IRC log of au on 2009-08-31

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:49:53 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #au
19:49:53 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/08/31-au-irc
19:49:58 [Jan]
Zakim, this will be AUWG
19:49:58 [Zakim]
ok, Jan; I see WAI_AUWG()3:00PM scheduled to start 49 minutes ago
19:50:04 [Jan]
Meeting: WAI AU
19:50:13 [Jan]
Chair: Jutta Treviranus
19:50:38 [Jan]
Agenda:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0040.html
19:51:04 [Jan]
Regrets: Andrew R.
20:00:13 [Jan]
zakim, code?
20:00:13 [Zakim]
the conference code is 2894 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Jan
20:00:23 [Zakim]
WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has now started
20:00:30 [Zakim]
+Jeanne
20:00:33 [jeanne]
jeanne has joined #au
20:01:06 [Zakim]
+??P1
20:01:27 [Jan]
zakim, ??P1 is really Jan
20:01:27 [Zakim]
+Jan; got it
20:09:54 [Zakim]
+Tim_Boland
20:10:27 [Zakim]
+SueAnnN
20:13:16 [Sueann]
Sueann has joined #au
20:13:29 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
20:14:39 [jeanne]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2009/ED-ATAG20-20090615/atag20_pubWD_21may2009_comment_responses.html
20:15:03 [Jan]
zakim, [IPcaller] is really Jutta
20:15:03 [Zakim]
+Jutta; got it
20:16:24 [Jan]
Chair: Jan Richards
20:16:43 [jeanne]
present+ Jan, Jeanne, Sueann, Tim, Jutta
20:16:43 [Jan]
Topic: 1- Techniques review check-in
20:16:57 [jeanne]
regrets+ Andrew
20:17:06 [Jan]
TB: TB started...something in 2 weeks
20:17:52 [Jan]
SN: A3.3-A3-1 Has started - not quite done
20:18:11 [Jan]
JS: A1...started but not completed
20:20:21 [Jan]
Topic: Proposed SC B.2.1.X
20:20:43 [Jan]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0041.html
20:21:01 [Jan]
JT: Basically we had further discusion...
20:21:21 [Jan]
JT: ATAG Part B always about 5 strategies...
20:21:31 [Jan]
JT: Anything tool does automatically is accessible
20:21:45 [Jan]
JT: (2) to provide author with info and decision support
20:22:08 [Jan]
JT: prior to things being inserted, decided
20:22:28 [Jan]
JT: Argument for is that this is the least coslty and the most inobtrusive
20:22:36 [Jan]
JT: Greatest educational opportunity
20:22:44 [Jan]
JT: (3) checking
20:22:57 [Jan]
JT: (4) repair
20:23:05 [Jan]
JT: (5) integrated
20:23:32 [Jan]
JT: When we did the last go-through of Part B we eliminated things from (2)....
20:23:47 [Jan]
JT: Good reasons due to developers doing good work in checking...
20:24:00 [Jan]
JT: But I still don't think it is good to eliminate decision support
20:24:11 [Jan]
JT: Big challenge...how do you know you have done itt?
20:24:20 [Jan]
JT: Success critieria...
20:24:45 [Jan]
JT: Fairly context dependent .... needs to follow (5) very closely
20:25:23 [Jan]
JT: We would either be very specific or very general....but extreme specifity is brittle...we need to be more generic
20:26:04 [Jan]
JT: Question of how you know you have passed...most likely to be stated in an "at minimum" manner...
20:26:22 [Jan]
JT: We want to encourage but won't be minutely testable
20:26:40 [Jan]
JT: Won't be able to have a test to meet the full spirit
20:26:51 [Jan]
JT: TYpes of things I'm thinking...
20:27:28 [Jan]
JT: things that answer questions: what are the accessibility implications of making this choice? what will i need to do to make this technology/markup/element/component accessible?
20:27:45 [Jan]
JT: what accessibility support does this technology/markup/element/component provide?
20:28:18 [Jan]
JTL In a Web App development toolkit this may be met by an indication of
20:28:20 [Jan]
which components or component sets offered include ARIA markup.
20:28:21 [Jan]
In a generic Web content development tool this may be met by
20:28:23 [Jan]
indicating how captions can be included in Flash vs. Quicktime vs.
20:28:24 [Jan]
Real etc.
20:28:26 [Jan]
In a Wiki editing tool this may be met by indicating that the html
20:28:27 [Jan]
based styling mechanisms are more accessible.
20:29:39 [Jan]
JT: At the moment I'm trying to come up with wording for measurable success criteria
20:29:51 [Jan]
JT: TB thoughts?
20:30:26 [Jan]
B.2.1.X Decision Support: If the authoring tool presents choices to the author(s), provide information to assist the author in making choices that enable the content to conform to WCAG 2.0. (Level A)
20:31:29 [Jan]
TB: So tool must inform the author, prior to choice of accessibility implications?
20:31:40 [Jan]
JT: Yes could be very unobtrusive
20:33:29 [Jan]
JR: Concerned about scope if applies to all choices
20:35:24 [Jan]
JT: Maybe at minimum...there are sso many advisories etc.
20:35:53 [Jan]
JT: Hopefully some developers take it to heart so that strict testability not that important
20:37:10 [Jan]
JT: At minimum there ae 2 advisories, etc.
20:37:27 [Jan]
JR: What about piggybacking on top of other advice given
20:40:08 [Jan]
JT: Difficulty here is that it is generic...intended to cover all choics...
20:42:01 [Jan]
JR: Maybe we could split into a minimum and and extended success criteria
20:42:31 [Jan]
JT: I'd prefer at this point a trial ballon using "granularity of choice"....
20:42:41 [Jan]
JT: Also thinking of limiting it to WCAG
20:43:28 [Jan]
JR: One possible thing we've picked is alternative content
20:44:00 [Jan]
JT: already used that a lot
20:44:22 [Jan]
JT: One excuse often given is that "we are using technology X"...
20:44:41 [Jan]
JT: and it's not easy to do accessibility in X...so I should be excused.
20:44:59 [Jan]
JT: So advising people before they do that would have a large impact
20:46:01 [Jan]
JR: We used to have a peice about "inaccessible techs"
20:46:29 [Jan]
JT: I don't want to say "accessible or inaccessible tech"....I want to talk about "how easy", etc.
20:47:13 [Jan]
JR: What about letting the author know about the support that tool perovides for accessibklity authorong in that tech
20:47:44 [Jan]
JT: Maybe
20:47:47 [Jan]
TB: Ok
20:48:42 [Jan]
JT: But I think we want to capture situations where accessibility is also provided externally
20:49:04 [Jan]
JR: OK - easier to formaulate an "OR" if there is an easy choice and harder ones
20:50:04 [Jan]
Action: JR, JT to have a new formulation of the decision support success criteria
20:50:04 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - JR,
20:50:35 [Jan]
Topic: B.2.4.3
20:50:37 [Jan]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0042.html
20:52:32 [Jan]
B.2.4.3 Let user agents repair: After the end of an authoring session,
20:52:34 [Jan]
the authoring tool does not attempt to repair alternative content for
20:52:35 [Jan]
non-text content using text values that are equally available to user
20:52:37 [Jan]
agents (e.g., the filename is not used). (Level A)
20:52:38 [Jan]
Note: If a web content technology includes a mechanism for marking
20:52:40 [Jan]
alternative content as automatically generated, then that mechanism is
20:52:42 [Jan]
employed to mark any repairs performed after the end of an authoring
20:52:43 [Jan]
session.
20:57:53 [Zakim]
-Tim_Boland
20:57:54 [Zakim]
-SueAnnN
20:57:59 [Zakim]
-Jutta
20:58:00 [Zakim]
-Jan
20:58:02 [Zakim]
-Jeanne
20:58:03 [Zakim]
WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has ended
20:58:04 [Zakim]
Attendees were Jeanne, Jan, Tim_Boland, SueAnnN, Jutta
20:59:52 [Jan]
RRSAgent, make minutes
20:59:52 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/08/31-au-minutes.html Jan
20:59:57 [Jan]
RRSAgent, set logs public
21:00:40 [Jan]
Zakim, bye
21:00:40 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #au
21:00:47 [Jan]
RRSAgent, bye
21:00:47 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/31-au-actions.rdf :
21:00:47 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: JR, JT to have a new formulation of the decision support success criteria [1]
21:00:47 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/31-au-irc#T20-50-04