WAI AU

F2F Action item review

<Jan> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2008/WD-ATAG20-20080811/WD-ATAG20-20080811.html

JS: Worked on part B with AR
... There are some parts we need to discuss with the group

<MikeS> scribe: MikeS

JS: applicabiity section has comments needs more work
... B.1 on rationale needs work
... need feedback from group on change to rationale
... B.1.1
... took out benchmarks and rephrased to consistent with WCAG level A

JR: what about other standards?

JS: at F2F, agreed to define conformance earlier in document according to WCAG but that other options would be acceptable

JR: should say "conform to WCAG level A or equivalent"
... do we simplify down to WCAG 2.0 level A or have a many-to-one relation to WCAG level A?

GP: whatever the current recomendation is from W3C is the reigning guideline
... opening ourselves to other standards means opening ourselves to other standards whether they are adequate or inadequate
... we shouldn't be doing "backflips" to accommodate everything

JR: Sense from the group - one-to-many or WCAG 2.0 level A?

<Greg> GP Wcag with a level

+1 for sticking only with WCAG level A

exactly

JS: don't want to tie ourselves to a particular version

JR: Of course, they might not stick to a level A/AA/AAA structure

GP: remain ambiguous on version so as not to get out-dated

Ann: +1 to dropping non-W3C guidelines; overcomplicates things

JS: just refer to WCAG with levels maybe renaming to 'minimum', 'moderate', 'maximum' conformance

<AndrewRonksley> + 1 for aligning to WCAG. Makes sense for the W3C documents to reference each other. I think this would help with peoples' understanding off all the documents as a "whole".

JT: reason we wwent down the one-to-many path was to allow people to set up authoring tool and declare compliance with whatever standard was relevant
... removing compllexity is a good thing, however
... a note might be appropriate to explain that more stringent standards exist and that conformance to those standards is also appropriate

<Greg> I will take a stab at it

<Jan> ACTION: GP to draft some text that explains that WCAG is what is required but that more stringent standards are of course fine [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/11-au-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-12 - Draft some text that explains that WCAG is what is required but that more stringent standards are of course fine [on Greg Pisocky - due 2008-08-18].

AR: B1.2 aggregated feeds; what was the issue?

JR: situations where content cmes in and is converted or transformed
... issue for Reed

JS: B2.2 success criteria
... associated each check with a WCAG success criterion

JR: two ways to check: generalize across problems
... or check for type of problem taht can occur many tmes

JS: covered in success criteria further down

<scribe> ACTION: JS to send email to gruop on other issues regarding rewrite of Part B requiring feedback from group [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/11-au-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-13 - Send email to group on other issues regarding rewrite of Part B requiring feedback from group [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2008-08-18].

definition of an authoring tool

GP: sent mail to group describing components where author has editorial control v. where they do not

JR: doesn't definition already say this?

GP: what is meant by 'editorial control'?

<scribe> ACTION: JS to come up with definition of 'editorial control' and descriptive names for ntoes 1 and 2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/11-au-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-14 - Come up with definition of 'editorial control' and descriptive names for notes 1 and 2 [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2008-08-18].

AR: no response from Sally on her satisfaction with responses

yes

heartbeat publication

JR: throwing alot of issues to the list to prepare for a necessary heartbeat publication

JS: can we meet weekly until this goes out?

sure

JR: Meeting nex tweek, Aug 18