IRC log of au on 2011-11-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:54:25 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #au
19:54:25 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/14-au-irc
19:54:32 [Jan]
Zakim, this will be AUWG
19:54:32 [Zakim]
ok, Jan; I see WAI_AUWG()3:00PM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
19:54:41 [Jan]
Meeting: WAI AU
19:55:13 [Jan]
Agenda:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0078.html
19:55:24 [Jan]
Chair: Jutta Treviranus
19:56:36 [Zakim]
WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has now started
19:56:42 [Zakim]
+??P0
19:59:00 [jeanne]
jeanne has joined #au
19:59:56 [Zakim]
+Jeanne
20:00:21 [Zakim]
+ +1.571.765.aaaa
20:01:02 [jeanne]
zakim, aaaa is Greg
20:01:02 [Zakim]
+Greg; got it
20:01:21 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
20:01:41 [Zakim]
+??P4
20:01:46 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
20:02:21 [Greg]
Greg has joined #au
20:02:24 [jeanne]
zakim, IPcaller is Jan
20:02:24 [Zakim]
+Jan; got it
20:02:31 [jeanne]
zakim, ??P4 is Jutta
20:02:31 [Zakim]
+Jutta; got it
20:03:14 [jeanne]
zakim, Microsoft is Alex
20:03:14 [Zakim]
+Alex; got it
20:03:22 [jeanne]
zakim, who is here?
20:03:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P0, Jeanne, Greg, Jan, Jutta, Alex
20:03:23 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Greg, jeanne, RRSAgent, Zakim, Jan, AlastairC, trackbot
20:03:38 [jeanne]
zakim, ??P0 is AlastairC
20:03:38 [Zakim]
+AlastairC; got it
20:03:53 [Zakim]
-Jutta
20:04:34 [Jan]
zakim, who's here?
20:04:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see AlastairC, Jeanne, Greg, Jan, Alex
20:04:36 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Greg, jeanne, RRSAgent, Zakim, Jan, AlastairC, trackbot
20:04:51 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
20:05:19 [Jan]
zakim, IPcaller is really Jutta
20:05:19 [Zakim]
+Jutta; got it
20:05:44 [Jan]
Topic: 1. Proposed conformance types:
20:05:58 [Jan]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0071.html
20:07:31 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
20:07:31 [jeanne]
zakim, who is here?
20:07:32 [Zakim]
On the phone I see AlastairC, Jeanne, Greg, Jan, Alex, Jutta, [Microsoft]
20:07:34 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Greg, jeanne, RRSAgent, Zakim, Jan, AlastairC, trackbot
20:08:04 [Jan]
zakim, Microsoft is really Cherie
20:08:04 [Zakim]
+Cherie; got it
20:08:25 [Zakim]
+Tim_Boland
20:08:32 [Zakim]
-Cherie
20:09:02 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
20:09:14 [Jan]
zakim, Microsoft is really Cherie
20:09:14 [Zakim]
+Cherie; got it
20:10:23 [Zakim]
+ +1.561.582.aabb
20:10:48 [Jan]
zakim, aabb is really Sueann
20:10:48 [Zakim]
+Sueann; got it
20:12:21 [Tim]
Tim has joined #au
20:13:15 [Sueann]
Sueann has joined #au
20:13:48 [Jan]
JT: Note that not just full disclosure...also progress towards confromance
20:15:19 [AlastairC]
Jan: Agree that 'authoring tool' is problematic, but that is the name of the guidelines! We've defined it to be the whole thing.
20:15:44 [AlastairC]
Jan: To change, we'd have to rename it to something bigger than the whole document.
20:16:27 [AlastairC]
AL: Perhaps need a term like authoring environent? Something along those lines.
20:16:57 [Jan]
ATAG 2.0 System Conformance or
20:17:02 [jeanne]
+1 to the name change
20:17:03 [AlastairC]
AL: 2 types: envinroment type, other is tool type.
20:17:05 [Jan]
ATAG 2.0 Environmet Conformance
20:17:23 [jeanne]
q+ on naming concern
20:18:06 [AlastairC]
Jutta: other perspectives. Could have tool that only authors certain type of content. That tool could be seen as full conformance.
20:18:36 [AlastairC]
AL: Might need a matrix to define full conformance from a whole bunch of things.
20:18:58 [AlastairC]
AL: one axis: criteria, second axis: technologies.
20:19:48 [AlastairC]
Jan: Easier to explain that a simple tool can be a system?
20:20:30 [AlastairC]
Jan: Note the astriks, noting the claim caveat.
20:21:34 [AlastairC]
Jutta, at the moment, we have full and partial, but the distinction is based on the accessible authoring features, but that isn't the wording the first one.
20:21:50 [AlastairC]
Jan: 1st one is end-to-end performance
20:22:18 [AlastairC]
Jan: I see, it is 'accessible content' rather than 'web content'.
20:22:27 [Jan]
- this conformance option *can* be chosen for authoring tools* that require no additional components to meet ATAG 2.0.
20:22:34 [Jan]
- this conformance option *can* be chosen for authoring tools* that require no additional tools to meet ATAG 2.0.
20:24:10 [AlastairC]
Jeanne: Concerned with tools that only aspire to be focused. Having some 'full' some 'partial', doesn't sound great, sets up a heirarchy.
20:25:06 [AlastairC]
Jan: Partial in WCAG?
20:25:31 [AlastairC]
AL: Best idea we could come up with at the time, it was created mostly because system aggregators and user-gen content causes problems.
20:26:35 [AlastairC]
Jan: So someone could make a really great checker tool, but a problem elsewhere could mess it up.
20:31:24 [AlastairC]
Jan: Full level, just failed a couple of criteria,
20:32:20 [AlastairC]
AC: How can you make a 'full' claim but not meet certain criteria, wouldn't that be a partial claim.
20:33:09 [AlastairC]
Jan: Sueann's example from VPAT: Say a tool is v accessible, but can't be installed accessibly.
20:34:53 [AlastairC]
Jan: This text is going into the conformance levels area of the doc.
20:35:55 [AlastairC]
AL: Another site meets WCAG 2.0 A, plus a few AA but not enough to claim double A. They should be able to mark that down.
20:37:11 [AlastairC]
AL: Never really A/AA/AAA, there are in-betweens.
20:37:29 [AlastairC]
AC: Then why have partial?
20:38:00 [AlastairC]
Jan: Partial - the "no"s are ignored in terms of conformance.
20:39:43 [AlastairC]
Greg: Starting to segment tools by categories?
20:40:25 [AlastairC]
Greg: Two tier conformance, you've got tool makers who can, but then you've got authors who can glue together different tools.
20:40:45 [AlastairC]
Greg: Create conformance claim as an author.
20:42:10 [AlastairC]
AL: Authors don't have to make conformance claims.
20:42:46 [AlastairC]
J: Wordpress is an example, will want to claim, but don't include a checking and repair tool.
20:43:03 [AlastairC]
AL: That's why we get rid of "partial" and use component.
20:43:54 [AlastairC]
Jutta: Notion of ingrator/aggregator could pull tools together, how would they construct such a claim?
20:44:27 [AlastairC]
Jan: VPATs work by flowing through, they get it from developer, same thing here.
20:45:04 [AlastairC]
AC: Having no-level for Full conformance is ok if you have "component" rather than "partial" conformance as the other level.
20:46:21 [Jan]
WHat about Full System Conformance vs. Sub-System Conformance?
20:46:36 [AlastairC]
Jeanne: Need to be sensistive to people with tools that are missing small parts of ATAG.
20:47:42 [AlastairC]
AL: We wouldn't claim for a system, we'd claim for specific tools.
20:47:59 [AlastairC]
AL: Why system vs sub? Why not system vs tools.
20:48:07 [AlastairC]
Jan: Tools can be whole or a small part.
20:48:56 [AlastairC]
J: 1 could be claimed by a very small tool, but because it meets all the requirements it can claim full conformance.
20:49:20 [AlastairC]
J: 2 could be claimed by a large tool that covers everytype of content, but doesn't try to have checking and repair.
20:49:51 [AlastairC]
J: Pointing to size/complexity, rather than what accessible conformance it makes.
20:50:31 [AlastairC]
AL: Big systems wouldn't try for 1, just 2.
20:50:55 [AlastairC]
J: Worried that size of the tool / system as opposed to the degree to which it takes responsibility for accessible authoring practices.
20:51:19 [AlastairC]
AL: Most tools out there don't intend to do everything.
20:51:40 [AlastairC]
J: The largest thing is not always the thing that chooses to do all the accessibility features.
20:51:58 [AlastairC]
J: 1. do it all yourself, where 'all' is differently defined. All may not be a lot.
20:53:05 [AlastairC]
J: Suggesting 1 is 'system' and 2 'tool' conformance. But that implies it isn't how much of the accessible authoring practices it involves.
20:54:31 [AlastairC]
J: What is really the distinction between 1 & 2, because it isn't whether it's a system or a tool.
20:54:42 [Zakim]
-Sueann
20:56:03 [AlastairC]
AC: What about a workflow based differentiation?
20:56:26 [AlastairC]
Jutta: accessible workflow.
21:01:39 [Zakim]
-Alex
21:01:40 [Zakim]
-Jeanne
21:01:41 [Zakim]
-Tim_Boland
21:01:42 [Zakim]
-Greg
21:01:43 [AlastairC]
Jan: Let's hash outon the list.
21:01:45 [Zakim]
-Jutta
21:01:46 [Zakim]
-Cherie
21:01:47 [Zakim]
-Jan
21:01:49 [Zakim]
-AlastairC
21:01:49 [Zakim]
WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has ended
21:01:51 [Zakim]
Attendees were Jeanne, +1.571.765.aaaa, Greg, Jan, Jutta, Alex, AlastairC, Cherie, Tim_Boland, +1.561.582.aabb, Sueann
21:02:20 [Jan]
RRSAgent, make minutes
21:02:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/14-au-minutes.html Jan
21:02:25 [Jan]
RRSAgent, set logs public
21:02:31 [Jan]
Zakim, bye
21:02:31 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #au
21:02:36 [Jan]
RRSAgent, bye
21:02:36 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items