See also: IRC log
<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2008/WD-ATAG20-20080929/WD-ATAG20-20080929
<Jan> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-ATAG20-20080310/
AI: Jan and Jean to come up with rationale text for Part A
Jan - rationale is not to push this group's scope into the arenas of other standards groups concerned with general accessibility issues
Jan also seeking thoughts on the issue checking
Andrew the whole concept of dropping benchmark documents deserves to be addressed
Jan: Yes we need to address the whole relationship to WCAG section
<Jan> ACTION: JR, JS: Update http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2008/WD-ATAG20-20080929/WD-ATAG20-20080929.html#intro-rel-wcag [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/29-au-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - JR,
<scribe> ACTION: Jan and Jeanne to come up with rationale text for Part A [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/29-au-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-22 - And Jeanne to come up with rationale text for Part A [on Jan Richards - due 2008-10-06].
<Jan> QUESTIONS: Rationale for narrowing Part A, Checking B.2.2, rationale for removing "Benchmark Documents"
<jeanne> If authors are asked for any information as content is being added or updated (e.g., by an image modification dialog), then the tool also prominently asks for any accessibility information required for that content to meet WCAG Level A.
B.2.1 instead of going from "cued" to "ask" what about using the term "prompt" ?
<Jan> ACTION: JS to Use prompt instead of cue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/29-au-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-23 - Use prompt instead of cue [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2008-10-06].
B.2.2.1 Another example: A tool that inserts images should also check for alt text
<Jan> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2008/WD-ATAG20-20080929/WD-ATAG20-20080929.html#intro-def-au
<Jan> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2008/WD-ATAG20-20080929/WD-ATAG20-20080929.html#def-Authoring-Permission
Topics for Face to Face agenda
<jeanne> ACTION: JS to create an issue with the text of the editors note on definition of Authoring Tool and delete that editor's note from the guidelines. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/29-au-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-24 - Create an issue with the text of the editors note on definition of Authoring Tool and delete that editor's note from the guidelines. [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2008-10-06].
All need to register even if attendign by phone
Register and indicate participation by phone so Jeann can do the count
Discuss issues in chunks for 1st day and do the entire draft on day 2
<jeanne> +1
<Jan> JR: ideas for topics: Defn of authoring tools re: future events; checking issues...
What are some items you would like to see fixed before it becomes CR?
<Jan> JS: Top to bottom review to include check for language consistency
<Jan> JS: Levels of conformance
<Jan> JR: PRINCIPLE A.1: Authoring tool user interfaces must follow applicable accessibility guidelines
<Jan> JR: Relationship between templates, automatic generation and future events.
<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2008/10f2f
<jeanne> Meeting on 3 October