Minutes from AUWG Teleconference on 16 January 2012 3:00pm-4:00pm ET

Minutes:
http://www.w3.org/2012/01/16-au-minutes.html

Full text
WAI AU
16 Jan 2012

Agenda

See also: IRC log
Attendees

Present
    Jan, Andrew, Jutta, Alex, Greg, +1.561.582.aaaa, Sueann, Cherie, Jeanne
Regrets
    Alessandro_M, Tim_B
Chair
    Jutta Treviranus
Scribe
    Jan

Contents

    Topics
        1. Tentative "Conformance Requirements" Section - everyone took an action last week to look at this text.
        3. Proposals on A.4.2.1 (Explain Accessibility Features) and A.4.2.2 (Explain All Features)
        4. Proposal to remove A.3.6.5 Assistance with Preferences
        5. Glossary: Content Generation
    Summary of Action Items

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0008.html

<scribe> Scribe: Jan
1. Tentative "Conformance Requirements" Section - everyone took an action last week to look at this text.

http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ED-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20120113/#conf-req

JT: People have chance to read?

SN: No chance yet?

JT: We will all now read it http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ED-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20120113/#conf-req

WCAG2: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#conformance

GP: Wonders about "Statement of"

JR: No problem to remove it.

JT: Any objections?

None

note 2 in ATAG 2.0 conformance...ie is confusing

an applicable Level A success criterion has not been met

original: Note 2: If the minimum conformance level (Level A) has not been achieved (i.e., at least one applicable Level A success criterion has not been met), it is still beneficial to publish a statement specifying which success criteria were met.
... Note 2: If the minimum conformance level (Level A) has not been achieved (i.e., not all applicable Level A success criteria have been met), it is still beneficial to publish a statement specifying which success criteria were met.

<scribe> NEW: Note 2: If the minimum conformance level (Level A) has not been achieved (i.e., not all applicable Level A success criteria have been met), it is still beneficial to publish a statement specifying which success criteria were met.

AL: Under Success Criteria Satisfaction...NA should be first

JR: +1

JT: Objections?

No objections

AL: Do we need to define "authoring process components"?

JR: I think it is implicit but I can try?

JT: Do we use the phrase elsewhere?

JR: No

JT: Other way to phrase

JR: Sub-system?

AL: Maybe JT: tools or components?

Original: his conformance option may be selected when an authoring tool would require additional authoring process components in order to conform as a complete authoring system. This option may be used for components with very limited functionality (e.g. a plug-in) up to nearly complete systems (e.g. a markup editor that only lacks accessibility checking functionality).

JT: This conformance option may be selected when an authoring tool would require additional tools or components in order to conform as a complete authoring system. This option may be used for components with very limited functionality (e.g. a plug-in) up to nearly complete systems (e.g. a markup editor that only lacks accessibility checking functionality).

No objections

<scribe> NEW: This conformance option may be selected when an authoring tool would require additional tools or components in order to conform as a complete authoring system. This option may be used for components with very limited functionality (e.g. a plug-in) up to nearly complete systems (e.g. a markup editor that only lacks accessibility checking functionality).

JT: We accept all of the new language with today's three modifications/

No objections

Resolution: Accept new "Conformance Requirements" text with 3 modifications: Rem statement of; NEW: Note 2: If the minimum conformance level (Level A) has not been achieved (i.e., not all applicable Level A success criteria have been met), it is still beneficial to publish a statement specifying which success criteria were met.; NEW: This conformance option may be selected when an authoring...
... tool would require additional tools or components in order to conform as a complete authoring system. This option may be used for components with very limited functionality (e.g. a plug-in) up to nearly complete systems (e.g. a markup editor that only lacks accessibility checking functionality).

2. Part A Conformance Applicability Note: Platform limitations

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0001.html

"Statement of Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance - Platform Limitation (Level A, AA, or AAA)

This conformance option may be selected when an authoring tool is unable to meet one or more success criteria because of intrinsic limitations of the platform (e.g., lacking a platform accessibility service). The (optional) explanation of conformance claim results should explain what platform features are missing."

JT: Thoughts?

GP: So 2 flavours of partial for different reasons?

JR: Yes
... WCAG2 has 2 flavours of partial as well?
... WCAG2 has 2 flavours of partial as well.

No objections

Resolution: Accept new partial conformance type http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0001.html
3. Proposals on A.4.2.1 (Explain Accessibility Features) and A.4.2.2 (Explain All Features)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0003.html

A.4.2.1 Explain Accessibility Features: For each authoring tool feature that is used to meet Part A of ATAG 2.0, at least one of the following is true:

(a) Explained in documentation: use of the feature is explained in the authoring tool's documentation; or

(b) Explained in interface: use of the feature is explained in the user interface; or

(c) Platform service: the feature is a service provided by an underlying platform; or

(d) Not used by authors: the feature is not used directly by authors (e.g., passing information to a platform accessibility service)

Note: The accessibility of the documentation is covered by Guideline A.1.1 and Guideline A.1.2.

A.4.2.2 Explain All Features: For each authoring tool feature, at least one of the following is true:

a) Explained in documentation: use of the feature is explained in the authoring tool's documentation; or

(b) Explained in interface: use of the feature is explained in the user interface; or

(c) Platform service: the feature is a service provided by an underlying platform; or

(d) Not used by authors: the feature is not used directly by authors (e.g., passing information to a platform accessibility service)

Note: The accessibility of the documentation is covered by Guideline A.1.1 and Guideline A.1.2.

JT: Thoughts?
... Are previous concerns addressed?

GP: Description vs explanation?

JR: Explain comes from 508 Refresyh

CE: Agree that describe is better than explain

JR: Described is fine with me

JT: Any objection to "described" in the handle and elsewhere

Resolution: Change explain to describe
... All accept new A421 and A422 with the change (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0003.html)
4. Proposal to remove A.3.6.5 Assistance with Preferences

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011JulSep/0107.html

JT: Any concerns with dropping it?

GP: No -Jan make a good case

JT: Do we have other related?

GP: THis is really a usability thing

JT: Maybe this should be added as a note somewhere?

<scribe> ACTION: JR to Find a place to slot in making user settings usable in intent, examples [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/01/16-au-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-371 - Find a place to slot in making user settings usable in intent, examples [on Jan Richards - due 2012-01-23].

Resolution: Remove SC A365
5. Glossary: Content Generation

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0007.html

content generation (content authoring, content editing):

The act of specifying the actual web content that will be rendered, played or executed by the end user's user agent. While the precise details of how content is created in any given system may vary widely, responsibility for the generation of content can be any combination of the following ():

- author generated content: Web content for which authors are fully responsible. The author may only be responsible down to a particular level (e.g., when asked to type a text label, the author is responsible for the text, but not for how the label is marked up; when typing markup in a source editing-view, the author is not responsible for the fact that UNICODE is used to encode the text ).

- automatically generated content: Web content for which developer-programmed functionality is fully responsible (e.g., what markup to output when an author requests to start a new document, automatically correcting markup errors).

- third-party content generation: Web content for which a third-party author is responsible (e.g., community shared templates).

JT: Everyone take 2 minutes to read...

AL: I don't have a problem with it

JT: Anyone else?
... No objections heard

Resolution: Accept new den of content genreation (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0007.html)
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: JR to Find a place to slot in making user settings usable in intent, examples [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/01/16-au-minutes.html#action01]
-- 
(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
jrichards@ocadu.ca | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957 | fax: 416-977-9844
Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) | http://idrc.ocad.ca/
Faculty of Design | OCAD University


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richards, Jan [mailto:jrichards@ocadu.ca]
> Sent: January 15, 2012 10:41 PM
> To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> Subject: AUWG Teleconference on 16 January 2012 3:00pm-4:00pm ET
> 
> There will be an AUWG teleconference on Monday 16 January 2012 at 3:00
> pm - 4:00 pm ET:
> 
> Call: (617) 761-6200 ext. 2894#
> IRC: server: irc.w3.org, port: 6665, channel: #au
> 
> If people think they will arrive more than 15 minutes late, please send me an
> email beforehand.
> 
> The dial-in numbers for Zakim are now ONLY:
> ===========================================
> +1.617.761.6200 (Boston)
> 
> 
> Editor Drafts:
> ==============
> ATAG 2.0
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ED-ATAG20-20120113/
> Implementing ATAG 2.0
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ED-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20120113/
> 
> Agenda:
> ========
> 
> We are getting there!
> 
> Open Items (@@'s) in the draft:
> - Conformance Applicability Notes: 0 (replaced by proposal for new type of
> partial conformance)
> - Major SC rewordings:  3 (A365, A421, A422)
> - Minor SC wordings: 0
> - Intent-Examples-Resources: 0
> - Glossary terms:  1 (+accessible content issue to discuss with WAI-CG)
> - Tentative "Conformance Requirements" Section
> 
> 1. Tentative "Conformance Requirements" Section - everyone took an action
> last week to look at this text.
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ED-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-
> 20120113/#conf-req
> 
> 2. Part A Conformance Applicability Note: Platform limitations
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0001.html
> 
> 3.  Proposals on A.4.2.1 (Explain Accessibility Features) and A.4.2.2 (Explain All
> Features) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-
> au/2012JanMar/0003.html
> 
> 4. Proposal to remove A.3.6.5 Assistance with Preferences
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011JulSep/0107.html
> 
> 5. Glossary: Content Generation
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JanMar/0007.html
> 
> Future meetings (needs updating):
> ================
> January 23, 2012
> January 30, 2012
> 
> Cheers,
> Jan
> 
> 
> (MR) JAN RICHARDS
> PROJECT MANAGER
> INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)
> 
> T 416 977 6000 x3957
> F 416 977 9844
> E jrichards@ocadu.ca
> 
> Twitter @OCAD
> Facebook www.facebook.com/OCADUniversity
> 
> OCAD UNIVERSITY
> 205 Richmond Street West, 2nd Floor, Toronto, Canada  M5V 1V3
> www.ocadu.ca idrc.ocadu.ca

Received on Monday, 16 January 2012 21:13:06 UTC