jan> Resolution: Remove B.2.1.3 Other Technologies
B.2.5.1 Templates Accessible (MS36)
<Jan>
[35]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0070.h
tml
[35]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0070.html
AL: there are templates that are filled out by a wizard process, so
the author may not be aware of where it comes from.
... what if the template is relatively accessible, but has no
instructions?
JR: If someone requests a template that is a form template, and you
asked what questions you wanted to ask for the form, and the tool
didn't create labels for the form.
AL: I am thinking more about WCAG instructions for the descriptive
title.
<Jan> ACTION: JR to Consider how
[36]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0070.h
tml might be made more consistent with new auto-generate wording
[recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-minutes.html#action04]
[36]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0070.html
<trackbot> Created ACTION-311 - Consider how
[38]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0070.h
tml might be made more consistent with new auto-generate wording [on
Jan Richards - due 2010-11-19].
[38]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0070.html
A.3.1.3 Keyboard Shortcuts (MS39)
<Jan>
[39]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0065.h
tml
[39]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0065.html
<Jan> A.3.1.3 Efficient Keyboard Access: The authoring tool user
interface includes mechanisms to make keyboard access more
efficient. (AA)
AC: How to test "efficient"
AL: Just test for Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, F4, etc.
JR: In TinyMCE instead of toolbars, you can jump right into the
content area.
AC: How would it apply to a wiki that is essentially just text?
JR: It would skip right to the start of the content. It is AA.
AL: would it be applicable for a toolbar?
JR: If you can move between toolbars and then move down, that would
apply.
AL: Something has to make it more efficient, and how do you measure
that?
JR: More efficient than straight-line keyboard navigation through
the interface.
AC: That there is some change made or effort made to improve the
navigation
<Jan> A.3.1.3 Efficient Keyboard Access: The authoring tool user
interface includes mechanisms to make keyboard access more efficient
than basic sequential keyboard naviagation. (AA)
"more efficient than basic sequential navigation"
scribe: Keyboard shortcuts, bypass links, navigation shortcuts all
count.
AL: "More efficient than" may require a definition.
<Jan> Resolution: All accept: A.3.1.3 Efficient Keyboard Access: The
authoring tool user interface includes mechanisms to make keyboard
access more efficient than basic sequential keyboard naviagation.
(AA) with def'n
Developer Responsibility:
<Jan>
[40]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0058.h
tml
[40]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0058.html
JT: How would this relate to tools that are mashups? That is
frequently the case in learning management systems
JR: We draw a box around what is declared to be the authoring tool.
(These 4 pieces together are claiming ATAG conformance)
<Jan> Resolution: All accept:
[41]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0058.h
tml
[41]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0058.html
ATAG2 Minor proposal on "Included" technologies wording
<Jan> AC: Would like to think more about it.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: AlexLi to review the proposal for auto-generation from
email:
[42]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.h
tml [recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Jan to take the examples discussed and add them to the
implementing document for B.1.2.1 [recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to Consider how
[45]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0070.h
tml might be made more consistent with new auto-generate wording
[recorded in
[46]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Li to review the proposal for auto-generation from
email:
[47]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.h
tml [recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/12-au-minutes.html#action03]
[42]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.html
[45]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0070.html
[47]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010OctDec/0068.html
[End of minutes]
Received on Friday, 12 November 2010 17:02:56 UTC