See also: IRC log
<jeanne> meeting: WAI AUWG F2F D2
<jeanne> chair: Jutta(phone) and Jan(on site)
<jeanne> lastest version: http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2008/WD-ATAG20-20081024/WD-ATAG20-20081024
<AndrewR> Scribe: Andrew
<jeanne> scribe:AndrewR
one vendor is working on ARIA
nothing available at the moment
browser development tools are WCAG 1 focussed at minuted
targeting IE / FF at present
not much for other browsers
ARIA is not always a simple yes / no answer for pass and fail
ARIA roles and properties are not supported at present in the validaotors
strategies - enhancing Firebug for ARIA
JS - have you discussed anything with the Eclipse group?
Eclipse Accprobe
http://www.eclipse.org/actf/downloads/tools/accprobe/index.php
JR - would be good to work together to work on how tools can help to prompt for roles / states etc
Reed - from a usability point of view you don't want to save something on the users computer where they may not find it
Reed - what if the content is something beyond just text?
<jeanne> B.1.2.1.(c) I would like to see the addition of requiring that the most accessible action is the default action.
Reed - for some things such as text, adding it as a comment is fine
Reed - for somthing like style relations, it becomes more complex
Reed - the author needs to be aware if they are going to lose info
Reed - what is the appropriate level people should be notified at?
the whole document or element level etc
JS - that's a vendor choice
<Reed> the phone shut off sorry
<Reed> it got unplugged
<AnnM> welcome call
<AnnM> welcome back even
breaking this into 2 seperate guidelines
what to do if the technology can preserve the accessibility inffo
and what to do if the technology can't preserve the accessibility info
Reed - what is the appropriate level for this?
Reed - technically it's hard
Reed - would be harsh to inlcude this at level A
JS - what's our use case for this guideline?
JS - a likely one is translating an MP4 into AVI or SMIL etc
JS - what would you do with the caption track?
JS - are you required to keep that track and what do you do with it?
looking at the options
<JR> B.1.2.1 Target Preserves Accessibility Information (Level A): If the target technology of the transformation or conversion can preserve *recognized* accessibility information that is required for that content to conform to WCAG Level A, then the accessibility information is preserved and available for end users in the resulting content. (Level A)
<JR> B.1.2.1 Target Cannot Preserve Accessibility Information: If the target technology of the transformation or conversion cannot preserve *recognized* accessibility information that is required for that content to conform to WCAG Level A, then the authoring tool (Level A):
<JR> - provides the author with the option to retain the information in another way if possible (e.g., as a "comment", by saving a backup copy) and
<JR> - authors are notified that this will result in accessibility problems in the target.
<jeanne> Issue: Look at detailed techniques for B.1.2.1 & 2 (at all levels)
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-169 - Look at detailed techniques for B.1.2.1 & 2 (at all levels) ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/169/edit .
<jeanne> ACTION: JS to draft Technique use cases for video associated with B.1.2.1 & 2 Issue-169 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-31 - Draft Technique use cases for video associated with B.1.2.1 & 2 Issue-169 [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2008-10-31].
<AnnM> suggestion of slight reword for second bullet, for readability - notifies the author that this will result in accessibility problems in the target
<JR> B.1.2.1 Target Cannot Preserve Accessibility Information: If the target technology of the transformation or conversion cannot preserve *recognized* accessibility information that is required for that content to conform to WCAG Level A, then the authoring tool (Level A):
<JR> - provides the author with the option to retain the information in another way if possible (e.g., as a "comment", by saving a backup copy) and
<JR> - notifies the author that this will result in accessibility problems in the target.
<JR> ACTION: JR to Look at B.1.2.3 Notification Prior to Deletion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-32 - Look at B.1.2.3 Notification Prior to Deletion [on Jan Richards - due 2008-10-31].
<JR> ACTION: JR to Look at B.1.2 Applicability Notes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-33 - Look at B.1.2 Applicability Notes [on Jan Richards - due 2008-10-31].
<JR> publishing
<JR> The point at which authors or the authoring tool make content available to end users (e.g., uploading a Web page, committing a change in a wiki).
<JR> B.1.2.1 Target Preserves Accessibility Information (Level A): If the target technology of the transformation or conversion can preserve *recognized* accessibility information that is required for that content to conform to WCAG Level A, then the accessibility information is preserved and available for end users in the resulting content. (Level A)
Reed - as long as the tool does it at some point it's fine
Reed - we shouldn't really define when the tool should do it
<JR> B.1.3.1 Automatic Accessible (Level A): If the authoring tool automatically generates content, then that content meets WCAG Level A prior to *publishing*.
<JR> ACTION: JR to Level A->Minimum, Level AA->??, Level AAA->??? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-34 - Level A->Minimum, Level AA->??, Level AAA->??? [on Jan Richards - due 2008-10-31].
applicability notes are a bit in limbo
JS - do we need the word "always" in "If an authoring action or instruction will always lead"
Reed - excessive prompting will produce a poor user experience
JS - one warning per authoring session?
JR - can see it working with a set of instructions
e.g. inserting an image instructions
JR - we're getting quite low level here
Reed - "cannot be made to meet" is easy to get around
JS - "cannot meet" is better
JR - cannot check a whole calendar widget and say "fix that"
Reed - is this going to be testable?
JR - getting quite fuzzy here
Reed - do i have to flag for everything that might not meet "A"?
Reed - checkers don't have to run at the end
Reed - they can be checking all the time
<JR> See also: For more information on how to prompt, see ATAG 2.0 Techniques - Appendix A: Prompting for Different Types of Accessibility Information. Repair features (see Guidelin B.2.3) are also an important aspect of author guidance.
JR - for automated tools having line numbers would be good
JR - having something to click on to take you there would be great
JS - what are we trying to accomplish with this one?
We're just trying to help authors locate things
<JR> B.2.2.3 Help authors locate:
<jeanne> ... the author must be given sufficient information to identify the problem (e.g. display the content in situ, display image)/\.
JS - is an alternative page provided? Is a sign language alternative provided?
<JR> B.2.2.3 Help Authors Locate: For any checks that require author judgment to determine whether a potential accessibility problem is correctly identified (i.e., manual checking and semi-automated checking), the relevant content is identified (e.g., displaying the surrounding text, "Is a sign lanuage interpreation provided?")
JS - we need to make it clear that this can be done with an outside tool
as part of the "authoring system"
Andrew Arch (W3C) joins for an overview of WAI-AGE
<jeanne> AA: Did a large literature review of what older people do on-line. There are many things we can learn from these studies in other parts of WAI.
<jeanne> ... the complexity of the user agent.
<jeanne> ...how to increase the font size
<jeanne> ...the declining ability for fine motor control.
<jeanne> ...making things easier to activate and control - like buttons and scroll bars.
<jeanne> AA: the retirement age is rising or becoming arbitrary, so more older workers are staying in the workplace.
<jeanne> AA:The accessibility of Content Management Systems is key as the web becomes more and more 2-way.
<jeanne> AA: What most people have identified as requirements of Ageing are covered by WCAG, but mostly in the advisory techniques.
<jeanne> ...contrast between colors significantly deteriorates.
<jeanne> RS: We have to be careful, because some bright colors help some conditions and not others.
<JR> RS: Our research show older people shun AT's when they are associated with disability
<JR> SC: Agree
<JR> RS: There can be social stigma around disability
<JR> RS: What are we doing about wording "disability"...
<JR> AA: Part of scope is awareness of overlap...especially among support agencies
<JR> AA: No studies on training talking about adaptive strategies...closest is go to store and try different mouse
<JR> RS: So little definitive research in this area....need to be careful when setting standards in this area
<JR> SC: THis is why I'm excited about personalization
<JR> JS: Actually research is there...but locked up in corporate
<JR> AA: Some of it....but there are some universities working in this area.
<JR> AA: Amount of research in journals now is increasing significantly - likely to be definitive things in 5 yrs
<JR> RS: We at MS have some data but not by age
<JR> JS: I worked at a place that was doing really good stuff
<JR> AA: RNIB did some good work on vision decline
<amj> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-wai-age-literature-20080514/#what
<JR> RS: Never should be standard UI
<JR> JS: Right...but also ability to change not only appearance but less complexity
<JR> RS: But what does simpler mean?
<JR> AA: Work in browser...what do I need to browse vs. do other things the Web does
<JR> AA: Haven't seen definitive stuff on authoring tools
<JR> AA: "Newer" older users don't want to change the setup
<JR> AA: Even after a couple of years
<JR> JR: Wrapping up....
<amj> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/comparative-WAI.html
<JR> AA: OK We've put together this table
<JR> AA: It's our initial attempt to map WAI guidelines to the Age requirements
<JR> AA: We'd be keen to work with AUWG to do a double check
<JR> RS: Studies cited?
<JR> AA: Yes at bottom of litt review
<amj> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-wai-age-literature-20080514/#refs
There's probably some overlap with interfaces people have been working on for people with learning disabilities using exisiting site APIs to create new "skins"
http://icant.co.uk/easy-youtube/
http://code.google.com/p/accessible-maps/
<JR> AA: And if anyone has seen studies we'd be pleased to see them
<JR> AR: Brings up "ethical mashups"
<SallyC> http://www.softwareexpress.co.uk/
<JR> AA: Sometimes hard to diff. unfamiliarity with mild cognitive impairment (forgetfulness)
<JR> SC: I've just put in a link to compny that makes skins of browsers and email
<SallyC> It is an application interface to the computer that includes web, email, word and any main functionality of a computer that someone would want to do.
<jeanne> issue: create an Appendix on Ageing population requirements in conjunction with WAI-AGE project
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-170 - Create an Appendix on Ageing population requirements in conjunction with WAI-AGE project ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/170/edit .
<JR> > http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/comparative-WAI.html
<jeanne> ACTION: JS to follow up with Andrew Arch on cross-over of with WAI Age document http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/comparative-WAI.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-35 - Follow up with Andrew Arch on cross-over of with WAI Age document http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/comparative-WAI.html [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2008-10-31].
<rshaffne> scribe:rshaffner
<rshaffne> scribe: rshaffne
<jeanne> new version: http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2008/WD-ATAG20-20081024/WD-ATAG20-20081024
JR: talked with archer and we may add appendix talking about aging
JR
JT: I wanted to relay that yesterday that I was
at the free software symposium (open source) fairly lengthy discussion on alt
text
... resolution was that this needed to be dealt with for flikr and other
uploaded images
JR: Html may make alt no longer required
JT: I was trying to relay to them that ATAG
couldn't handle unless dealt with in WCAG
... as well
JR: it's not completely decided WAIs position is to make it mandatory
JT: we are thought to be promoting WCAG
compliance, implication seems to be that we would have requirements that go
beyond WCAG
... more strenuous support for alt text in the authoring tool than in the
content guidelines
JR: do you mean automatically, or do you mean like 1000 picture dump where you shouldn't get to publish without mandatory alt contribution?
<jeanne> issue: more strenuous support of alt in ATAG than in the WCAG guidelines.
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-171 - More strenuous support of alt in ATAG than in the WCAG guidelines. ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/171/edit .
JT: what would the UI look like that forces
people to do this?
... they gave examples of other batch uploads where there was metadata
requirement
JR: at the end if the user just wants to get pictures up, shouldn't they be able to do that?
JT: I agree
... the issues is the feeling that ATAG could be more strenuous than ATAG
JR: moving to conformance again
NOTE MOVING BACK TO CONFORMANCE SECTION
RS: we should add something to make people not liable for claims made on their behalf
discussing whether it is appropriate to have links everywhere
what is right level of conformance disclosure
<JR> Whenever the claimed conformance level is published (e.g., product information website), the URI for the on-line published version of the conformance claim must be included.
<JR> Claimants are solely responsible for the accuracy of their claims (including claims that include products for which they are not responsible) and keeping claims up to date.
Discussing required components
<JR> (e.g., "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, 24 October 2008, Editor's Draft ")
JS: we should make the line the same about responsibility
JR: ok
Moving up section about claimants being solely responsible
burden is on claimant
<JR> Claimants are solely responsible for the accuracy of their claims and keeping claims up to date. The burden is on the conformance claimant rather than the developer of any of the software components.
<JR> (a) The ATAG 2.0 conformance level that has been satisfied (see Donformance Levels)
<JR> (a) The ATAG 2.0 conformance level that has been satisfied (see Conformance Levels)
This is replacing a
JR: the only thing changing is what it in the
brackets
... moving on to B
JS: let's slow down, we made a major change to
this in July, need to amke sure it's still accurate
... don't need bullet saying need at leasst one piece of content
RS: does it matter if HTML and JS are used...
all, let's just kill both bullets
JR: moving onto C
JS: can we strike C?
RS: I think so
CS <observing>:does that mean other techs wont be listed?
yes
ok
REMOVED
JR: D is for completeness
RS: d is a heads up for what won't work
Moving to part e
JR: there will only be one version of WCAG
RS: in fact keeping it means people can site the old version
<JR> provide the name and version information of the user agent(s).
OK, changing to just provide the name and version of the user agents
JR: are we OK leaving that as is?
yes
JS: wait so we didn't finish up platforms?
JR: yeah, is that still ok?
... we will link to examples for the accessibility platform architectures
<JR> AXAPI for MacOS
<JR> UA for MacOS
JR: can we go onto optional components?
<JR> ACTION: JR to Look into MacOS equiv of MSAA [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-36 - Look into MacOS equiv of MSAA [on Jan Richards - due 2008-10-31].
JS: is there a reason why normative is there?
JR: nope, good point
JS: unclear where they said they did it
JR: that's what implied by conformance level
... example, I complied to ATAG 2.0 Level A and therefore I met all A
requirements
JS: they should at least have to list not applicables
TB: don't they have to do that today? if they don't, they should have to?
JR: it's there
JS: ok let's just move it over to conformance so they do it
JR: for each one they say whether they did it, or they say why it was N/A
JS: let's making it missing c
<JR> (c) For each success criteria, a declaration of whether or not the success criterion has been satisfied or a declaration that the success criteria is not applicable to the authoring tool and a rationale for why not.
Jan is currently drafting up changesx
(c) For each success criteria, a declaration of whether or not the success criterion has been satisfied or a declaration that the success criteria is not applicable to the authoring tool and a rationale for why not.
repost for Jeanne post drop
no changes aboce
above
<jeanne2> (c)For each success criterion: a declaration of whether or not the success criterion has been satisfied or
<jeanne2> a declaration that the success criterion is not applicable and a rationale for why not.
JR: remove or web content accessibility benchmark document
<jeanne2> ACTION: JS to check with W3C internal to confirm the wording of the Conformance Disclaimer section. #conf-disclaimer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-37 - Check with W3C internal to confirm the wording of the Conformance Disclaimer section. #conf-disclaimer [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2008-10-31].
JS: I will check on it and based on what lawyers say, is everyone ok with that?
TB: do you have to actually identify who made the claim?
JS: where should it go??
thanks zakim
<scribe> scribe: rshaffner
<scribe> scribe:rshaffne
JR: we are back up at the tope
top
JR: we are at levels of conformance
RS: i like partial conformance
<AndrewR> +1 for that
JS: I hate to just see one thing stop conformance
JR: but if you give a mouse a cookie..
JS: do we want to expand partial conformance?
e.g. should it not just be a or b
JR: let's remove the note
JS did
JR: 10min left, let's try and zip back to B2.2.3
Like Jutta's idea around record keeping
<JR> ACTION: JR to Proposal to add a AA recordkeeping item to B.2.2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-38 - Proposal to add a AA recordkeeping item to B.2.2 [on Jan Richards - due 2008-10-31].
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to discuss the checking SC -- aren't location and advise needed in B.2.3?
JS: we will need more specific examples for the repair section
JR: let's at least make some notes on what we need to do here
<jeanne2> Issue: provide additional success criteria in B.2.3 on repair
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-172 - Provide additional success criteria in B.2.3 on repair ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/issues/172/edit .
<jeanne2> ACTION: JS to draft proposal for new success criteria for B.2.3 Repair [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-39 - Draft proposal for new success criteria for B.2.3 Repair [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2008-10-31].
<JR> Adding SC's to Repair:
<JR> - Availability: Repair is available prior to publishing...
<JR> - Help Authors Locate...
<JR> - Help Authors Decide...
<jeanne2> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/tracker/
<SallyC> Would like to say thank you for letting me observe and participate in today's group. It has been really helpful and interesting.
<JR> ACTION: JT to Send (untransposed) draft with grammar edits [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html#action10]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-40 - Send (untransposed) draft with grammar edits [on Jutta Treviranus - due 2008-10-31].
<JR> Milestones
<JR> Public WD +2 wks from freeze date (JS: to talk with Judy)
<JR> Actions out of this meeting
<JR> - Back to weekly meetings
<JR> - Aim to publish next Heartbeat WD in January
<JR> - Last Call - Before CSUN March - paper at CSUN?
<JR> F2F ideas
<JR> - ATIA in January?
<JR> - IBM, Microsoft possible
<JR> RNIB runs Fall conference in London (Techshare)
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Topic:Part B Walk-through// Found embedded ScribeOptions: -final *** RESTARTING DUE TO EMBEDDED OPTIONS *** Found Scribe: Andrew Found Scribe: AndrewR Inferring ScribeNick: AndrewR Found Scribe: rshaffner Found Scribe: rshaffne Inferring ScribeNick: rshaffne Found Scribe: rshaffner Found Scribe: rshaffne Inferring ScribeNick: rshaffne Scribes: Andrew, AndrewR, rshaffner, rshaffne ScribeNicks: AndrewR, rshaffne Default Present: AnnM, Jan_Richards, Jeanne_Spellman, Andrew_Ronksley, Sally_Cain(observing), jtrevir, Room_138, Reed_Shaffner, jutta, Tim_Boland Present: Ann_McMeekin Jutta_Treviranus Jan_Richards Jeanne_Spellman Andrew_Ronksley Sally_Cain(observing) Reed_Shaffner Cynthia_Shelly Andrew_Arch(0bserving) Agenda: http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2008/10f2f#Agenda Got date from IRC log name: 24 Oct 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-au-minutes.html People with action items: jr js jt WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]