IRC log of wai-wcag on 2003-12-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

21:00:34 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
21:00:35 [rellero]: Hi
21:00:37 [bengt]: hi
21:00:47 [rscano]: hi wendy :)
21:00:54 [rscano]: zakim, who is on the phone?
21:00:54 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Doyle, Roberto_Scano, Roberto_Ellero, Dave_MacDonald, JasonWhite, Michael_Cooper
21:01:00 [rellero]: zakim, mute Roberto_Ellero
21:01:00 [Zakim]: Roberto_Ellero should now be muted
21:01:28 [Zakim]: +Avi_Arditti
21:01:30 [Zakim]: +John_Slatin
21:01:41 [Zakim]: +Loretta_Guarino_Reid
21:02:02 [Zakim]: +??P20
21:02:17 [Zakim]: +??P21
21:02:30 [bengt]: zakim, ??P20 is BengtFarre
21:02:31 [Zakim]: +BengtFarre; got it
21:02:44 [bengt]: zakim, I am BengtFarre
21:02:44 [Zakim]: ok, bengt, I now associate you with BengtFarre
21:02:45 [rscano]: zakim, who is on the phone?
21:02:45 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Doyle, Roberto_Scano, Roberto_Ellero (muted), Dave_MacDonald, JasonWhite, Michael_Cooper, Avi_Arditti, John_Slatin, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, BengtFarre, ??P21
21:03:13 [Zakim]: +Wendy
21:03:43 [ben]: ben has joined #wai-wcag
21:03:44 [wendy]: zakim, who's making noise?
21:03:54 [wendy]: zakim, ??P21 may be Gregg
21:03:54 [Zakim]: +Gregg?; got it
21:03:55 [Zakim]: wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Doyle (18%), ??P21 (25%)
21:05:11 [rscano]: zakim, mute me
21:05:11 [Zakim]: sorry, rscano, I do not see a party named 'rscano'
21:05:19 [rscano]: zakim, i am Roberto_Scano
21:05:19 [Zakim]: ok, rscano, I now associate you with Roberto_Scano
21:06:01 [Zakim]: +??P28
21:06:20 [wendy]: zakim, ??P28 is Mat_Mirabella
21:06:20 [Zakim]: +Mat_Mirabella; got it
21:06:33 [rscano]: zakim, who is on the phone?
21:06:33 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Doyle, Roberto_Scano (muted), Roberto_Ellero (muted), Dave_MacDonald, JasonWhite, Michael_Cooper, Avi_Arditti, John_Slatin, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, BengtFarre,
21:06:36 [Zakim]: ... Gregg?, Wendy, Mat_Mirabella
21:06:56 [wendy]: zakim, Gregg? is Gregg-and-Ben
21:06:57 [Zakim]: +Gregg-and-Ben; got it
21:07:10 [GVAN]: GVAN has joined #wai-wcag
21:08:33 [wendy]: starting with Doyle's summary of checkpoint 1.6:
21:08:34 [wendy]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003OctDec/0581.html
21:08:39 [wendy]: zakim, who's making noise?
21:08:49 [Zakim]: wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Doyle (10%), John_Slatin (14%)
21:11:58 [Zakim]: + +1.206.568.aaaa
21:12:31 [wendy]: zakim, +1.206.568.aaaa may be Mike_Barta
21:12:31 [Zakim]: +Mike_Barta?; got it
21:13:14 [wendy]: minutes from 4 December: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003OctDec/0458.html
21:14:48 [wendy]: in visual presentation make it easy to dist foreground words and images from the background
21:18:52 [wendy]: same as what was proposed, but w/out the word "default"
21:19:12 [wendy]: discussion about including word "default"
21:19:42 [wendy]: default included in success criteria rather than guideline
21:20:33 [wendy]: level 1 does not constrain presentation. (thus this has to be level 2?)
21:20:50 [rscano]: why don't substistute "words and images" with "visual contents" ?
21:20:55 [wendy]: if everything had style sheets, then could say construct content so that certain types of content background could be removed.
21:21:15 [wendy]: currently: no level 1 criteria that are generic approach.
21:21:35 [wendy]: "in visual presentations make it easy to distinguish foreground words from teh background"
21:21:46 [wendy]: level 1 success criteria: don't have any at this time.
21:26:31 [doyle]: raises hand
21:26:43 [wendy]: ack doyle
21:26:57 [wendy]: concern that no level 1 criteria for this guideline.
21:27:13 [wendy]: move level 2 up to 1?
21:28:12 [rscano]: i agree... it is "basic" that the content must be "readable"
21:29:03 [doyle]: raises hand
21:30:14 [wendy]: "mechanism for all non-illustration text to be presentable..." but covered under 1.1 (user can modify text and alt-text to be readable)
21:31:12 [wendy]: ack doyle
21:32:10 [wendy]: red/green color deficiency. it's not that you can't see red/green. some people see shades of yellow/tan instead.
21:32:23 [wendy]: could care less what color they see, we want them to see the text over the background.
21:32:41 [wendy]: that's covered elsewhere (not using color as method to navigate...to convey important info)
21:33:14 [wendy]: since deals w/default presentation, has to be level 2
21:34:55 [wendy]: "note. Guideline 1.1 already requires that all text be accessible via assistive technology therefore all text could be represented in high-contrast form by a user technology"
21:35:16 [wendy]: (put a note in the level 1 success criterion saying that there isn't one now but..Note...)
21:35:24 [rscano]: good
21:37:12 [wendy]: can provide diff style sheets for diff devices and uas (delivery contexts ala Device Indie vocab),
21:37:20 [wendy]: no "default" presentation.
21:37:28 [wendy]: at level 2, all author-supplied presentations meet the requirement.
21:37:39 [wendy]: which one the user gets depends on the device and which style sheet is applied.
21:38:23 [wendy]: therefore, don't use the term "default presentation" if have multiple possible presentations (depending on device/delivery context)
21:38:29 [wendy]: prefer to use the term "author supplied"
21:38:49 [wendy]: there are situations where there is not a default presentation.
21:39:31 [wendy]: "presentation that comes about as result of combination of author-supplied presentations and delivery context"
21:42:00 [wendy]: in the 2nd sentence, get rid of word "assistive" since trying to say that text is available to people who do not have AT.
21:42:11 [wendy]: "available to the user so that it can be represented..."
21:43:02 [wendy]: add an example to clarify.
21:43:59 [Zakim]: -Roberto_Scano
21:44:23 [wendy]: Ben reads proposed wording of note (instead of level 1 success criterion)
21:44:43 [rscano]: rscano has joined #wai-wcag
21:45:01 [wendy]: (similar front part)...all text could be represented so that all text can be distinguished from the background.
21:45:13 [Zakim]: +??P13
21:45:15 [wendy]: oop...that doesn't look right. i must have written the same phrase multiple times.
21:45:19 [rscano]: zakim, ??P13 is Roberto_Scano
21:45:19 [Zakim]: +Roberto_Scano; got it
21:45:23 [wendy]: Ben? could you paste the text here for the minutes?
21:45:25 [rscano]: zakim, i am Roberto_Scano
21:45:25 [Zakim]: ok, rscano, I now associate you with Roberto_Scano
21:46:29 [wendy]: "mechanism" - is kludgy (grab text and paste somewhere you can read it). for level 2, should be something that allows someone to stay on the current page.
21:48:19 [doyle]: raises hand
21:48:58 [wendy]: what talking about in level 2, seems to be provided by 1.1 unless mean to say that author provides a mechanism in the content.
21:49:10 [wendy]: either enough contrast or author provides mechanism.
21:52:08 [wendy]: copy and paste from pdf? if not copy protected or if have "trusted" screen reader.
21:52:16 [wendy]: (yes, if ...)
21:54:38 [wendy]: assuming the user agent can cut and paste.
21:54:46 [wendy]: no, machine readability.
21:55:27 [doyle]: hand up
21:55:58 [wendy]: author can lock up document so that not generally accessible, specific to "trusted" uas.
21:56:09 [wendy]: that is not accessible...it needs to be generally accessible.
21:56:16 [wendy]: ack doyle
21:56:37 [wendy]: at 4 december, thought we decided not to force person to leave browser. i.e., not use cut and paste.
21:57:09 [wendy]: only leave browser if don't have an AT that can make text accessible to you (in manner that you need)
21:57:29 [wendy]: ack John
21:57:50 [wendy]: saying that there can't be graphical text? (bitmapped text in an image)
21:58:20 [doyle]: hand up
21:58:22 [wendy]: if associate alt-text w/bitmap text, then you can get text.
22:00:24 [wendy]: difference between image of text that is functional versus image of text that is not functional (i.e., image of the text "Menu" vs photo of an intersection that includes a stop sign where the word "stop" is not necessary to using the content.)
22:02:13 [doyle]: hand down
22:05:03 [wendy]: ben? please post here?
22:05:22 [wendy]: any text presented over background is electronically available...so text can be distinguished from background
22:05:57 [rscano]: 01is electronically 01available = is accessible :)
22:06:10 [wendy]: any text presented over a background is electronically available so that it can be represented to that text can be distinguished from the background
22:06:56 [wendy]: action: john take this language and make plain language: any text presented over a background is electronically available so that it can be represented to that text can be distinguished from the background
22:08:51 [ben]: Any text that is presented over a background is electronically available
22:08:51 [ben]: so that it could be re-presented in a form that allows the text to be distinguished
22:08:51 [ben]: from the background.
22:08:51 [ben]
22:08:51 [ben]: Note: text that meets guideline 1.1 should satisfy this criterion.
22:09:36 [wendy]: ack john
22:09:51 [wendy]: reason to specify what the background is?
22:10:26 [wendy]: text from today (that ben just pasted) also included in bugzilla in bug#660:
22:10:27 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=660
22:10:47 [wendy]: remove the phrase "background, grayscale.." just say "background"
22:13:11 [doyle]: hand up
22:15:39 [wendy]: ack doyle
22:18:08 [wendy]: doyle discusses juicy studio implementation of AERT color contrast algorithm (developed by Chris Ridpath)
22:18:27 [wendy]: this used to be the algorithm suggested in previous drafts of WCAG 2.0, taken out b/c not confident it works.
22:18:42 [wendy]: would like to test it with brewer pallette and lighthouse recommendations.
22:20:06 [wendy]: action: gregg talk with Chris Ridpath
22:22:33 [wendy]: >The AERT document [2], technique 2.2.1 for the WCAG1 proposed an
22:22:33 [wendy]: >algorithm that worked reasonably well but was not perfect. Some
22:22:33 [wendy]: >colour combinations were passed, though many people would find them
22:22:33 [wendy]: >unacceptable, and other colours were failed though many people would
22:22:34 [wendy]: >find them acceptable.
22:22:37 [doyle]: sorry had to leave for a minute
22:22:59 [wendy]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003JulSep/0407.html
22:23:28 [wendy]: he also says, "
22:23:28 [wendy]: My current feeling is that we're not going to find a perfect algorithm.
22:23:28 [wendy]: Maybe the best we can hope for is a test that will give a qualified result.
22:23:28 [wendy]: Perhaps something like "75% of people surveyed found the colour combination
22:23:28 [wendy]: to be difficult to read".
22:23:30 [wendy]: "
22:23:48 [wendy]: joe responds: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003JulSep/0411.html
22:24:07 [wendy]: why do we need an algorithm? why not suggest color combinations?
22:24:10 [wendy]: ack Dave
22:25:47 [doyle]: here here to the brightness issue - right on!!! What I miss for sure
22:26:09 [doyle]: hand up
22:26:45 [wendy]: hex covers hue and brightness?
22:28:01 [wendy]: ack doyle
22:28:31 [wendy]: brightness: that's what brewer palette is about.
22:28:59 [wendy]: more important that contrast (brightness and hue provide contrast). it's not hte colors, it's the separation of colors through brithness and saturation.
22:29:43 [wendy]: 98% of color deficiency issues go away when deal w/brightness.
22:30:15 [wendy]: level 3: be the level 2 but no "mechanism"
22:31:00 [wendy]: Testing The Readability Of Web Page Colors, by Chris Ridpath, Jutta Treviranus, Patrice L. (Tamar) Weiss
22:31:03 [wendy]: http://www.aprompt.ca/WebPageColors.html
22:31:20 [MattJUROR]: MattJUROR has joined #wai-wcag
22:31:32 [wendy]: (thanks for pointing this out Roberto)
22:32:16 [rscano]: ;-)
22:32:54 [wendy]: ===
22:33:07 [wendy]: gregg talks about possible proposals to the flicker guideline
22:33:51 [wendy]: will see tool in near future. criteria would be based on the tool ("as measured by...")
22:34:03 [wendy]: assume "as measured by algorithm..." rather than by tool x?
22:34:26 [wendy]: the tool uses a variety of codecs to deal with variations.
22:34:35 [doyle]: question will tool be cross platform - re: non operating system dependent
22:34:47 [wendy]: nervous about making software the definition
22:35:08 [doyle]: is the algorithm the tools
22:35:24 [wendy]: it (the tool) is based on a set of standards.
22:36:06 [wendy]: publish algorithm in stable place and reference that (rather than require tool)
22:36:29 [Zakim]: -Wendy
22:38:08 [bengt]: bye
22:38:09 [Zakim]: -Loretta_Guarino_Reid
22:38:10 [Zakim]: -Avi_Arditti
22:38:11 [Zakim]: -Michael_Cooper
22:38:11 [Zakim]: -John_Slatin
22:38:12 [rellero]: bye
22:38:12 [Zakim]: -Mike_Barta?
22:38:13 [Zakim]: -Doyle
22:38:14 [Zakim]: -Dave_MacDonald
22:38:15 [Zakim]: -Gregg-and-Ben
22:38:16 [Zakim]: -BengtFarre
22:38:18 [Zakim]: -Mat_Mirabella
22:38:20 [Zakim]: -Roberto_Ellero
22:38:22 [Zakim]: -Roberto_Scano
22:38:33 [bengt]: bengt has left #wai-wcag
22:38:49 [Zakim]: -JasonWhite
22:38:50 [Zakim]: WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
22:38:51 [Zakim]: Attendees were Doyle, Roberto_Scano, Roberto_Ellero, Dave_MacDonald, JasonWhite, Michael_Cooper, Avi_Arditti, John_Slatin, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, BengtFarre, Wendy, Mat_Mirabella,
22:38:53 [Zakim]: ... Gregg-and-Ben, Mike_Barta?
22:38:58 [wendy]: zakim, bye
22:38:58 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #wai-wcag
22:39:01 [wendy]: RRSAgent, bye
22:39:01 [RRSAgent]: I see 2 open action items:
22:39:01 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: john take this language and make plain language: any text presented over a background is electronically available so that it can be represented to that text can be distinguished from the background [1]
22:39:01 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/12/18-wai-wcag-irc#T22-06-56
22:39:01 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: gregg talk with Chris Ridpath [2]
22:39:01 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/12/18-wai-wcag-irc#T22-20-06