IRC log of au on 2003-10-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:51:12 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #au
19:51:13 [wendy]: hello
19:53:49 [DoyleB]: DoyleB has joined #au
19:53:59 [DoyleB]: Hi all
19:54:00 [rscano]: hi DoyleB
19:54:05 [rscano]: zakim, list conferences
19:54:05 [Zakim]: I see no active conferences and none scheduled
19:54:09 [DoyleB]: Hi roberto
19:54:35 [DoyleB]: Early yet - right?
19:54:41 [rscano]: 6 minutes :)
19:55:06 [rscano]: i've put the call in number in the topic of the room
19:56:26 [DoyleB]: Wonder how large a group we'll have today?
19:56:38 [rscano]: today i'm half per group :D
19:56:50 [rscano]: (i'm WCAG and ATAG - this one since today)
19:56:58 [DoyleB]: Roberto what do you mean?
19:57:12 [DoyleB]: got it
19:57:16 [rscano]: i'm WCAG Working Group Member and ATAG Working Group member :)
19:58:00 [rellero]: rellero has joined #au
19:58:07 [rscano]: hi rob
19:58:17 [rellero]: Hi :)
19:58:27 [mvittoria]: mvittoria has joined #au
19:58:36 [DoyleB]: is anyone on audio yet?
19:58:37 [rscano]: hi maurizio!
19:58:45 [rscano]: i call now
19:58:46 [mvittoria]: Hi people!
19:59:44 [rscano]: zakim, who is here?
19:59:44 [Zakim]: sorry, rscano, I don't know what conference this is
19:59:45 [Zakim]: On IRC I see mvittoria, rellero, DoyleB, RRSAgent, wendy, bengt, Zakim, rscano
19:59:47 [rellero]: my line is only 26.000 bps :I
19:59:52 [rscano]: zakim, list conferences
19:59:52 [Zakim]: I see WAI_AUWG(wcag)4:00PM active and no others scheduled
19:59:59 [rscano]: zakim, this is 01WAI_AUWG(wcag)
19:59:59 [Zakim]: sorry, rscano, I do not see a conference named '01WAI_AUWG(wcag)' in progress or scheduled at this time
20:00:10 [rscano]: zakim, this is WAI_AUWG(wcag)
20:00:10 [Zakim]: ok, rscano
20:00:18 [rscano]: zakim, who is on the phone?
20:00:18 [Zakim]: On the phone I see +39.329.052.aaaa, Greg_Pisocky, Ray_Whitmer, Loretta_Guarino_Reid
20:00:37 [Zakim]: -Greg_Pisocky
20:00:51 [Zakim]: +Jan_Richards
20:01:08 [DoyleB]: roberto Zakim did not find me on phone
20:01:15 [Zakim]: +Greg_Pisocky
20:01:26 [rscano]: i'm trying to call
20:01:35 [Zakim]: +??P7
20:01:45 [Zakim]: +Sailesh_Panchang
20:01:52 [Zakim]: +??P8
20:01:58 [Zakim]: +JasonWhite
20:02:04 [rscano]: zakim, +??P8 is Roberto_Scano
20:02:04 [Zakim]: sorry, rscano, I do not recognize a party named '+??P8'
20:02:16 [rscano]: zakim, ?P8 is Roberto_Scano
20:02:16 [Zakim]: sorry, rscano, I do not recognize a party named '?P8'
20:02:17 [Zakim]: - +39.329.052.aaaa
20:02:22 [Zakim]: +??P10
20:02:27 [Zakim]: +??P5
20:02:28 [rscano]: zakim, P8 is Roberto_Scano
20:02:28 [Zakim]: sorry, rscano, I do not recognize a party named 'P8'
20:02:37 [rscano]: zakim, +??P8 is Roberto_Scano
20:02:37 [Zakim]: sorry, rscano, I do not recognize a party named '+??P8'
20:02:50 [Zakim]: +Dave_MacDonald
20:02:57 [bengt]: zakim, ??p5 is Bengt_Farre
20:02:57 [Zakim]: +Bengt_Farre; got it
20:02:59 [rscano]: zakim, ??P8 is Roberto_Scano
20:02:59 [Zakim]: +Roberto_Scano; got it
20:03:07 [rscano]: zakim, i am Roberto_Scano
20:03:07 [Zakim]: ok, rscano, I now associate you with Roberto_Scano
20:03:14 [rscano]: zakim, who is on the phone?
20:03:14 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Ray_Whitmer, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Jan_Richards, Greg_Pisocky, ??P7, Sailesh_Panchang, Roberto_Scano, JasonWhite, ??P10, Bengt_Farre, Dave_MacDonald
20:03:17 [Zakim]: +John_Slatin
20:03:26 [bengt]: zakim, I am Bengt_Farre
20:03:26 [Zakim]: ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
20:03:27 [rscano]: doyle, try to mute you by phone
20:03:33 [DoyleB]: Roberto - am i showing up on audio conference?
20:03:47 [rscano]: you could be P7 or P10
20:03:57 [bengt]: doyle mute yourself so we can see
20:04:10 [bengt]: zakim, who is on the phone
20:04:10 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'who is on the phone', bengt
20:04:13 [bengt]: zakim, who is on the phone ?
20:04:13 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Ray_Whitmer, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Jan_Richards, Greg_Pisocky, ??P7, Sailesh_Panchang, Roberto_Scano, JasonWhite, ??P10, Bengt_Farre, Dave_MacDonald, John_Slatin
20:04:16 [DoyleB]: how do i mute
20:04:16 [Zakim]: On IRC I see mvittoria, rellero, DoyleB, RRSAgent, wendy, bengt, Zakim, rscano
20:04:28 [Zakim]: +??P11
20:04:33 [bengt]: wendy what is the code for mute ?
20:04:52 [Zakim]: +[MIT342]
20:04:53 [wendy]: mute: 61#
20:04:56 [Zakim]: +Tim_Boland
20:05:07 [bengt]: zakim, who is on the phone ?
20:05:07 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Ray_Whitmer, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Jan_Richards, Greg_Pisocky, ??P7, Sailesh_Panchang, Roberto_Scano, JasonWhite, ??P10, Bengt_Farre, Dave_MacDonald,
20:05:08 [wendy]: zakim, MIT342 is Wendy-and-Matt
20:05:10 [Zakim]: ... John_Slatin, ??P11, [MIT342], Tim_Boland
20:05:11 [Zakim]: On IRC I see mvittoria, rellero, DoyleB, RRSAgent, wendy, bengt, Zakim, rscano
20:05:12 [Zakim]: sorry, wendy, I do not recognize a party named 'MIT342'
20:05:13 [wendy]: zakim, who's talking?
20:05:16 [bengt]: zakim, who is on the phone ?
20:05:16 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Ray_Whitmer, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Jan_Richards, Greg_Pisocky, ??P7, Sailesh_Panchang, Roberto_Scano, JasonWhite, ??P10, Bengt_Farre, Dave_MacDonald,
20:05:19 [Zakim]: ... John_Slatin, ??P11, [MIT342], Tim_Boland
20:05:20 [Zakim]: On IRC I see mvittoria, rellero, DoyleB, RRSAgent, wendy, bengt, Zakim, rscano
20:05:21 [m3mMIT]: m3mMIT has joined #au
20:05:26 [Zakim]: wendy, listening for 13 seconds I heard sound from the following: Jan_Richards (34%), [MIT342] (19%)
20:05:37 [DoyleB]: zakim, mute DoyleB
20:05:37 [Zakim]: sorry, DoyleB, I do not see a party named 'DoyleB'
20:05:45 [m3mMIT]: zakim, mute Jan_Richards temporarily
20:05:45 [Zakim]: Jan_Richards should now be muted
20:05:45 [wendy]: zakim, mute Jan
20:05:46 [Zakim]: Jan_Richards should now be muted
20:05:50 [bengt]: use 61# on your phone
20:05:50 [wendy]: zakim, unmute Jan
20:05:50 [Zakim]: Jan_Richards should no longer be muted
20:05:53 [Zakim]: +??P14
20:05:53 [rscano]: no doyle, u need to use 61# by phone
20:05:54 [Zakim]: -Tim_Boland
20:06:00 [Zakim]: Jan_Richards should now be unmuted again
20:06:02 [m3mMIT]: zakim, who's making noise?
20:06:05 [bengt]: zakim, who is on the phone ?
20:06:05 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Ray_Whitmer (muted), Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Jan_Richards, Greg_Pisocky, ??P7, Sailesh_Panchang, Roberto_Scano, JasonWhite, ??P10, Bengt_Farre, Dave_MacDonald,
20:06:08 [Zakim]: ... John_Slatin, ??P11, [MIT342], ??P14
20:06:09 [Zakim]: On IRC I see m3mMIT, mvittoria, rellero, DoyleB, RRSAgent, wendy, bengt, Zakim, rscano
20:06:13 [Zakim]: m3mMIT, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ray_Whitmer (16%), Jan_Richards (38%), ??P7 (8%), Roberto_Scano (99%), ??P11 (50%)
20:06:19 [rscano]: Doyle, hang up and reconnect
20:06:23 [wendy]: zakim, mute ??P11
20:06:23 [Zakim]: ??P11 should now be muted
20:06:24 [m3mMIT]: zakim, mute Rober temporarily
20:06:24 [Zakim]: Roberto_Scano should now be muted
20:06:27 [rscano]: zakim, mute me
20:06:27 [Zakim]: Roberto_Scano should now be muted
20:06:28 [Zakim]: +Tim_Boland
20:06:38 [DoyleB]: I will sign back onto conf
20:06:39 [Zakim]: Roberto_Scano should now be unmuted again
20:06:42 [Zakim]: -Ray_Whitmer
20:06:45 [wendy]: zakim, who's here?
20:06:45 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Jan_Richards, Greg_Pisocky, ??P7, Sailesh_Panchang, Roberto_Scano, JasonWhite, ??P10, Bengt_Farre, Dave_MacDonald, John_Slatin, ??P11
20:06:48 [Zakim]: ... (muted), [MIT342], ??P14, Tim_Boland
20:06:49 [Zakim]: On IRC I see m3mMIT, mvittoria, rellero, DoyleB, RRSAgent, wendy, bengt, Zakim, rscano
20:07:12 [rscano]: zakim, who is speaking?
20:07:26 [Zakim]: rscano, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Jan_Richards (25%), Greg_Pisocky (4%), ??P7 (20%), [MIT342] (80%), ??P14 (49%)
20:07:36 [Zakim]: +Doyle_Burnett
20:08:05 [wendy]: zakim, ??P7 may be Jutta
20:08:05 [Zakim]: +Jutta?; got it
20:08:14 [wendy]: zakim, ??P10 may be Gregg
20:08:14 [Zakim]: +Gregg?; got it
20:08:23 [wendy]: zakim, ??P11 may be Kerstin
20:08:23 [Zakim]: +Kerstin?; got it
20:08:26 [wendy]: zakim, who's here?
20:08:26 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Jan_Richards, Greg_Pisocky, Jutta?, Sailesh_Panchang, Roberto_Scano, JasonWhite, Gregg?, Bengt_Farre, Dave_MacDonald, John_Slatin, Kerstin?
20:08:29 [Zakim]: ... (muted), [MIT342], ??P14, Tim_Boland, Doyle_Burnett
20:08:30 [Zakim]: On IRC I see m3mMIT, mvittoria, rellero, DoyleB, RRSAgent, wendy, bengt, Zakim, rscano
20:08:57 [wendy]: zakim, ??P14 may be Karen_Mardahl
20:08:57 [Zakim]: +Karen_Mardahl?; got it
20:09:03 [DoyleB]: am I mutted?
20:09:06 [Zakim]: + +39.329.052.aabb
20:09:40 [wendy]: zakim, +39.329.052.aabb is Francesco
20:09:40 [Zakim]: +Francesco; got it
20:10:30 [wendy]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003OctDec/0128.html
20:10:58 [wendy]: many ATAG techniques have to reference WCAG.
20:11:03 [Zakim]: +[IBM]
20:11:13 [wendy]: ATAG has had to make changes as the WCAG (2.0) structure has changed.
20:11:33 [wendy]: ATAG has relative structure. if p1 for WCAG 1.0, then p2 for ATAG.
20:11:50 [wendy]: How should we link into WCAG if WCAG has only 2 priorities/conformance levels?
20:12:07 [wendy]: We would like to encourage readers of WCAG to use ATAG-conformant authoring tools.
20:13:09 [DoyleB]: zakim, unmute DoyleB
20:13:09 [Zakim]: Doyle_Burnett was not muted, DoyleB
20:13:21 [wendy]: in the very latest WCAG 2.0 draft, there is no longer core/extended there are 4 principles. each principle has guidelines. each guideline has success criteria that are labeled A, AA, or AAA
20:13:38 [wendy]: s/a/level 1 s/aa/level 2 s/aaa/level3
20:13:55 [wendy]: this structure is more like wcag 1.0.
20:15:40 [wendy]: we aren't using the same terms as wcag 1.0 since p1 meant "important" and p2 meant "good to do" however we realized that some p2 items are important for access to some groups. thus in this latest reformulation we define the levels differently.
20:16:06 [wendy]: auwg is working to structure atag in a way that is separate from wcag so that wcag can change freely.
20:16:13 [wendy]: and atag won't have to change w/it.
20:16:37 [Zakim]: +[IBM].a
20:16:38 [wendy]: what is the rationale to assign priorities on a different way
20:17:02 [wendy]: there are no longer checkpoints - only guidelines and success criteria
20:17:46 [wendy]: all criteria need to be testable.
20:18:06 [wendy]: testable - either machine-testable or HIRR (high inter-rater reliability)
20:18:47 [wendy]: level 1 - something can do w/out telling the author what the default presentation has to look like.
20:18:59 [wendy]: (i.e., if you have structure, you should have markup)
20:20:06 [wendy]: and something that can be reasonably applied to all web sites.
20:20:28 [wendy]: i.e. having an alternate version of a web page in 3 reading levels is not reasonable to do for all sites.
20:20:42 [wendy]: levle 2 - those things that are not in level 1 but are reasonable to do to all sites.
20:21:02 [wendy]: level 3 - not reasonable to do to all sites. extra effort to make sites very accessible.
20:21:03 [wendy]: --
20:21:12 [wendy]: what if you have something that is important but not testable?
20:21:29 [wendy]: it would be a technique. we have a techniques gateway and a place for "other advice."
20:21:35 [wendy]: we're trying to figure out testable versions of things.
20:22:52 [wendy]: ---
20:22:57 [wendy]: requirements about what makes something testable or not?
20:23:03 [wendy]: machine-testable - no brainer.
20:23:40 [wendy]: hirr - if it is the judgement of the wcag wg that it would have a hirr then it does.
20:24:21 [wendy]: --
20:24:41 [wendy]: test results can change based on changes in testing instructions.
20:25:04 [wendy]: HIRR - well-informed readers.
20:25:16 [wendy]: work with EOWG to train them to become well-informed readers
20:25:35 [wendy]: zakim, Jutta is Kerstin
20:25:35 [Zakim]: +Kerstin; got it
20:26:16 [wendy]: zakim, who's on the phone?
20:26:16 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Jan_Richards, Greg_Pisocky, Kerstin, Sailesh_Panchang, Roberto_Scano, JasonWhite, Gregg?, Bengt_Farre, Dave_MacDonald, John_Slatin,
20:26:19 [Zakim]: ... Kerstin? (muted), [MIT342], Karen_Mardahl?, Tim_Boland, Doyle_Burnett, Francesco, [IBM], [IBM].a
20:26:31 [wendy]: zakim, Kerstin? is Jutta
20:26:31 [Zakim]: +Jutta; got it
20:26:36 [wendy]: zakim, who's on the phone?
20:26:36 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Jan_Richards, Greg_Pisocky, Kerstin, Sailesh_Panchang, Roberto_Scano, JasonWhite, Gregg?, Bengt_Farre, Dave_MacDonald, John_Slatin, Jutta
20:26:39 [Zakim]: ... (muted), [MIT342], Karen_Mardahl?, Tim_Boland, Doyle_Burnett, Francesco, [IBM], [IBM].a
20:26:42 [wendy]: zakim, who's talking?
20:26:53 [DoyleB]: zakim, unmute Doyle_Burnett
20:26:53 [Zakim]: Doyle_Burnett was not muted, DoyleB
20:27:00 [Zakim]: wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Doyle_Burnett (3%), [MIT342] (47%), Karen_Mardahl? (24%)
20:27:38 [wendy]: zakim, Karen_Mardahl? is Gregg
20:27:38 [Zakim]: +Gregg; got it
20:27:44 [wendy]: zakim, Gregg? is Karen_Mardahl
20:27:44 [Zakim]: +Karen_Mardahl; got it
20:27:54 [wendy]: zakim, [MIT342] is Wendy-and-Matt
20:27:54 [Zakim]: +Wendy-and-Matt; got it
20:27:57 [wendy]: ---
20:28:18 [wendy]: andi, cynthia, kerstin, and wendy are going through recent draft looking for statements that are not testable.
20:28:27 [wendy]: primarily, looking for subjective terms like "appropriate" and "important."
20:28:37 [Zakim]: -Wendy-and-Matt
20:28:47 [m3mMIT]: woops.
20:28:54 [Zakim]: -Francesco
20:28:55 [m3mMIT]: Technical difficulties. Please hold one moment.
20:28:59 [Zakim]: +[MIT342]
20:29:16 [wendy]: zakim, [MIT342] is matt-and-wendy
20:29:16 [Zakim]: +matt-and-wendy; got it
20:29:21 [GVAN]: GVAN has joined #au
20:29:27 [DoyleB]: Wendy, I am not showing up on phone - is that right?
20:29:27 [wendy]: ack jutta
20:29:32 [wendy]: ack ibm
20:29:35 [wendy]: ack [IBM]
20:29:41 [JR]: JR has joined #au
20:29:50 [wendy]: testability is good news for authoring tool developers.
20:30:11 [wendy]: examples and test suites are also interesting.
20:30:24 [wendy]: wcag wg is creating technology-specific checklists.
20:30:28 [JR]: Jan's hand up
20:30:37 [wendy]: auwg needs real, coded examples.
20:30:48 [wendy]: q+ to say "real examples are part of test suite"
20:30:51 [Zakim]: +Francesco
20:31:46 [wendy]: ack wendy
20:31:46 [Zakim]: wendy, you wanted to say "real examples are part of test suite"
20:31:53 [wendy]: also, implementation testers
20:33:00 [wendy]: q+ to say "that's the goal of chris and michael's test files"
20:33:45 [wendy]: ack jan
20:33:52 [wendy]: 3 levels gives us something easy to map to
20:34:46 [wendy]: need to use the same terminology in test suite development in both groups.
20:35:38 [wendy]: ack wendy
20:35:38 [Zakim]: wendy, you wanted to say "that's the goal of chris and michael's test files"
20:36:02 [rscano]: ack wendy
20:37:11 [wendy]: auwg is also using term "success criteria"
20:37:30 [wendy]: auwg considering the option of having a module for a checkpoint that could be added to a usability test.
20:38:17 [wendy]: how do you test if an authoring tool appropriately influences a user to "do the right thing."
20:38:36 [wendy]: it sounds like both groups (auwg and wcagwg) are grappling with similar tihngs.
20:38:37 [Zakim]: -Bengt_Farre
20:39:05 [wendy]: the ranking of wcag criteria will likely influence atag 2. 0 devleopment, but that we can likely use exisitng strategies similar ot atag 1.0/wcag 1.0.
20:39:14 [Zakim]: +??P5
20:39:25 [bengt]: zakim, ??P5 is Bengt_Farre
20:39:25 [Zakim]: +Bengt_Farre; got it
20:39:25 [wendy]: clarification: testability is not a factor for determining which level a wcag 2.0 criteria is assigned to.
20:39:30 [wendy]: all wcag 2.0 items are testable.
20:39:48 [wendy]: level 2 are things that constrain how the author expresses him/herself
20:40:25 [wendy]: diff between levels 2 and 3 is reasonableness for all sites.
20:41:50 [wendy]: if you have levels in checkpoints and then in success criteria, you will end up with a 2-dimensional structure.
20:42:05 [wendy]: wcag 2.0 used to have that, but got rid of it because it was too confusing.
20:42:36 [wendy]: wcag 2.0 has some guidelines that only have level 2 or level 3 criteria.
20:42:39 [wendy]: (in latest draft)
20:43:34 [wendy]: ack [IBM]
20:43:54 [wendy]: q+ IBM
20:44:18 [wendy]: ack IBM
20:44:38 [wendy]: determine in criteria for level 1, 2, 3 if clearly an author responsibility or tool responsibility.
20:44:46 [wendy]: any output that could help us in atag.
20:44:58 [Zakim]: -Tim_Boland
20:45:11 [wendy]: that is level 1 and level 2
20:46:00 [Zakim]: -Francesco
20:47:08 [wendy]: level 1 are things that the authoring tool should do. level 2 are those things that should help with.
20:47:46 [wendy]: however, there are things the tool has complete control over and there are things the tool gives choices to the author.
20:47:57 [wendy]: ack loretta
20:48:16 [wendy]: important that wcag not specify how the content be created but what needs to be created.
20:51:16 [wendy]: whatever path that someone takes to add alt attribute, it doesn't matter. all that matters is that they have done it. i.e., wcag should not insist on how done. wcag shuld focus on outcome not process.
20:53:50 [wendy]: encourage wcag wg to read atag
20:54:01 [wendy]: atag covers evaluation and repair.
20:54:23 [wendy]: don't tell developers how tool should conform, but have checkpoints that ask the tool to do the things that are needed.
20:54:51 [wendy]: if you are using absolute rather than relative, the tool should say "use relative.
20:55:00 [wendy]: then the tool has evaluation capabilities as well
20:55:06 [wendy]: then tool can do whatever wants
20:55:28 [wendy]: atag says: the accessible choice should be the easiest to do.
20:55:50 [wendy]: anything that the tool does itself, the tool should do the accessible thing.
20:56:00 [wendy]: if author given a choic,e give the autohr the accessible choice first. make it easy.
20:56:11 [wendy]: if author still chooses to do the inaccessible thing, nothing we can do.
20:56:17 [wendy]: it is the author's choice.
20:56:46 [wendy]: auwg would like to request that wcag gives an atag profile in wcag.
20:57:09 [wendy]: an authoring tool that is atag compliant will have a great effect on wcag proliferation.
20:57:26 [rscano]: what about CMS (authoring tools embedded as object inside the page) ?
20:57:30 [wendy]: thus, if wcag promotes atag, it will promote more accessible authoring tools which will promote a more accessible web.
20:57:51 [wendy]: thus, good to mention w/in wcag atag conformance.
20:58:21 [wendy]: (not asking for an atag profile, but raise the profile of atag in wcag)
20:58:26 [wendy]: q?
20:58:28 [wendy]: ack sailesh
20:59:50 [wendy]: joint techniques document between AUWG and WCAG WG that is "web applications that generate content" i..e, the authoring tool is web content itself.
21:00:44 [rscano]: CMS techniques for WCAG?
21:01:17 [wendy]: ack John
21:01:36 [wendy]: agreement that a techniques document would be useful.
21:01:51 [wendy]: ===
21:01:57 [wendy]: suitability of using w3c recommendations
21:07:53 [wendy]: summary: wcag will produce techniques docs for w3c technologies.
21:08:01 [JR]: q+ JR
21:10:04 [wendy]: ideally, point to xag, but not a rec. thus, use technologies that have accessibility features and use the accessibility features.
21:10:18 [wendy]: summarize basic points of xag and point to as informaitve reference.
21:10:29 [wendy]: however, only addresses xml apps. not general technologies.
21:11:11 [wendy]: JR - can you record the resolution that you just stated?
21:11:15 [wendy]: (record it here, please)
21:12:26 [wendy]: jan - can you record the resolution that you just stated?
21:12:40 [JR]: ok...
21:12:42 [wendy]: thx
21:13:27 [wendy]: in earlier part of discussion, time spent talking about testing and verification.
21:13:32 [wendy]: thus, testing part of adherence to guidelines.
21:13:44 [wendy]: in subjective criteria, assemble panel of experts.
21:14:07 [wendy]: if adobe and macromedia publish something, wouldn't they also have to provide ability to verify through testing that an accessible result was achieved?
21:14:17 [JR]: A tool could claim ATAG conformance if for the format(s) it produces, it also publishes in public a WCAG Techniques document for that format.
21:16:13 [Zakim]: -[IBM].a
21:18:23 [wendy]: wcag doesn't plan to have a test suite/techniques for every technology. wcag wg will only create technology-specific documentation for w3c technologies that are most widely used.
21:18:33 [wendy]: it is up to other entities to create techniques for their technologies.
21:18:50 [wendy]: however, idea of a "xag" test suite seems to be hinted at. i.e., how do you determine that a format is accessible?
21:19:05 [wendy]: ack JR
21:19:08 [wendy]: ack Loretta
21:19:15 [wendy]: ack [IBM]
21:19:43 [wendy]: WCAG needs to publish the criteria for a company to follow if they plan to publish a checklist
21:19:50 [wendy]: q+ to say criteria for techniques
21:19:56 [wendy]: they have to say that it is testable
21:20:13 [wendy]: thus, wcag is following an agreed to process to say these criteria have to be testable to be success criteria.
21:22:06 [wendy]: dtd is necessary but not sufficient. are techniques verifiable?
21:22:25 [wendy]: like a requirments document for tech-specific checklists?
21:23:26 [wendy]: add to our issues list.
21:23:31 [wendy]: will help atag. a
21:23:39 [wendy]: also help in standards harmonization.
21:25:30 [wendy]: action: wendy follow-up with auwg about documentation for "if you want to create a techniques document..."
21:25:33 [wendy]: q-
21:25:45 [wendy]: ===
21:25:51 [wendy]: develop and reuse of test suites
21:27:21 [wendy]: to talk about test suites: have another joint call between wcag techinques task force, auwg, uawg and qawg?
21:27:29 [wendy]: create a x-group workgroup
21:27:30 [wendy]: ?
21:27:37 [Zakim]: -Sailesh_Panchang
21:27:41 [wendy]: take this to CG?
21:28:25 [wendy]: yes, CG could create a task force of participants from multiple groups.
21:28:37 [wendy]: action: JW, GV, JT take idea of x-group task force to CG
21:30:58 [Zakim]: -Kerstin
21:31:03 [Zakim]: -Greg_Pisocky
21:31:04 [Zakim]: -matt-and-wendy
21:31:04 [Zakim]: -Loretta_Guarino_Reid
21:31:05 [Zakim]: -John_Slatin
21:31:06 [Zakim]: -Doyle_Burnett
21:31:07 [Zakim]: -Dave_MacDonald
21:31:07 [Zakim]: -Gregg
21:31:08 [Zakim]: -[IBM]
21:31:10 [Zakim]: -Jutta
21:31:12 [Zakim]: -Roberto_Scano
21:31:14 [Zakim]: -Bengt_Farre
21:31:17 [Zakim]: -Karen_Mardahl
21:31:17 [rellero]: bye
21:31:21 [bengt]: bye
21:31:23 [Zakim]: -Jan_Richards
21:31:25 [bengt]: bengt has left #au
21:31:31 [rscano]: bye!
21:31:40 [rscano]: rscano has left #au
21:32:17 [mvittoria]: bye
21:32:27 [mvittoria]: mvittoria has left #au
21:33:16 [Zakim]: -JasonWhite
21:33:17 [Zakim]: WAI_AUWG(wcag)4:00PM has ended
22:02:09 [GVAN]: GVAN has left #au