RE: Minutes of AUWG meeting of 23 July 2012

Belated regrets - earlier meeting ran way long..
Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeanne Spellman [mailto:jeanne@w3.org] 
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 4:23 PM
To: AUWG
Subject: Minutes of AUWG meeting of 23 July 2012

Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2012/07/23-au-minutes.html


Text of Minutes
    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                                  WAI AU

23 Jul 2012

    [2]Agenda

       [2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0014.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/07/23-au-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Alex, Cherie, Greg, Jan, Jeanne, Jutta

    Regrets
           Sueann, N.

    Chair
           Jan Richards

    Scribe
           Jan

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]1. AUWG test development to prepare for entering
             CR:
          2. [6]2. SC's that we might flag as a result of test
             writing
      * [7]Summary of Action Items
      __________________________________________________________

    <jeanne>
    [8]http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2-10April2012P
    ublicWD-Tests-rev20120723

       [8] 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2-10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20120723

    <jeanne>
    [9]http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2-10April2012P
    ublicWD-Tests-rev20120723

       [9] 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2-10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20120723

    [10]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0
    014.html

      [10] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0014.html

    <scribe> Scribe: Jan

1. AUWG test development to prepare for entering CR:

2. SC's that we might flag as a result of test writing

    - B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information: If the authoring
    tool supports production of any web content technologies for
    publishing for which the authoring tool does not provide
    support for the production of accessible web content (WCAG),
    then this is documented. (Level AA)

    Note: This success criterion concerns the presence or absence
    of support features, such as accessibility checkers, not any
    intrinsic property of web content technologies.

    @ISSUE: This is tricky because the SC just says "support for
    production", not that the production of the other format needs
    to meet ATAG 2.0. This makes some sense because if it did imply
    ATAG 2.0 conformance then to do an ATAG 2.0 conformance check
    on any format for a tool would actually require doing one on
    all of them. But, what, then, does "support" mean? One (weak)
    possibility is [the...

    scribe: test I wrote]... that accessible content be possible.
    Another (stronger) possibility is that a "supported" format has
    to have checking (even if it is manual checking). If that's
    what we mean...I think we should fix the SC to say that.

    ([11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/
    0013.html)

      [11] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0013.html)

    JR, AL: Discuss the issue...

    [12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0
    013.html

      [12] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0013.html

    <jeanne> Definitions for testing
    ->[13]http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/CR20/TestPrep.html

      [13] http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/CR20/TestPrep.html

    JS: Has added the definition into the page above.

    B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information: If the authoring tool
    supports production of any web content technologies for
    publishing for which the authoring tool does not provide
    support for the production of accessible web content (WCAG),
    then this is documented. (Level AA)

    Note: This success criterion concerns the presence or absence
    of support features, such as accessibility checkers, not any
    intrinsic property of web content technologies.

    @ISSUE: This is tricky because the SC just says "support for
    production", not that the production of the other format needs
    to meet ATAG 2.0. This makes some sense because if it did imply
    ATAG 2.0 conformance then to do an ATAG 2.0 conformance check
    on any format for a tool would actually require doing one on
    all of them. But, what, then, does "support" mean? One (weak)
    possibility is [the...

    scribe: test I wrote]... that accessible content be possible.
    Another (stronger) possibility is that a "supported" format has
    to have checking (even if it is manual checking). If that's
    what we mean...I think we should fix the SC to say that.

    JT: Primary point of SC is to guide author...we've tried many
    formulations
    ... Wonder how we can keep the spirit of this
    ... Maybe we look at this in the other direction...recommending
    the technology that has support.

    AL: I think the testability issue is still there

    JT: In what way?

    AL: Really hard to say when a tool provides support for
    production of accessible support

    JT: If the recommendation is that there be an indicator that
    accessible production is supported....
    ... So the guidance doesn't nee to ba certification...just
    having some indicator that some...

    JR: What about only triggering it only if the default
    technology is not the included technology

    AL: In most cases accesssibility will depend. One tech might be
    better in one way, one tech might be better for something else

    GP: Often times the authoring tool won't even create the final
    technology...
    ... So important to have properly created target technology

    JR: Not about the format
    ... example of spell checking in only one format, but not
    others

    GP: In most situations there it is not the case that one or the
    other

    JT: If it is the case that there is no difference, then it
    shouldn't apply

    GP: Example of ePub...needs reader
    ... In most tools, validity is limited to native format

    JT: Can validate DAISY with MS Word

    JR: What are some scenarios that should trigger sc?

    JT: Example of video with captions, about to transfom to a
    video format without captions

    JR: Should be covered by our content transformation SC

    GP: Sound authoring in the source, should result in greater
    accessibility in the target
    ... Contemporary tools take you 80% of the way...because they
    automatically use styles etc

    JT: Step back again to look at spirit...at decision
    points...where one choice would likely reduce accessibility

    GP: For example, if you are going to use this feature or place
    this object, you need to know x. But sometimes its just good
    auhtoring practice.

    <jeanne> when authoring tools provide different technologies,
    the user is supported toward the more accessible choice as
    measured by the task the user wants to perform.

    JR: But still complicated...what if you format includes some
    checking...but not repair etc.

    GP: Microsoft has 8 simple checkpoints for making docs
    accessible
    ... Afraid that this is a documentation requirement...that will
    cause a backlash
    ... Its getting much more complex than the actual tools that
    will be produced as we try to account for all possibilities.

    JS: when authoring tools provide different technologies, the
    user is supported toward the more accessible choice as measured
    by the task the user wants to perform.

    <jeanne> as measured by the actions the author takes

    JR: I do have concern that user will experience the SC as a
    judgement against the format (not as we intend honesty about
    the authoring tools own functionality)

    B.1.2.1 Restructuring and Recoding Transformations (WCAG):

    If the authoring tool provides restructuring transformations or
    re-coding transformations, and if equivalent mechanisms exist
    in the web content technology of the output, then at least one
    of the following is true: (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A
    success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA
    success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success
    criteria)

    (a) Preserve: Accessibility information (WCAG) is preserved in
    the output; or

    (b) Warning: Authors have the default option to be warned that
    accessibility information (WCAG) may be lost (e.g., when saving
    a vector graphic into a raster image format); or

    (c) Automatic Checking: After the transformation, accessibility
    checking is automatically performed; or

    (d) Checking Suggested: After the transformation, the authoring
    tool prompts authors to perform accessibility checking.

    GP: We are moving to multiple formats

    JT: Idea of merging issue SC with B.1.2.1

    <scribe> ACTION: JR to suggest combination of B.4.1.3 Feature
    Availability Information and B.1.2.1 Restructuring and Recoding
    Transformations (WCAG) [recorded in
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2012/07/23-au-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-382 - Suggest combination of B.4.1.3
    Feature Availability Information and B.1.2.1 Restructuring and
    Recoding Transformations (WCAG) [on Jan Richards - due
    2012-07-30].

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: JR to suggest combination of B.4.1.3 Feature
    Availability Information and B.1.2.1 Restructuring and Recoding
    Transformations (WCAG) [recorded in
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2012/07/23-au-minutes.html#action01]

    [End of minutes]

Received on Monday, 23 July 2012 20:29:13 UTC