IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-01-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:55:58 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
20:56:00 [Yvette]
First I got to get better, I've got laryngitis
20:56:06 [wendy]
sorry to hear that
20:56:15 [Yvette]
**** happens
20:56:29 [Yvette]
20:56:36 [wendy]
20:56:59 [rscano]
wendy not yet available the italian WCAG conformance :(
20:57:12 [Yvette]
I will stay for the 4.1 discussion but might leave after that if my throat becomes too irritated
20:57:22 [wendy]
i know. but, it's not my issue anymore. shadi is supposed to take care of it.
20:57:51 [Yvette]
I saw the Brussels meeting will probably be moved to the summer on the WCAG group page
20:58:27 [Yvette]
Summer is fine with me as well, it would have been fun to meet some of you this spring though
20:58:35 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started
20:58:42 [Zakim]
20:58:44 [rcastaldo]
rcastaldo has joined #wai-wcag
20:58:48 [rellero]
20:58:49 [Yvette]
Hi Rob#3
20:58:49 [Zakim]
20:58:50 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
20:58:51 [Zakim]
Attendees were [IBM]
20:59:02 [Yvette]
Shortest WCAG meeting in history
20:59:02 [rcastaldo]
Hi Yvette :-)
20:59:09 [rcastaldo]
Ciao everybody
20:59:12 [rscano]
zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG()
20:59:12 [Zakim]
ok, rscano, I see WAI_WCAG()4:00PM already started
20:59:18 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:59:18 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Wendy
20:59:30 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.635.aaaa
21:00:03 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
21:00:03 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Wendy, +1.408.635.aaaa
21:00:08 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.635.aabb
21:00:09 [Zakim]
21:00:18 [wendy]
zakim, +1.408.635.aaaa is Roberto_Scano
21:00:18 [Zakim]
+Roberto_Scano; got it
21:00:25 [wendy]
zakim, ??P19 is Doyle_Burnett
21:00:25 [Zakim]
+Doyle_Burnett; got it
21:00:30 [rscano]
zakim, 01+1.408.635.aabb is Roberto_Castaldo
21:00:30 [Zakim]
sorry, rscano, I do not recognize a party named '01+1.408.635.aabb'
21:00:53 [wendy]
zakim, +1.408.635.aabb is Roberto_Castaldo
21:00:53 [Zakim]
+Roberto_Castaldo; got it
21:00:58 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
21:00:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Wendy, Roberto_Scano, Roberto_Castaldo, Doyle_Burnett
21:01:06 [Zakim]
21:01:10 [rscano]
zakim, i am Roberto_Scano
21:01:10 [Zakim]
ok, rscano, I now associate you with Roberto_Scano
21:01:16 [rscano]
zakim, ??P21 is Yvette
21:01:17 [Zakim]
+Yvette; got it
21:01:53 [Yvette]
zakim, Yvette is Yvette_Hoitink
21:01:53 [Zakim]
+Yvette_Hoitink; got it
21:01:59 [Yvette]
zakim, I am Yvette_Hoitink
21:02:00 [Zakim]
ok, Yvette, I now associate you with Yvette_Hoitink
21:02:05 [Zakim]
21:02:23 [wendy]
21:02:44 [Zakim]
21:02:45 [wendy]
agenda+ 4.1
21:02:56 [wendy]
zakim, ??P20 is Gregg-and-Ben
21:02:56 [Zakim]
+Gregg-and-Ben; got it
21:02:57 [Zakim]
21:03:00 [rscano]
agenda+ Guideline 3.3:
21:03:01 [rscano]
21:03:01 [Zakim]
21:03:09 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
21:03:09 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:03:12 [wendy]
agenda+ 3.3
21:03:16 [bcaldwell]
bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
21:03:22 [rscano]
zakim, mute me
21:03:22 [Zakim]
Roberto_Scano should now be muted
21:03:23 [Zakim]
21:03:26 [wendy]
drop agendum 2
21:03:29 [wendy]
21:03:41 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
21:03:41 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Wendy, Roberto_Scano (muted), Roberto_Castaldo, Doyle_Burnett, Yvette_Hoitink (muted), Matt, Gregg-and-Ben, JasonWhite, [Microsoft], Loretta_Guarino_Reid
21:03:47 [Zakim]
21:03:50 [Zakim]
21:03:58 [Zakim]
21:04:09 [Zakim]
21:04:32 [Zakim]
21:04:36 [Zakim]
21:04:52 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
21:04:52 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
21:05:32 [bengt]
bengt has joined #wai-wcag
21:06:16 [Zakim]
21:06:18 [wendy]
4.1 for markup, 4.2 for non-markup. guideline is wider than success criterion
21:07:12 [wendy]
should 4.1 apply to non-markup as well?
21:07:17 [bengt]
zakim, who is here ?
21:07:17 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Wendy, Roberto_Scano (muted), Roberto_Castaldo, Doyle_Burnett, Yvette_Hoitink, Matt, Gregg-and-Ben, JasonWhite, [Microsoft], Loretta_Guarino_Reid, John_Slatin,
21:07:20 [Zakim]
... [IBM], Roberto_Castaldo.a
21:07:21 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bengt, bcaldwell, rcastaldo, RRSAgent, rellero, Yvette, silvia, Zakim, wendy, rscano
21:07:26 [rscano]
zakim, 01+Roberto_Castaldo.a is Bengt_Farre
21:07:26 [Zakim]
sorry, rscano, I do not recognize a party named '01+Roberto_Castaldo.a'
21:07:49 [bengt]
zakim, Roberto_Castalda.a is Bengt_Farre
21:07:49 [Zakim]
sorry, bengt, I do not recognize a party named 'Roberto_Castalda.a'
21:07:52 [wendy]
"use according to spec" should apply to other types of technology.
21:08:06 [bengt]
zakim, Roberto_Castaldo.a is Bengt_Farre
21:08:08 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
21:08:17 [wendy]
Guideline 4.1 Technologies are used according to specification.
21:08:17 [wendy]
Guideline 4.2 Programmatic user interfaces are accessible or alternative, accessible versions are provided
21:11:02 [wendy]
"structural elements and attributs as used in the spec" have read that as generic elements of technology
21:11:21 [Zakim]
21:11:21 [wendy]
in javascript, have "objects" rather than "elements"
21:11:25 [Zakim]
21:11:34 [wendy]
unless "elements" used as "pieces"
21:11:54 [wendy]
"components are used"
21:12:44 [rellero]
Unfortunately also this week dialpad does not work
21:12:46 [wendy]
21:13:42 [wendy]
if say, "features are used as specified" then use things as people expect them to use.
21:15:05 [wendy]
replace "structural elements and attributes are used as defined in the specification" with "features..."
21:15:56 [wendy]
b, c, d all say something about "features"
21:16:34 [wendy]
a: what does validity test mean? use deprecated features?
21:17:01 [wendy]
how many people feel using transitional html is ok for accessibility?
21:17:07 [Protty]
Protty has joined #wai-wcag
21:17:30 [wendy]
if you can use html 1.0 or 2.0 or 4.0, then transitional shouldn't be a question.
21:17:41 [wendy]
q+ wendy
21:17:54 [wendy]
what if someone writes their own dtd?
21:18:28 [rellero]
rellero has joined #wai-wcag
21:18:49 [wendy]
can use own dtd if meet other wcag 2.0 guidelines.
21:18:58 [rscano]
custom DTD like these that help to oversize problems with W3C DTD:
21:19:00 [rellero]
rellero has joined #wai-wcag
21:19:01 [wendy]
if i meet the other guidelines, why do i have to meet this one?
21:19:47 [wendy]
e.g., dtd that includes embed, passes validity tests.
21:20:05 [wendy]
only viable way to include multimedia in today's browsers.
21:21:01 [Zakim]
21:21:03 [Zakim]
21:23:18 [rellero_]
rellero_ has joined #wai-wcag
21:26:44 [Zakim]
21:26:48 [Zakim]
21:28:20 [wendy]
expect untechnical people to declare appropriate dtd/schema? expect the tool to do that for them.
21:28:43 [wendy]
validity test for javascript?
21:29:27 [wendy]
testing javascript is tested by running, not so much a validator.
21:29:49 [wendy]
anyone program according to ECMAScript spec?
21:30:22 [wendy]
(joe claims that only zeldman does:
21:30:40 [wendy]
browsers claim conformance to different versions of ECMAScript.
21:30:48 [wendy]
ECMAScript evolves, then gets documented.
21:31:06 [wendy]
if we extend 4.1 beyond markup, then how deal with these issues?
21:31:43 [wendy]
ECMA 2.6.2, yes open
21:32:26 [Zakim]
21:33:14 [MattSEA]
MattSEA has joined #wai-wcag
21:33:16 [MattSEA]
21:33:33 [Zakim]
21:34:22 [wendy]
4.1: PDF (marked up), markup
21:34:31 [wendy]
4.2: use accessibility features when available: also apply to markup
21:34:41 [wendy]
4.1: use tech according to spec
21:34:44 [rscano]
rscano has joined #wai-wcag
21:34:50 [wendy]
4.2: use accessibility features when availble
21:34:53 [wendy]
21:34:55 [wendy]
ack matt
21:35:11 [wendy]
conformance to ecmascript standard says "does what standard says and nothing more"
21:35:17 [wendy]
all engines do whatever they want
21:35:22 [wendy]
ecmascript is baseline
21:36:24 [wendy]
1. use tech according to spec
21:36:34 [wendy]
2. make custom user interface accessible or provide alternatives
21:36:58 [wendy]
3. declared and widely available (technique for 4.2)
21:37:29 [wendy]
why use things according to spec? primarily user interface
21:38:04 [wendy]
if use tech according to spec, interfaces built for them will be accessible.
21:38:16 [wendy]
then #2 are scripting, and other custom.
21:38:30 [wendy]
could use script according to spec and make something inaccessible.
21:38:32 [Zakim]
21:38:38 [Zakim]
21:38:47 [Zakim]
21:38:48 [wendy]
1. use tech according to spec
21:39:08 [wendy]
2. make custom interfaces accessible or provide an alternative
21:40:19 [wendy]
q+ to say "tech according to spec - includes scripting langs?"
21:41:04 [wendy]
accessibility features goes into 4.2?
21:43:21 [wendy]
now have markup stuff in both guidelines as well as non-markup stuff in both
21:43:25 [wendy]
1. use according to spec
21:43:41 [wendy]
2. user interfaces accessible or provide alternative (use accessibility features)
21:44:03 [wendy]
"custom user interfaces" ??
21:44:47 [wendy]
not just custom.
21:45:21 [Zakim]
21:45:35 [wendy]
what do we mean by custom user interface? is html custom? if meant to mean "only those things you write w/code" then if player is inaccessible, but use spec then did not do anythign custom but it is not accessible.
21:45:59 [wendy]
q+ to say "propose that someone take an aciton to draft 2 new guidelines. move on to other big issues with this guideline"
21:46:39 [wendy]
don't say "custom" nor "programmatic" plainly "user interfaces..."
21:48:47 [wendy]
action: gregg and ben take first pass at proposal for rewriting 4.1 and 4.2 based on today's discussion.
21:49:14 [wendy]
if you say "user interface" in general, some people might think that what they are creating with content don't apply.
21:49:25 [wendy]
every type of web content has a user interface.
21:49:40 [wendy]
4.2 be interpreted to be the only thing that applies to user interfaces.
21:49:54 [wendy]
(concerns about how could be misinterpreted if only use "user interface")
21:51:40 [wendy]
"accessibility features are used" - in html you have accessibility features that can be useful, but in most cases optional rather than applicable (e.g., accesskey) - not useful everywhere.
21:51:49 [wendy]
if make it level 1, then accessibility features are required everywhere.
21:52:26 [wendy]
specify the effect not the method
21:52:37 [wendy]
then goes into techniques?
21:53:52 [wendy]
perhaps 4.2 already written in this manner, "if visual...then..."
21:54:18 [wendy]
many accessibility features are implemented for other reasons
21:54:56 [wendy]
delete: c & d in 4.1
21:56:17 [wendy]
collapse 4.3 into 4.2 and 4.1?
21:56:26 [wendy]
is 4.3 a technique for achieving 4.2 and 4.1?
21:56:32 [wendy]
or is it a criterion?
21:57:13 [wendy]
"declared" seems 4.1 (you validate to that)
21:57:29 [wendy]
"widely avaiable" seems 4.2 (related to user agent support and baseline)
21:59:12 [wendy]
21:59:18 [wendy]
22:04:06 [wendy]
ack John
22:04:09 [wendy]
ack Dave
22:04:59 [wendy]
zakim, who's muted?
22:04:59 [Zakim]
I see Roberto_Scano, Dave_MacDonald muted
22:05:42 [wendy]
22:05:43 [Yvette]
Zakim, mute me
22:05:47 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
22:05:51 [wendy]
zakim, close agendum 1
22:05:51 [Zakim]
agendum 1 closed
22:05:52 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
22:05:53 [Zakim]
2. 3.3 [from wendy]
22:05:58 [wendy]
zakim, take up agendum 2
22:05:58 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "3.3" taken up [from wendy]
22:08:17 [wendy]
John provides summary of proposal and summary
22:08:32 [wendy]
1. plain language proposals, best step forward at this point
22:08:54 [wendy]
2. some people think that this issue is usability not accessibility
22:11:11 [wendy]
address the 2nd type of comments by saying that we do believe that some language issues are within our scope.
22:11:42 [wendy]
in plain language proposal, move some of this to 2.5
22:13:34 [Yvette]
Sorry people, I have to excuse myself for the rest of the meeting because I'm not feeling well
22:13:42 [Zakim]
22:14:02 [silvia]
bye Yvette!
22:14:16 [Yvette]
By silvia, cu later
22:14:23 [Yvette]
Yvette has left #wai-wcag
22:14:47 [wendy]
proposal to put 3.3 as a level 2 in larger guideline.
22:15:03 [wendy]
underlying problem: people don't understand the text on the page (acronyms, etc.).
22:15:11 [wendy]
it's a separate item, but it is part of making text ...
22:16:03 [wendy]
Guideline 3.1 Language of content can be programmatically determined.
22:16:27 [wendy]
that would give acronyms, in dictionary or glossary
22:16:50 [wendy]
level 2: design so not more complex than necessary... (i.e., 3.3)
22:17:15 [wendy]
or 3.2?
22:17:24 [wendy]
Guideline 3.2 The definition of abbreviations and acronyms can be unambiguously determined.
22:18:20 [wendy]
what can we move to level 1?
22:23:09 [MattSEA]
22:23:13 [Zakim]
22:23:28 [Zakim]
22:23:53 [rscano]
rscano has joined #wai-wcag
22:24:04 [wendy]
concern about testability of:
22:24:12 [wendy]
can we say "content has been reviewed"
22:24:51 [wendy]
"this checkpoint tries to capture 3500 years of intellectual history"
22:24:57 [wendy]
ack matt
22:26:26 [wendy]
"we have strategies for people who have no vision; we have no strategies for people who have no cognition"
22:27:13 [wendy]
it is fair for physicists to write for physicists. is it fair for amazon to say that?
22:27:25 [wendy]
not fair if purposefully try to exclude people with disabilities.
22:27:58 [wendy]
if remove, "have been reviewed..." and look at list of things to review for, perhaps can find properties that can be present or absent.
22:28:04 [wendy]
require them at level 2?
22:28:27 [wendy]
level 2 is still generally applicable
22:29:30 [wendy]
perhaps: acronyms/abbreviations (level 1), determine from list in 3.3 which apply across all sites (level 2), those that are less widly applicable (level 3)
22:29:47 [wendy]
"we don't make any sites talk" possible that technology can transform into speech.
22:30:20 [wendy]
collapse 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 into one guideline?
22:31:13 [wendy]
3.3 has always success criteria related to structure, that goes beyond words and phrases.
22:34:01 [wendy]
3.1 - (if combine 3.1, 3.2, 3.3) do you understand the content, new 3.2 becomes do you understand how to operate what is there.
22:34:24 [wendy]
don't want to impose structure in content (effects way people write, can't do at level 1)
22:34:58 [wendy]
major components are machine-readable
22:34:59 [wendy]
22:37:21 [wendy]
don't add structure to document that doesn't inherently have it.
22:37:31 [wendy]
(if don't need it)
22:37:53 [wendy]
in some cases, don't need to add headings/titles because there isn't enough to break up.
22:38:13 [wendy]
in other cases, there are blocks of text that are obviously chapters.
22:38:44 [wendy]
archival material is counter-example.
22:38:50 [wendy]
(because can't change the content).
22:39:09 [wendy]
rather, if possible to change content, then structure is there. otherwise, doesn't make sense to add abstract structure. just dividing it up not structuring.
22:39:29 [wendy]
3.3.1.d - could be in 2.4, where we talk about structure.
22:40:05 [wendy]
have to perceive the organization
22:40:50 [wendy]
action: gregg propose reorg of 3.1, 3.2, 3.3
22:41:04 [wendy]
22:41:04 [RRSAgent]
sees 2 open action items:
22:41:04 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: gregg and ben take first pass at proposal for rewriting 4.1 and 4.2 based on today's discussion. [1]
22:41:04 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:41:04 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: gregg propose reorg of 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 [2]
22:41:04 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:42:44 [wendy]
action: john determine from list in 3.3 which items apply across all sites (level 2), those that are less widely applicable (level 3)
22:44:08 [rcastaldo]
22:44:10 [Zakim]
22:44:11 [Zakim]
22:44:11 [rellero_]
22:44:12 [Zakim]
22:44:13 [Zakim]
22:44:13 [rscano]
night to all
22:44:13 [bengt]
22:44:14 [Zakim]
22:44:15 [Zakim]
22:44:16 [Zakim]
22:44:17 [Zakim]
22:44:19 [rcastaldo]
rcastaldo has left #wai-wcag
22:44:19 [Zakim]
22:44:20 [Zakim]
22:44:20 [bengt]
bengt has left #wai-wcag
22:44:22 [Zakim]
22:44:44 [rscano]
rscano has left #wai-wcag
22:44:58 [silvia]
22:47:08 [Zakim]
22:47:09 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
22:47:10 [Zakim]
Attendees were Wendy, Roberto_Scano, Doyle_Burnett, Roberto_Castaldo, Yvette_Hoitink, Matt, Gregg-and-Ben, JasonWhite, [Microsoft], Loretta_Guarino_Reid, John_Slatin, [IBM],
22:47:12 [Zakim]
... Bengt_Farre, Dave_MacDonald
22:48:12 [wendy]
zakim, bye
22:48:12 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
22:48:16 [wendy]
RRSAgent, bye
22:48:16 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items:
22:48:16 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: gregg and ben take first pass at proposal for rewriting 4.1 and 4.2 based on today's discussion. [1]
22:48:16 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:48:16 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: gregg propose reorg of 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 [2]
22:48:16 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:48:16 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: john determine from list in 3.3 which items apply across all sites (level 2), those that are less widely applicable (level 3) [3]
22:48:16 [RRSAgent]
recorded in