WAI AU -- 07 Nov 2011

<scribe> scribe: Jan

1. Discuss and extend Alastair's Use Cases:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0059.html

AC: 1. A web-based product (e.g. Wordpress) that can be used as a complete system in itself.
... I've seen people have interest within the community
... Essentially creating bugs against ATAG

2. A web-based product (e.g. Defacto) that is sold as a product or service.

AC: Drew this out due to third party editor.
... Could be evaluated seperately...but integration is important
... First one is fairly easy...there can be one person made responsible
... Get more complicated in use cases 3, 4, 5
... Web-based services almost by defn have to meet all of ATAG
... THings like dreamweaver may not
... Prob the fourth scenario...large content management system in conjunction of lots of other systems...most complex case
... Media access mgmt seperate tool, document asset mgmt seperate tool...maybe as well google maps, ordinance survey maps
... Reason I drew this out as a case, is that it doesn't come together until all the pieces are in place

JR: I think #1 and #2 do square with our new thinking about IP

JT: Approx a year ago we didn't have the phrase about IP

JR: We don't have any official language yet

GP: Manufacturers wanted to make sure others didn't make claims on our behalf

CE: Right

SN: We don't want to encourage others who don't own IP to make claims

AC: Tricky in my case number 4 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0059.html)
... WCAG test pages
... We want to be testing what the author uses

JT: What we are using with the guidelines is just a testing guideline
... Is there going to be an official notion of bonafide claims
... In a repository
... Lots of schools doing WCAG evaluations of content they don't have IP for

SN: They are not making an official claim
... If someone claims Target is not accessible...it is up to Target to claim

AC: I don't think it could work that way...a lot of CMSs don't come with authoring tools
... Needs to be testing of the tool as it is used by authors

JT: If we go back to what we discussed last week....
... Simple conformance claim re: what is under own control + with ability to point to external checking and repair tool....
... Next level is an integrator (not primary developer - OP owner)
... Is there other functions beyond checking and repair where the feature could be external?

SN: Are you saying manufacturer claims conformance at one level and then a re-seller level conformance?

JT: Not exactly - they would not be talking about the same aggregation
... They would be talking about their own mashup

AC: Sounds like we almost need a prototype claim...
... For each SC, this tool can meet this SC (or not) then the integrator can pick that up and pull in 3rd party tools

SN: But you are aggregating a set of manufacturers claims...
... So just putting 3 existing things together

JT: No but new stuff is happening
... For example in Drupal you can do a lot to make CMS more or less accessible.

SN: Right - you can say that about a lot of different products
... So talking about a particular instance for sa particular customer?

AC: Yes

SN: So if you are a service provider with contract to create accessible solution...almost becomes an implementation? What's point of exercise?

JT: Point is to simplify conformance section....to create a simple conformance....removing notion that you have to declare something about other tools.
... Proposal was that way to do that....is that rather than large conformance statement...that add notion to chcking and repair can be sepearte to the relevant SCs
... That's what we are discussing now.
... Then have another class of conformance statements to be made by aggregators or integrators

SN: Having worked on a few aggregated product reponses I'm not sure how you can come up with a single approach for this
... Comes down to the set of products and how they operate

JT: At the moment we are treating every claim as an integratore

SN: Not sure why you would want to do that?

JT: THat's what we are doing/
... We are trying to crreate that simple notion....

JR: There may be things beyond checking and repair that can do this

JT: What is proposed is to move meeting the checking and repair SCs into those SCs

<jeanne> It comes down to two goals - 1) that checking and repair is provided, and 2) that we don't lock out of ATAG, the products that need a 3rd party.

SN: So now we seem to be setting functional reqs into ATAG that we dont want to do
... If I don't have checking and repair should just say not applicable

JS: Something as important as checking and repair is needed for tools....
... Important that checking+repair is needed for atag but schould allow small vendors to allow 3rd pary implmentation of those

SN: Confusing these things...no doyubt that checking and repair is critical....
... But then the developer says it is not applicable...

GP: We used to have it baked in Dreamweaver but we found that people wanted it external for various reasons

JT: Right...but currently we include pointing to 3rd party in conformance....
... We just want to move the implmentation to SCs of checking and repair
... Not dictating authoring functions for each toool
... But you need to include checking+repoair or point to 3rd pary tool to conform
... Otherwise can't conform to atag

SN: Why gettig so hung up....how point to it?

JT: More than pointing to it....DW needs to determine the 3rd party tools

GP: We won't be endorsing short list of checking and repair in public

SN: When you point to other people's code, you have to test it.
... It's not going to happen
... If IBM has lincesned it from third party then yes we will make the claim but we woulkd never license
... If IBM has lincesned it from third party then yes we will make the claim but we woulkd never make claim without license

JT: Right so thats what we have now

SN: If you are going to be an aggregator, you are a service....
... If I am going to reselll aI need to be a business partner with the developer
... I really don't think this level is needed
... ATAG should just say...tell us what your tool does which is input to an aggregator

JT: Right...the primary point of disagreement is that checking and repair could be not applicable...but it is integral...can't say its not applicab le (like captions would be if don't produce video)

GP: Conversely checking and repair people don't want much to do with authoring

AC: In my email I think it should be ok for a tool to say it doesn't meet an SC withoput prejudice

JR: That was exactly what my proposal was: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0062.html

4. "Partial" Component-Only Conformance: Content Production (A, AA, AAA) - individual tool is evaluated against Part B SCs. Meets all the SCs or the tool is designed such that as part of an authoring process another tool could meet the SC. It is recommended (but not required) that a URI for a conformance claim be provided for the other tool(s).

AC: I'd be happier with this a generic approach
... Than calling out checking and repair in particular

JR: There are other things that could be offloaded: transformations, templates

JT: But if you didn't do those, it would not be accessible
... I have not yet heard of any other functionality that can be separated like checking and repiar can

JR: B.2.3.4 Save for Reuse: When authors enter programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content, both of the following are true: (Level AAA)

JT: Good, I can think of others

SN: I think its complicated and I don't see the need for the different versions

<scribe> ACTION: JR to betterformulate http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0062.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/07-au-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-369 - Betterformulate http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0062.html [on Jan Richards - due 2011-11-14].

JT: And thanks AC for the use case

- DRAFT -

WAI AU

07 Nov 2011

Attendees

Contents

1. Discuss and extend Alastair's Use Cases:

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output