Minutes of AUWG teleconference of 1 October 2012

Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2012/10/01-au-minutes.html


Text of Minutes:
    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                                  WAI AU

01 Oct 2012

    [2]Agenda

       [2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0055.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/10/01-au-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Jeanne, Jan, Cherie, Jutta, +1.571.765.aaaa, Greg,
           +1.970.349.aabb, Sueann, Tim_Boland

    Regrets
    Chair
           Jutta

    Scribe
           Jan

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]1. Voting on whether to publish the "Implementing
             ATAG 2.0" (NOTE) Editor's Draft as our required
             heart-beat publication.
          2. [6]3. brief testing approach description (Jan)
      * [7]Summary of Action Items
      __________________________________________________________

    <jeanne> trackbot, start meeting

    <trackbot> Meeting: Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines
    Working Group Teleconference

    <trackbot> Date: 01 October 2012

    <scribe> Scribe: Jan

1. Voting on whether to publish the "Implementing ATAG 2.0" (NOTE)
Editor's Draft as our required heart-beat publication.

    JT: As noted, this will give reviewers a sneak peek of changes
    we have made to the ATAG2 spec
    ... Taking vote

    SN: Agree

    CE: Fine

    <jeanne> +1 to publishing

    Jan: +1

    <Greg> Greg says yes

    TB: Is it aligned with LC?

    JR: Not exactly, it does include changes we have made based on
    LC comments

    TB: Should have note, could be confusing

    JT: We can add a not explaining that
    ... The motion is passed, so we will publish...when can we?

    JS: ASPA...probably next week...def before TPAC
    ... It was important not to muddle LC status of the rec track
    doc

    Resolution: All agreed to publish the Implementing ATAG doc

    TB: Extended teleconference on Oct 31?

    JT: That was a proposal

    JS: Last I remember we didn't agree on something

    <Greg> The last time we discussed a f to f was questioning the
    wisdom of holding one during hurricane season in Boca

    JR: I think that text was from last year
    ... The main thing we need to do work on are the tests

    JT: So the main thing we are doing is writing tests for the SCs
    ... We also need to gather evaluators and reviewers?

    JS: Yes, that needs to be done.

    JT: Implementors of ATAG2 and then evalutors/reviewers - people
    to check those implementations.
    ... Question is what kind of meeting do we need to put together
    all of this?

    JS: I remember from wcag2 testing that there was not a lot of
    group work...there was a lot of coord and a lot of individual
    work...
    ... I could certainly see a meeting to draft and agree on CR
    exit conditions....but thats it for group work...
    ... What we really need is a run trhough of testing.

    SN: Are you looking for people or implementations?\

    JT: People

    SN: So we have SCs with tests then we need implementations?

    JT: So to clarify, you and I had been talking about gathering
    some people to do the testing.

    JS: Right and then the WG needs to stand behind those testers

    JR: Clarigy?

    JS: Well, the WG reviews the work that the reviewers do and
    then they take a vote to say that we think we are done with CR.
    ... Would take at least 6 weeks after we vote to become a Rec

    GP: How many implementations do we really need? Is it ok if we
    have one tool that meets just one SC... etc.

    JS: Its a tricky answer...largely we decide that...but we have
    to be credible...we have to show implementations in the real
    world
    ... I know JB would like to see examples in various different
    market niches...blogs, CMSs,, LMSs, etc

    GP: Our problem is a process issues....need to be able to track
    whether there is an example for SC...and then show where that
    is
    ... Until we get examples for each we cant move forward?

    JS: Well, we can declare that certain SCs are "at risk".
    ... Need at least two examples,
    ... JR had that spreadsheet showing that

    [8]http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/implementation_report_10june20
    11.html

       [8] 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/implementation_report_10june2011.html

    JR: There is a newer one...with more columns....I can update

    JT: Great make sure to update the spreadhseet
    ... And people not working on the testing pls help with that
    ... Any other issues?

    OK, then lets move to the 2 agenda items

3. brief testing approach description (Jan)

    [9]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/00
    41.html

       [9] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0041.html

    <jeanne>
    [10]http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2-10April2012
    PublicWD-Tests-rev20120813

      [10] 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2-10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20120813

    <Greg> I vote for Integration

    <Greg> Happy Thanksgivign

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________




-- 
_______________________________
Jeanne Spellman
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
jeanne@w3.org

Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 20:02:07 UTC