See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 28 November 2011
<jeanne> brainstorming ideas -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0083.html
<jeanne> brainstorming ideas -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0083.html
<jeanne> brainstorming ideas -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0083.html
<jeanne> Alastair's analysis -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0082.html
Jeanne: Not partial to partial
<jeanne> "Limited conformance"
<jeanne> GP: A limited conformance claim could also indicate other tools that could be used to achieve full conformance.
<jeanne> AC: People could make a conformance statement that has the details of what isn't covered.
<jeanne> scribe: AlastairC
Jeanne: Like the concept, want different term for things with 'no' answers. Things that did not meet them, rather than not-applying
alastairc: not sure we need to differentiate between tools that don't meet, and those that don't try to meet.
Jeanne: like the 'don't block'
caveat.
... not sure we should proceed without more people?
<jeanne> Jan: There is value in using terms that WCAG 2 uses.
<jeanne> Jeanne: I am concerned that using "Partial" in a different way than WCAG could cause conformance.
Jan: shouldn't we follow the WCAG terminology?
<jeanne> Jan: WCAG has two cases: pages that have outside material that doesn't meet, and therefore break conformance. Also pages that aggregate outside sources.
Greg: reads from http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#conformance-partial
... can use it, but refers to things that could be acheived
with 3rd party enablment
... no objection to partial, 'limited' would be ok
Jan: like partial, fairly clear that it isn't full, and we mean in the same way
Greg: WCAG is restrictive, ours is allowance for additive component.
Jan: Important to keep that part about not blocking other tools from making it accessible
Jutta: No objections for
full/partial? (None heard)
... two forms of non-full, those making progression, and those
that need 3rd party tools.
Greg: corps wouldn't make statements of full intent.
(Sorry, future intent)
Jan: it the comparison of the particulars, the score card that counts.The Yes/No/NA
Alastairc: ATAG should provide the scorecard, it's upto companies to say whether they are still working on things or need a 3rd party tool.
Jutta: Partial could be used to cover either?
Greg: not confortable with
partial having implications for future plans.
... ATAG should show current status, rather than future
intent.
Jutta: If I am moving towards conformance, I want to be able to say I cover 39 of the 40 SC (for example)
<Jan> We are trying to call back but getting a bad line...
Jutta: no commitment to anything in the future, just a means of ranking.
<Jan> I wanted to say I agree with Greg ... the indicator of your progress is just the list of SCs with the answers
Jan: No need for extra mechanism, it's based on the SC, the scorecard.
<Jan> Can you hear us?
<Greg> So one is either full or partial
<Greg> correct?
<Jan> Calling back...
<Jan> Right..one is full or partial at the various levles...
<Jan> BUT a buyer could always ask (or a vendor could offer) the details core card of SCs with explanations.
Alastairc: Like an MOT for your car (yearly cert), it only signifies the status at the time
<Greg> Should only be a declaration of current state
<Jan> Agree that it is a sdeclaration of only the current state
<Greg> Good agreed
Jutta: Any concerns with... ? (Don't think so)
<Greg> So what is this progress towards conformance notion?
<Jan> Jutta: Any concerns with going ahead with this high level proposal of full vs partial...
Alastairc: no
<Jan> Jutta: we still need the detailed wording proposal
<Greg> Greg no
<Jan> Jan: no objection + I will wrtite the proposed detailed wording
<Greg> Good to go!
<Jan> Jutta: Let's go on to the next ageda item...
ALastairc: happy with previous wording, just wondering if we need to make sure the scorecard is public for any claim?
<jeanne> +1 for public claims
<Jan> Jan: I think the claim was to be public but that the explanations would be optional...
<Greg> Yes public based on current status of product
<Jan> Jan: Presumably buyers could request the details
AlastairC: but the yes/no/NA is public?
<Greg> I would assume so
<Greg> Like the VPAT, add a provision for comments
good, it might be worth writing in somewhere that is a requirement of a claim
<Greg> Weird sound
<Jan> Jan: So does the group feel the Yes, No, NA should be public with comments/explanation optional?
<Greg> +1
+1
<jeanne> optionally public, or optional to make?
<Greg> Explanation is optional, the whole thing is public
if you make a p[artial claim, the number of SC met (or NA) should be part of the public claim.
Not so concerned with explanations.
<Jan> Jan: Just checked the existing conformance claim text...
<Jan> We already require the Yes/No?NA to tbe part of the public claim with the explanation optional
<Jan> SO we are good.
AlastairC: Ah, sorry, just checking!
<Jan> Jan: Thanks for checking!!! I had to remind myself.
<Jan> Jutta: Great...let's move on.
<Greg> Fantastic
<Jan> AND we are very sorry for the poor Wifi situation
<Jan> Can you hear us?
<Jan> We had to drop off again.
<Jan> We will stop trying to call in.
<Jan> Can we move to item #2?
<Jan> (BTW: Did the MASTER doc I sent go through?)
<Jan> (I don't see it on the AU archives so I'm guessing no)
<Jan> OK the main thing to discuss are the 2 conformanace notes in the email...
<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0087.html
<Jan> Taking this first: 1. Proposed New Part A Conformance Applicability Note: Platform limitations: When Part A success criteria depend on specific platform features, such as the presence of a platform accessibility service, keyboard interface, or keyboard shortcuts, these success criteria are "not applicable" on platforms that do not include these features. The (optional) explanation of...
<Jan> ...conformance claim results should explain that these platform features are missing.
<Greg> Are Jan and Jutta back in Canada next week?
<Jan> Jan is back...Jutta is in WashingDC
<Greg> Okay reliable connections should be restored
<jeanne> Can we postpone to next week? This is very difficult
<Jan> Jan: Yes
<Jan> Jan: OK...
<Jan> Anyway it is 3:57...
<Jan> :)
<Jan> Wait...
<Jan> 2. Proposed New Part A Conformance Applicability Note: Unrecognizable content: When success criteria require authoring tools to treat web content according to semantic criteria (e.g. is a text alternative, is an image, etc.), the success criteria only apply when the semantics are present (e.g., not in the the case of scripted content lacking WAI-ARIA information).
<Jan> I'll write toi the list...
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: AlastairC Inferring ScribeNick: AlastairC WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. Default Present: [IPcaller], Jeanne, Greg, +1.301.330.aaaa, Sueann, Tim, Jutta, Jan Present: [IPcaller] Jeanne Greg +1.301.330.aaaa Sueann Tim Jutta Jan WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 28 Nov 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/11/28-au-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found! Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>. Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of new discussion topics or agenda items, such as: <dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]