- From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocadu.ca>
- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 20:11:47 +0000
- To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/2014/02/10-au-minutes.html Full text: WAI AU 10 Feb 2014 Agenda See also: IRC log Attendees Present Jan, Jeanne, TomB, Jutta Regrets Tim_B., Alex_L., Alastair_C. Chair Jutta Treviranus Scribe Jan Contents Topics 1. Any comments to pass along re: UAAG 2.0 Last Call? 2. Candidate Recommendation (CR) process update 3. Gathering and building the SEVEN "Tools and Resources Needed for Testing ATAG 2.0 Success Criteria:" 4. The group will cooperate on a full test of a tool to get a sanity check on our testing procedure. 5. Implementation report update (Jan) 6. Re-chartering update 7. Other issues? Summary of Action Items 1. Any comments to pass along re: UAAG 2.0 Last Call? <Jan> JT: Any comments? <Jan> JT: Suggested topics...http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2014JanMar/0014.html <Jan> JR: SC 5.1.1 Comply with WCAG: Relationship with WCAG2 is nuanced as ATAG2's (http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#conf-rel-wcag). Does it need to be? <Jan> JS: Sending this in would help UA show they have received broad review <Jan> JT: OK <Jan> JT: So official comment would be better... <Jan> JR: I can come up with wording based on our back and forth with WCAG some time back. <Jan> Authoring tools that render the web content being edited (e.g. Word, Dreamweaver, HTML-Kit) <Jan> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-UAAG20-20131107/#def-user-agent <Jan> JT: We have been making the point for many years that the boundary between user agents and authoring tools is arbitrary. <Jan> http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#def-comb-ua-authoring-tool <Jan> JT: So in review to UAAG what should we say? <Jan> JR: Maybe just word of advice to them to provide more detail around the fact that the ATAG-UAAG relationship exists. <Jan> JT: OK 2. Candidate Recommendation (CR) process update <Jan> JS: MC has now added DB layer <Jan> JS: So now I can start adding things into DB <Jan> JS: MC has 2-3 more weeks of work <Jan> JT: How long till test harness can be used? <Jan> JS: I will work on putting in the test data. <Jan> JS: We have the 7 items that need to be prepared for testers. <Jan> JS: Certainly I will have DB populated soon. <Jan> JT: OK good news <Jan> JT: We put out call for help...has there been response? <Jan> JS: I haven't pushed it yet, because I want things to be ready right away. <Jan> JT: OK 3. Gathering and building the SEVEN "Tools and Resources Needed for Testing ATAG 2.0 Success Criteria:" <scribe> scribenick: jeanne <Jan> JR: Web Content Accessibility Test Procedure (Level A, AA, AAA): Prob can use the WCAG2 test methodology JR: WCAG Test Procedure: There is a good chance we will be able to use the WCAG test methodology that Tim is working on <Jan> JR: Platform Accessibility Service Test Procedure: still needs volunteer <scribe> scribe: Jan TB: Can do Windows, MacOS, iOS ... I would personally start with Windows <scribe> ACTION: TB to Prepare Platform Accessibility Service Test Procedure for Windows 7. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/10-au-minutes.html#action01] <trackbot> 'TB' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., tbabins, fboland). JR: User Agent Accessibility Test Procedure (Level A only): Not necessary unless authoring tool prevents in market tools from being used for preview ... So not needed now. <jeanne> ACTION: tbabins to prepare Platform Accessibility Service Test Procedure for Windows 7. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/10-au-minutes.html#action02] <trackbot> Created ACTION-390 - Prepare platform accessibility service test procedure for windows 7. [on Tom Babinszki - due 2014-02-17]. JR: Accessible test content file (Level A, AA, AAA): I will do this. ... Non-accessible test content file (Level A, AA, AAA): I will do this. ... A selection of separate pieces of content: JR as well ... List of "accessible content support features" - this is just a form for tester to fill out - depends on tool. JS: What Tom is doing can then be used as a model for other platforms. 4. The group will cooperate on a full test of a tool to get a sanity check on our testing procedure. JR: No conflict of interest I don't think. JS: Someone else can be assigned to evaluate later 5. Implementation report update (Jan) JR: Nothing to report. JS: On Friday I was pointed to Adobe open-source "Brackets"...I will be looking at this ... Brackets JT: Sugar labs accessible gaming system prototype <Jutta> [1] http://www.fing.edu.uy/inco/proyectos/butia/ [2] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activities/TurtleArt <Jutta> http://www.sugarlabs.org 6. Re-chartering update JS: Nothing to report. 7. Other issues? JT: Next meeting Feb 24 due to CDN and US holiday next Monday. Summary of Action Items [NEW] ACTION: TB to Prepare Platform Accessibility Service Test Procedure for Windows 7. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/10-au-minutes.html#action01] [NEW] ACTION: tbabins to prepare Platform Accessibility Service Test Procedure for Windows 7. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/10-au-minutes.html#action02] (MR) JAN RICHARDS PROJECT MANAGER INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC) OCAD UNIVERSITY T 416 977 6000 x3957 F 416 977 9844 E jrichards@ocadu.ca
Received on Monday, 10 February 2014 20:12:12 UTC