- From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:15:12 -0400
- To: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Minutes:
http://www.w3.org/2011/10/24-au-minutes.html
Text of Minutes:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
AUWG
24 Oct 2011
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0038.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/10/24-au-irc
Attendees
Present
Jeanne, Alex, Jan, +1.571.765.aaaa, Greg, Sueann, Tim_Boland
Regrets
Jutta, T.
Chair
Jutta Treviranus
Scribe
Jan, jeanne
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]1. Last call comments (due Sept 15)
2. [6]2. Actions arising from last week:
3. [7]reversible actions
4. [8]term "authoring action" in to the preview defn note
5. [9]programmatically determined
6. [10]A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status Information
7. [11]3. Conformance claim harmonization with WCAG (SN's
issue):
* [12]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<Jan> Scribe: Jan
<scribe> Chair: Jan Richards
<Greg> Hello Zakim
[13]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results
[13] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results
[14]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024
[14] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024
<scribe> scribe: jeanne
1. Last call comments (due Sept 15)
2. Actions arising from last week:
<Jan> [15]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results
[15] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results
reversible actions
Jan: PF accepted our changes to the last draft in responses to their
cvomments
<Jan> [16]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq9
[16] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq9
<Jan> A reversible authoring action is an authoring action that can
be immediately and completely undone by the authoring tool upon a
cancel request by an author. Examples of cancel requests include:
"cancel", "undo", ("redo" when it used to reverse "undo"), "revert",
"roll-back".
Greg: If there is revert or rollback, that should also be included
... the revert is to a last saved point, so it would not be a
sequential reverse of actions.
JR: At the minimum level, it can be a revert. At the AAA it is a
sequential reversal.
AL: But the SC hasn't changed?
JR: The SC has changed. The notes have moved to the definition
RESOLUTION: Accept the above wording
<Jan> Resolution: All accept reversible actions changes from
"[17]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq9" with
added examples, revert etc
[17] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq9
term "authoring action" in to the preview defn note
<Jan> [18]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq10
[18] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq10
JR: changed to discriminate between editable authoring actions and
testing author action
<Jan> Views in which no authoring actions are provided. Typically,
the purpose of previews is to present content as it would appear to
end-users of user agents. In these cases, previews may be
implemented using existing user agents or they may attempt to
emulate some user agent functionality.
<Jan> Views in which no authoring actions are provided (i.e., the
view is not editable). Typically, the purpose of previews is to
present content as it would appear to end-users of user agents. In
these cases, previews may be implemented using existing user agents
or they may attempt to emulate some user agent functionality.
JS: I think we should keep "editable" because some people may
consider testing a preview page as an authoring action
<Jan> Resolution: All accept: Views in which no authoring actions
are provided (i.e., the view is not editable). Typically, the
purpose of previews is to present content as it would appear to
end-users of user agents. In these cases, previews may be
implemented using existing user agents or they may attempt to
emulate some user agent functionality.
<Jan> programmatically determined
programmatically determined
<Jan> [19]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq11
[19] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq11
JR: I added the note.
AL: That looks fine to me.
<Jan> Resolution: All accept "Note: In ATAG 2.0, some success
criteria require authoring tools to make certain information
programmatically determinable. In cases where the platform lacks a
platform accessibility service, these success criteria are to be
considered "not applicable". Conformance claims are optional, but
any claim that is made must record the platform and the fact that
the platform...
<Jan> ...does not include a platform accessibility service. "
A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status Information
<Jan> [20]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq4
[20] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq4
<Jan> AL: looks ok to me
<Jan> SN: Seems reasonable
<Jan> Resolution: All agree with "A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status
Indicators: If an editing-view adds status indicators to the content
being edited, then the status messages being indicated can be
programmatically determined. Note: Status indicators may indicate
errors (e.g. spelling errors), tracked changes, hidden elements, or
other information. "
3. Conformance claim harmonization with WCAG (SN's issue):
<Jan>
[21]http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/ED-ATAG20-20111014/#conf-claim
[21] http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/ED-ATAG20-20111014/#conf-claim
<Jan> [22]http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#conformance-claims
[22] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#conformance-claims
[comparison with WCAG]
JR: who can make the claim is different. WCAG is completely open. We
allow collections of software components to conform. We also allow
the claimant to state the technologies they are making the claim
against. ATAG also asks the platform, but WCAG does not.
Sueann: Claims should be made by the entity that owns the
intellectual property. This is a blocking issue.
<Jan> SN: "Developer" is too loose
Sueann: developer is not appropriate when we are discussing
intellectual property. These are quasi-legal statements.
<Jan> JR: Authoring tool provide
<Jan> GP: Publisher?
<Jan> GP: Licensor?
<Jan> JS: What about open source group?
<Jan> SN: No different..someone licenses it
<Jan> JS: True...but who has the authority
<Jan> JR: Authoring tool representative?
<Jan> SN: It's the company...open source org, software company...
<Jan> GP: The entity that controls the intellectual property
<Jan> SN: Likes what Alex just said..
<Jan> AL: Basically entities that do not have IP ownerhsip claim on
a product cannot make claims
The entity who does not have control of the inteelectual property
cannot make a claim on behalf of the product.
<Jan> SN: Why this "At least one version of the conformance claim
must be published..."
<Jan> JR: Came from here UAAG1:
[23]http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-USERAGENT/conformance.html#conformance-
claims
[23]
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-USERAGENT/conformance.html#conformance-claims
<Jan> JS: Important for people out there to get this info
<Jan> SN: Why multiple versions?
JS: different versions of the product
GP: those would be different claims
... Let's not confuse versions with renditions
JR: This refers more to file formats.
... I will take an action to review the conformance claim and update
the language.
<Jan> ACTION: JR to To review the conformance section and propose
and issues for a survey. [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2011/10/24-au-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-360 - Review the conformance section and
propose and issues for a survey. [on Jan Richards - due 2011-10-31].
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: JR to To review the conformance section and propose
and issues for a survey. [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2011/10/24-au-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Monday, 24 October 2011 20:15:11 UTC