- From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:48:51 -0500
- To: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Minutes:
http://www.w3.org/2011/02/14-au-minutes.html
Text of Minutes:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WAI AU
14 Feb 2011
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011JanMar/0045.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/14-au-irc
Attendees
Present
Jeanne, Jan, Alexandro, Cherie, Alex, Sueann, Jutta, Greg,
Tim_Boland
Regrets
Andrew_R., Greg_P., Alastair_C.
Chair
Jutta Treviranus
Scribe
jeanne
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Schedule Discussion
2. [6]2. Feb 14 Survey
3. [7]Closing out comments
4. [8]AUWG Survey for 14 February
5. [9]Survey
6. [10]Proposal to remove B.2.1.1
7. [11]Proposal on document convention: WCAG
8. [12]New note under "Specialized Tools":
9. [13]Definition of author
10. [14]Move "Live Authoring Tools" note
11. [15]Definition of authors
* [16]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<Jan>
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011JanMar/0044.h
tml
[17]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011JanMar/0044.html
Schedule Discussion
<Jan> Not meeting Feb 21 due to absence of multiple US, CDN
members...
<Jan> So a pre-CSUN TR draft will not be happening
2. Feb 14 Survey
<scribe> scribe: jeanne
Closing out comments
AUWG Survey for 14 February
<Jan> [18]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20110211/results
[18] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20110211/results
Jutta: Discuss with your company commenters to make sure that there
is agreement with how we have handled the comments. Also any other
issues from within the group need to be handled, so that we do not
rehash issues that we have already worked through - especially with
people internal to the group.
... so any comments that come forward at this stage should be
significant and not issues we have already addressed.
Tim: Is there a process to get feelers to see if there are any other
issues?
Jutta: This next draft is a way to ask people to see if there are
any issues left before we go into Last Call.
Survey
Proposal to remove B.2.1.1
<Jan> [19]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20110211/results#xq2
[19] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20110211/results#xq2
<Jan> JT: We will revisit
Proposal on document convention: WCAG
<Jan> [20]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20110211/results#xq1
[20] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20110211/results#xq1
<Jan> Resolution: All accept
New note under "Specialized Tools":
<Jan> [21]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20110211/results#xq3
[21] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20110211/results#xq3
<Jan> Note on Accessibility Checker: While accessibility checking
functionality is an important part of an ATAG 2.0 conforming
authoring tool, a stand-alone accessibility checker with no
automated or semi-automated repair functionality is not considered
an authoring tool because it is not used to edit web content for use
by other people.
Jutta: While we are not going to be considering an accessibility
checker with no repair or edit functions, when a checker is
including in the authoring tool or when it is bundled with an
authoring tool, it will be included
<Jan> JR: Agree to GP's request for a note that checkers can be
considered part of tool
Jutta: Creating, modifying content is what we want.
Alex: We are excluding specific categories, like Simple Text Editor,
and Checkers that don't have repair, but we aren't giving the
criteria for something being included/excluded which isn't sound.
... We need to have specific if/then statements in the criteria
Jan: We have it in most success criteria.
Alex: Any given product can go through ATAG and go through the
if/then statements in a yes/no. So a specialized tool like a checker
will only say yes to the ones that apply. Then conformance doesn't
have to deal with collections.
Jan: A lot of tools don't haave built-in checkers, so we wanted to
encourage bundling with a checker
Jutta: We need to make it clear that if the Success Criteria doesn't
apply, then we don't have to restrict our definition of authoring
tool.
<Jan> ACTION: JR to To write a note about what "not applicable"
means and how to use it [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/14-au-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-322 - Write a note about what "not
applicable" means and how to use it [on Jan Richards - due
2011-02-21].
Jan: If it applies or not, then evaluate whether you met it. The
conformance section section then says that you meet all the success
criteria that apply to your tool.
Definition of author
Move "Live Authoring Tools" note
<Jan> Resolution: all accept
Definition of authors
<Jan> [23]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20110211/results#xq5
[23] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20110211/results#xq5
<Jan> ACTION: JR to Provide more explanation around why unaware
people to be excluded as authors [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/14-au-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-323 - Provide more explanation around why
unaware people to be excluded as authors [on Jan Richards - due
2011-02-21].
rssagent, make logs public
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: JR to Provide more explanation around why unaware
people to be excluded as authors [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/14-au-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to To write a note about what "not applicable"
means and how to use it [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/14-au-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [27]scribe.perl version 1.135
([28]CVS log)
$Date: 2011/02/14 22:04:01 $
Received on Monday, 14 February 2011 22:49:09 UTC