IRC log of wai-wcag on 2003-09-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:08:24 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
20:08:33 [Zakim]
+??P13
20:08:36 [rellero]
zakim, ??P13 is Roberto_Ellero
20:08:36 [Zakim]
+Roberto_Ellero; got it
20:08:40 [rscano]
zakim, who is here?
20:08:40 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Roberto_Scano (muted), Yvette_Hoitink.a, Doyle, Andi, Lee_Roberts, Matt, Ben-and-Gregg, Dave_MacDonald, mike-barta, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Wendy, Paul_Bohman,
20:08:43 [Zakim]
... Bengt_Farre, Lisa_Seeman, Shailesh_Panchang, JasonWhite, Avi_Arditti, Roberto_Ellero
20:08:44 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, GVAN, bcaldwell, silvia, doyle, wendy, rellero, bengt, Yvette, Zakim, rscano
20:09:00 [rellero]
I'm sorry, my adsl creates problems
20:09:01 [Yvette]
zakim, Yvette_Hoitink.a is Yvette_Hoitink
20:09:01 [Zakim]
+Yvette_Hoitink; got it
20:09:03 [rscano]
zakim, who is speaking?
20:09:08 [Yvette]
zakim, I am Yvette_Hoitink
20:09:08 [Zakim]
ok, Yvette, I now associate you with Yvette_Hoitink
20:09:14 [Zakim]
rscano, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Andi (4%), Ben-and-Gregg (40%), mike-barta (17%), Roberto_Ellero (30%), Shailesh_Panchang (4%), Wendy (56%)
20:09:16 [rellero]
zakim, mute Roberto_Ellero
20:09:17 [Zakim]
Roberto_Ellero should now be muted
20:10:08 [Zakim]
+??P16
20:10:16 [wendy]
zakim, ??P16 is Katie
20:10:16 [Zakim]
+Katie; got it
20:10:39 [Zakim]
-Roberto_Ellero
20:11:18 [wendy]
discussing reorg #4: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/09/reorg4/reorg4.html
20:11:38 [mikba]
mikba has joined #wai-wcag
20:11:48 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
20:11:48 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
20:12:08 [wendy]
zakim, who's talking?
20:12:20 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Katie (26%)
20:12:24 [wendy]
weird
20:12:29 [rellero]
Unfortunately this evening dialpad or the adsl do not allow me to follow with the phone
20:12:37 [wendy]
zakim, who's talking?
20:12:53 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Katie (4%)
20:12:59 [wendy]
??
20:13:02 [rscano]
??
20:13:10 [Zakim]
+??P13
20:13:14 [doyle]
that is strange
20:13:16 [wendy]
zakim must be losing his hearing
20:13:18 [rellero]
I'll try later
20:13:38 [wendy]
(his or her :)
20:14:00 [doyle]
well all know gregg is talking - not katie
20:14:17 [Zakim]
+John_Slatin
20:14:18 [wendy]
yes, but i wanted to test that i had mapped appropriate line to gv and ben
20:14:31 [rscano]
try to mute him
20:14:37 [bengt]
nute and see ??
20:14:56 [wendy]
bad test. :)
20:15:02 [rscano]
;)
20:15:21 [Yvette]
mute katie then and see
20:16:08 [rellero]
I try again to connect with dialpad
20:16:52 [rscano]
01[22:16] <Zakim> rscano, listening for 11 seconds I 01heard sound from the following: Ben-and-Gregg 01(56%), ??P13 (8%)
20:17:12 [wendy]
zakim's hearing improved
20:19:26 [rellero]
I cannot connect because the conference is full
20:19:57 [wendy]
full? i'll have to increase the number of ports from here on out.
20:20:05 [wendy]
sorry roberto
20:20:08 [rellero]
thanks
20:20:14 [bengt]
or are you already connected ?? P13 is connected
20:20:24 [rellero]
not connected now
20:20:41 [rscano]
and who is P13 :-I
20:20:42 [Yvette]
q+ to say "group checkpoints by importance for accessibility, not just by how testable they are"
20:21:41 [bengt]
zakim, who is talking ?
20:21:55 [Zakim]
bengt, listening for 13 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ben-and-Gregg (66%), mike-barta (3%), ??P13 (15%)
20:26:10 [wendy]
zakim, ??P13 is Cynthia
20:26:10 [Zakim]
+Cynthia; got it
20:26:22 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
20:26:22 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
20:26:23 [rscano]
ack Yvette
20:26:23 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "group checkpoints by importance for accessibility, not just by how testable they are"
20:27:33 [wendy]
testability vs. what is needed for accessibility
20:31:41 [wendy]
q+ to say "3.4 - key, predictable, consistent - subjective, 4.1 - avoid - ambiguous"
20:32:32 [bengt]
q- bengt
20:33:17 [wendy]
ack ??P13
20:35:04 [wendy]
still not clear enough distinction between what is required vs what is optional
20:37:21 [wendy]
if not required, not part of the standard
20:37:42 [wendy]
should use "must, should, not" language
20:37:53 [Yvette]
q+ to say "I am continuously getting confused about the difference between required and core"
20:38:46 [wendy]
possibilities: pull additional notes into appendicies
20:38:49 [mikba]
must/should/may are common to RFC but do cause confusion in implementation as different ppl consider may as must etc.
20:38:56 [wendy]
ack Dave
20:39:53 [wendy]
concern that best practice in separate document would not be found
20:41:31 [wendy]
w3c documents must have a header of some sort: must check on process before can guarantee that we won't include in other views.
20:41:43 [wendy]
context must be provided
20:42:57 [wendy]
ack andi
20:43:38 [wendy]
"required-only" view has extended checkpoints, thus needs to be called something else.
20:46:12 [wendy]
ack wendy
20:46:12 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say "3.4 - key, predictable, consistent - subjective, 4.1 - avoid - ambiguous"
20:48:54 [wendy]
ack Yvette
20:48:54 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "I am continuously getting confused about the difference between required and core"
20:50:14 [wendy]
labels that exist: core required, core informative, core best practice, extended best practice, extended informative, extended required
20:51:28 [wendy]
"required success criteria" an attempt to separate success criteria from best practice.
20:52:00 [wendy]
should we remove "required" from all success criteria?
20:52:31 [wendy]
there is a deeper problem, removing "required" won't satisfy that.
20:52:35 [wendy]
ack Shailesh
20:53:02 [Yvette]
there are two dimensions: Core/Extended and Required/Best practice/Informative
20:53:18 [wendy]
interpretation of best practice: perhaps good for one situation, but not for another.
20:53:26 [wendy]
if not testable, does it have a place in the document?
20:53:41 [wendy]
best practice: if keep, perhaps "additional criteria"
20:54:25 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
20:54:25 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
20:57:34 [wendy]
ack Bengt
20:57:52 [wendy]
(bengt is actually lisa)
20:58:10 [GVAN]
+q
20:58:17 [GVAN]
q+
20:59:12 [bengt]
zakim, Lisa_Seeman is b2
20:59:12 [Zakim]
+b2; got it
20:59:25 [bengt]
zakim, Bengt_Farre is really Lisa_Seeman
20:59:25 [Zakim]
+Lisa_Seeman; got it
20:59:37 [bengt]
zakim, b2 is really Bengt_Farre
20:59:37 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
20:59:44 [bengt]
zakim, I am Bengt_Farre
20:59:44 [Zakim]
ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
20:59:57 [wendy]
important to include information that will make content accessibility. secondary mandate, keep everyone happy.
21:00:27 [wendy]
thus, keep all info in the document that will help people, even if it is not testable.
21:00:29 [wendy]
ack jason
21:01:06 [wendy]
if best practices are not normative, don't need distinction between additional notes and best practices.
21:01:44 [wendy]
how much of testable material in best practices can be moved to extended checkpoints?
21:03:19 [wendy]
find some way to keep best practices distinct from success criteria, not necessarily in another document, but distinct.
21:03:42 [wendy]
ack cynthia
21:04:26 [wendy]
our requirements document seems to say that we are writing a normative document (that people can test against).
21:04:57 [wendy]
but we need to decide, are we writing something that addresses all of the needs that people with disabilities have or something that is testable (which is the primary goal, which is the secondary)?
21:05:47 [wendy]
what about a "going farther" document that is linked to often. additional ideas. clearly separate "what do I need to do" versus "what else can i do?"
21:07:22 [wendy]
multi-dimensions confusing. if keep that much info, collapse into a single dimension w/levels (more like p1, p2, p3 from WCAG 1.0, but with different terms)
21:07:44 [wendy]
i.e., replace matrix with linear
21:07:51 [wendy]
ack gvan
21:09:12 [wendy]
if we want legislative bodies to do the same thing (i.e., adopt what we recommend), even if we are not making policy if we don't do something effective, they will each do something different.
21:10:11 [wendy]
proposal 2 moved best practice into extended checkpoints, but naming them (uniquely) was difficult.
21:11:20 [wendy]
requirements don't say that we must only have normative information, if we pull some of the informative (additional notes and best practice) the normative becomes harder to understand (the additional notes and best practice help clarify minimum requirements)
21:12:02 [wendy]
currently: guidelines are very general. perhaps current checkpoints are guidelines and current criteria are checkpoints.
21:13:30 [wendy]
q+ to say, "guidelines are design principles and the only things that will truly stand test of time and apply to all techs. could have document just about that. concern about techniuques for mobile devices and current success criteria and checkpoints. i.e., think we should further consider gregg's comment about moving criteria to checkpoints"
21:13:35 [wendy]
ack lisa
21:13:52 [Zakim]
-Avi_Arditti
21:13:53 [wendy]
if name is "WCAG" doesn't address all disabilities, it should be renamed.
21:14:07 [wendy]
s/is "WCAG" and
21:14:14 [wendy]
ack Matt
21:15:19 [wendy]
audiences: people who want to make policy, people who care about accessibility (w/out legal mandate, i.e. highly motivated and interested in "doing more"), people who don't care (only do minimum)
21:16:08 [wendy]
min set is what we assume cynic implementors will do.
21:16:29 [wendy]
for those who want to do more, have "the book" that describes this in prose.
21:17:18 [wendy]
UAWG has "common UA imp problems" we could have a similar doc. fit in with "how people w/disabilities do the web"
21:17:27 [wendy]
"wcag for policymakers" introduction
21:17:33 [wendy]
(or separate doc)
21:17:56 [wendy]
q?
21:18:08 [wendy]
ack John
21:18:45 [wendy]
we need to be clear about the distinctions between what is optional and what is required.
21:18:55 [Yvette]
I visualized my matrix picture: http://www.dutchgenealogy.nl/test/wcag_3d.gif
21:19:14 [wendy]
we need to write "the book" - what is accessibility? what do you need to make the web accessible? (ala matt's comment)
21:19:51 [wendy]
good viz, yvette
21:19:53 [wendy]
ack cynthia
21:20:59 [wendy]
ack andi
21:22:23 [wendy]
would like to see thought put into criteria-> checkpoint, checkpoint-> guideline
21:22:26 [wendy]
ack Shailesh
21:22:38 [Zakim]
-Lisa_Seeman
21:22:47 [wendy]
what is important for accessibility should guide us
21:22:48 [wendy]
ack wendy
21:22:48 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say, "guidelines are design principles and the only things that will truly stand test of time and apply to all techs. could have document just about that.
21:22:51 [Zakim]
... concern about techniuques for mobile devices and current success criteria and checkpoints. i.e., think we should further consider gregg's comment about moving criteria to
21:22:53 [Zakim]
... checkpoints"
21:24:03 [Zakim]
+??P12
21:27:09 [Zakim]
-Shailesh_Panchang
21:28:01 [Zakim]
+Shailesh_Panchang
21:28:35 [wendy]
propose: move additional notes to techniques gateway
21:28:59 [wendy]
explore: principles, guidelines, checkpoints (instead of guidelines, checkpoints, s. criteria)
21:29:53 [wendy]
however, keep success criteria to differentiate checkpoints from checklists (technology-specific checklists)
21:30:35 [wendy]
however, in some cases there is only one criterion per checkpoint.
21:31:03 [wendy]
call best practice "additional measures that go beyond conformance"
21:31:08 [rscano]
and use core, primary and secondary like ISO does in the ISO 0616071-TS01?
21:31:53 [wendy]
restructure so that most important stuff stands out most
21:32:23 [wendy]
focus groups for nomenclature: to determine which terminology will work best
21:34:30 [doyle]
I'd love to be a part of such a vocabulary/terminolgy group
21:34:47 [Yvette]
include a non-native speaker of English as well
21:34:54 [rscano]
me too (for internationalization of the word)
21:34:56 [wendy]
q+ wendy to say, "challenge: use plain language lexicon (1500 words) with additions for technology-specific jargon"
21:34:59 [rscano]
*echo*
21:35:08 [Yvette]
:-)
21:36:19 [wendy]
we talked about this at the tech telecon yesterday re: use cases and personae
21:36:33 [rscano]
yep i've got an action item with Tom
21:36:38 [Zakim]
-Shailesh_Panchang
21:37:51 [wendy]
ack wendy
21:37:51 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say, "challenge: use plain language lexicon (1500 words) with additions for technology-specific jargon"
21:37:58 [wendy]
ack katie
21:40:36 [Zakim]
-Katie
21:41:36 [wendy]
action: john, katie, others who are interested, work on list of terms to use for wcag 2.0.
21:41:46 [Zakim]
-Paul_Bohman
21:41:47 [Zakim]
-Cynthia
21:41:49 [Zakim]
-Loretta_Guarino_Reid
21:41:50 [Zakim]
-John_Slatin
21:41:51 [Zakim]
-Lee_Roberts
21:41:51 [Zakim]
-Ben-and-Gregg
21:41:52 [Zakim]
-Matt
21:41:53 [Zakim]
-Dave_MacDonald
21:41:54 [Zakim]
-Andi
21:41:55 [Zakim]
-Doyle
21:41:57 [Zakim]
-??P12
21:41:59 [Zakim]
-Roberto_Scano
21:42:01 [Zakim]
-Wendy
21:42:03 [Zakim]
-mike-barta
21:42:05 [Zakim]
-Yvette_Hoitink
21:42:07 [Zakim]
-Bengt_Farre
21:42:07 [wendy]
RRSAgent, bye
21:42:07 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item:
21:42:07 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: john, katie, others who are interested, work on list of terms to use for wcag 2.0. [1]
21:42:07 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/25-wai-wcag-irc#T21-41-36
21:42:10 [wendy]
zakim, bye
21:42:10 [Zakim]
-JasonWhite