IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-02-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:51:41 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
14:52:54 [wendy]
agenda+ RDF Techniques
14:53:12 [wendy]
agenda+ bugzilla issues
14:59:18 [ben]
ben has joined #wai-wcag
14:59:43 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has now started
15:00:06 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
15:01:44 [Zakim]
+Chris_Ridpath
15:01:53 [Zakim]
+Wendy
15:02:02 [Zakim]
+Don_Evans
15:02:41 [wendy]
ben are you on the phone?
15:02:57 [Zakim]
+??P20
15:03:01 [wendy]
zakim, ??P20 is Ben
15:03:01 [Zakim]
+Ben; got it
15:04:44 [Zakim]
+Tim_Boland
15:05:17 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has joined #wai-wcag
15:05:31 [donaldfevans]
donaldfevans has joined #wai-wcag
15:06:33 [wendy]
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=188
15:06:38 [Zakim]
-Don_Evans
15:07:28 [wendy]
don? are you going to rejoin the call?
15:07:33 [donaldfevans]
yes
15:07:43 [donaldfevans]
sorry, hit wrong button
15:08:01 [wendy]
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=248
15:08:55 [wendy]
action: chris compare latest html techniques draft with older write-ups to make sure everything included.
15:09:02 [Zakim]
+Don_Evans
15:09:04 [Zakim]
+??P44
15:09:18 [wendy]
zakim, ??P44 is Lisa_Seeman
15:09:18 [Zakim]
+Lisa_Seeman; got it
15:10:56 [Zakim]
-Tim_Boland
15:11:33 [wendy]
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=576
15:11:40 [Zakim]
+Tim_Boland
15:11:41 [wendy]
closed. michael added a link to the file.
15:13:13 [wendy]
unmute lisa
15:14:36 [wendy]
RDF Techniques - lisa overview
15:15:20 [wendy]
lisa wants input about the direction to head with this document before heading too far forward. currently, it's more like a brain dump.
15:15:27 [chaalsNCE]
chaalsNCE has joined #wai-wcag
15:15:43 [wendy]
there are different sections: 1. explaining the benefits of RDF to accessibility (similar to css doc)
15:16:11 [wendy]
2. usage - how you work with existing ontology. how to choose an ontology.
15:16:49 [wendy]
3. media equivalents
15:16:55 [Zakim]
+Charles
15:17:33 [wendy]
want people to look at: 1. general structure of the document, 2. how much detail to include in the document (are we going to assume understand gateway techniques before read rdf techniques?)
15:18:40 [wendy]
3. writing clearly and providing clear test section shows potential of rdf. experimental.
15:20:23 [wendy]
documenting existing techniques that work with existing engines, but don't know which one the user will use.
15:20:34 [wendy]
would like a single way to clarify text so that renderers are conformant to that.
15:21:12 [wendy]
lisa would like to see a standard way to create an ontology to provide alternatives, simplifications, etc.
15:21:38 [Zakim]
+Dave_MacDonald
15:22:13 [wendy]
q+ to say "we can't standardize an ontology in a techniques document. this sounds more like a deliverable of a working group chartered specifically to create this standard"
15:22:25 [wendy]
lisa: how do we want to approach this kind of stuff?
15:23:46 [ben]
q+
15:25:12 [wendy]
ack wendy
15:25:12 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say "we can't standardize an ontology in a techniques document. this sounds more like a deliverable of a working group chartered specifically to create this
15:25:15 [Zakim]
... standard"
15:25:19 [wendy]
ack chaals
15:25:19 [Zakim]
chaalsNCE, you wanted to perhaps disagree with wendy :-)
15:25:45 [wendy]
we can write ontologies to do stuff. write a tiny vocabulary to do tiny tasks.
15:25:57 [wendy]
similar to saying, "here's some html code to do x"
15:27:01 [wendy]
useful to look at this stuff similar to css techniques. you can write a technique that uses css to satisfy a guideline but don't write "here's how to write a document in css."
15:27:27 [wendy]
ack ben
15:28:01 [wendy]
our audience is not as likely to be familiar with rdf than with html and css. what are we doing to give people introductory info about rdf?
15:28:09 [wendy]
ack Lisa
15:28:49 [wendy]
very briefly (couple sentences) about what rdf is then links to more info.
15:29:12 [wendy]
want to see a paragraph that introduces to rdf and why might be using for accessibility.
15:29:46 [wendy]
q+ to say "benefits of tech would be useful for each techniques. a summary of issues and benefits."
15:29:52 [wendy]
mute lisa
15:30:09 [wendy]
ack chaals
15:30:09 [Zakim]
chaalsNCE, you wanted to suggest (very quickly) that techniques should be pretty self-contained - "copy this and this, and do this and you get that..."
15:30:32 [wendy]
intro to rdf, not our bag. better to providing techniques.
15:30:38 [wendy]
example is "intro to earl"
15:31:05 [wendy]
ack wendy
15:31:05 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say "benefits of tech would be useful for each techniques. a summary of issues and benefits."
15:31:11 [chaalsNCE]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/talks/200311-earl/all
15:31:31 [chaalsNCE]
[/me agrees with wendy]
15:31:48 [wendy]
don't need to do a primer, but links to more info
15:32:16 [wendy]
===
15:34:02 [wendy]
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=725
15:34:34 [wendy]
purpose of author benefits section? in css there are tutorials.
15:34:36 [wendy]
reference those
15:34:44 [wendy]
specifically css 2.1
15:38:10 [wendy]
action: tim proposal and research for bug 725
15:38:45 [wendy]
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=726
15:40:02 [wendy]
functional grouping or how people will use the doc?
15:40:08 [wendy]
will they use diff sections together.
15:40:23 [wendy]
box model then font text and selectors, logical groupings.
15:40:31 [wendy]
desire goal of ordering
15:42:52 [wendy]
ack lisa
15:43:32 [wendy]
3 possibilities: 1. via wcag 2.0 guidelines 2. via specification 3. via how people are using/how people are learning (tutorial: easiest to more advanced)
15:44:13 [wendy]
rdf techs draft doesn't order by guidelines.
15:44:17 [wendy]
techniques gateway does
15:44:20 [ben]
q+
15:44:30 [wendy]
zakim, mute lisa
15:44:30 [Zakim]
Lisa_Seeman should now be muted
15:44:36 [wendy]
ack ben
15:44:57 [wendy]
organize similar to html techniques, they are a reference set. i.e., "tables" or "lists" in one place.
15:45:42 [wendy]
groups and ordering of those groups
15:45:47 [wendy]
group by element/property, order by ?
15:46:06 [wendy]
ack Dave
15:46:21 [wendy]
flexible presentation?
15:48:53 [wendy]
action: tim propose reordering of css techs based on css spec. (issue 726)
15:49:17 [wendy]
latest css techs: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-CSS-TECHS-20031219.html
15:49:31 [wendy]
ack chaals
15:49:31 [Zakim]
chaalsNCE, you wanted to suggest a different ordering for rdf
15:50:09 [wendy]
rdf: guideline or something more familiar
15:51:44 [wendy]
rdf primer trying to teach rdf, techniques is to give them what need to solve problem.
15:51:47 [wendy]
ack lisa
15:53:54 [wendy]
do people need to understand accessibility before getting to this doc?
15:53:58 [wendy]
(this doc == rdf techniques)
15:54:29 [wendy]
zakim, mute lisa
15:54:29 [Zakim]
Lisa_Seeman should now be muted
15:55:28 [wendy]
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=727
15:55:53 [wendy]
many 3rd party sites have information.
15:56:12 [wendy]
css wg has an implementation report template, but not much info from that yet.
15:56:32 [wendy]
q+ to ask "3rd party sites offer info about assistive technologies?"
15:57:12 [wendy]
template for reporting support
15:57:18 [wendy]
template for selectors
15:57:25 [wendy]
(related to test sutie?)
15:57:35 [wendy]
ack wendy
15:57:35 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to ask "3rd party sites offer info about assistive technologies?"
15:58:21 [wendy]
template is related to the test suite
15:59:31 [wendy]
use template to report assistive technology results?
16:00:22 [wendy]
action: tim explore with css wg about features of template wrt assistive technologies
16:00:33 [wendy]
ack chaals
16:00:33 [Zakim]
chaalsNCE, you wanted to ask is this particular to CSS? Should we collect up same for HTML? and then just note what elements/properties/etc are required in each technique?
16:03:37 [wendy]
variety of methods for us to gather info.
16:04:47 [wendy]
if someone wants to submit a technique, we have two things: 1. xml source files are available 2. a form that will generate the xml
16:05:22 [wendy]
ack dave
16:09:11 [wendy]
action: jenae and wendy think more about the user agent support sections - link to others? test own? work with other WGs?
16:09:32 [wendy]
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=728
16:10:05 [wendy]
allowable values and where they are specified is stated clearly in 2.1 spec (which properties can take which values).
16:10:12 [wendy]
is something else meant here?
16:13:51 [wendy]
action: tim go through css spec and create exhaustive list of which properties can be used with absolute vs relative units.
16:14:04 [wendy]
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=729
16:14:36 [wendy]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-CSS-TECHS-20031219.html#scripting
16:16:07 [wendy]
svg animation? smil, ecmascript.
16:16:25 [wendy]
rare to use css in svg animation. can do it, but rare.
16:16:47 [wendy]
smil?
16:17:23 [wendy]
smil layers usually w/in smil xml. can do as css, but not usually in practice.
16:18:12 [wendy]
mathml - some scripting.
16:21:01 [wendy]
move this issue to client-side scripting
16:21:28 [wendy]
action: wendy take action to develop/find a technique for css, scripting, html
16:21:54 [wendy]
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=730
16:22:38 [wendy]
action: wendy udpate css xml for references
16:22:47 [wendy]
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=731
16:23:31 [wendy]
do css techniques organized to apply to both wcag 1.0 and wcag 2.0?
16:26:29 [wendy]
related to publishing revised wcag 1.0. also helpful to publish revised techniques (working group note).
16:26:42 [wendy]
revising techniques, even more important in some cases (providing more detail and clarifications)
16:27:48 [wendy]
two documents or one?
16:28:01 [wendy]
one document: might be contradictory techniques between 1.0 and 2.0. need to make sure don't contradict.
16:28:20 [wendy]
e.g., in 1.0 "all tables must have tables" in 2.0 "only data tables, layout null"
16:29:24 [wendy]
look at techniques 1.0, are we steering people in diff direction from 2.0
16:29:44 [wendy]
action item - look at 1.0 techs and 2.0 techs and where do they conflict?
16:30:15 [wendy]
action: dave look at 1.0 techs and 2.0 techs and where do they conflict?
16:30:28 [wendy]
if anything can do with 1.0 techs to bring them closer to 2.0, w/out contradicting 1.0.
16:30:54 [wendy]
ack lisa
16:31:29 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has left #wai-wcag
16:31:35 [wendy]
put a checkpoint reference document, how would these techniques map to 1.0. not saying official techniques, but here are how they map.
16:31:51 [wendy]
ack chaals
16:31:51 [Zakim]
chaalsNCE, you wanted to agree with Lisa that collecting RDF information about techniques mqppings between the two versions would be a good idea
16:32:33 [wendy]
should be simple to determine if a technique applies to multiple checkpoints.
16:32:43 [wendy]
and then say 1.0 or 2.0 or something else.
16:33:53 [Zakim]
-Charles
16:34:16 [wendy]
action: wendy check with micahel about publishing mapping of success criteria to html techs
16:35:04 [Zakim]
-Chris_Ridpath
16:35:14 [wendy]
second reference: perhaps not render, but field that allow to map a technique to 1.0, once have techniques fleshed out, have better idea of conflicts.
16:35:49 [wendy]
w/in xml express if a technique applies to 1.0 or 2.0 or both
16:36:40 [Zakim]
-Lisa_Seeman
16:36:42 [Zakim]
-Tim_Boland
16:36:50 [Zakim]
-Don_Evans
16:36:56 [Zakim]
-[Microsoft]
16:37:13 [Zakim]
-Ben
16:37:44 [Zakim]
-Dave_MacDonald
16:37:48 [Zakim]
-Wendy
16:37:49 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has ended
16:37:50 [Zakim]
Attendees were [Microsoft], Chris_Ridpath, Wendy, Don_Evans, Ben, Tim_Boland, Lisa_Seeman, Charles, Dave_MacDonald
16:37:55 [wendy]
zakim, bye
16:37:55 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
16:43:53 [wendy]
RRSAgent, bye
16:43:53 [RRSAgent]
I see 10 open action items:
16:43:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: chris compare latest html techniques draft with older write-ups to make sure everything included. [1]
16:43:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/02/04-wai-wcag-irc#T15-08-55
16:43:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: tim proposal and research for bug 725 [2]
16:43:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/02/04-wai-wcag-irc#T15-38-10
16:43:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: tim propose reordering of css techs based on css spec. (issue 726) [3]
16:43:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/02/04-wai-wcag-irc#T15-48-53
16:43:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: tim explore with css wg about features of template wrt assistive technologies [4]
16:43:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/02/04-wai-wcag-irc#T16-00-22
16:43:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jenae and wendy think more about the user agent support sections - link to others? test own? work with other WGs? [5]
16:43:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/02/04-wai-wcag-irc#T16-09-11
16:43:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: tim go through css spec and create exhaustive list of which properties can be used with absolute vs relative units. [6]
16:43:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/02/04-wai-wcag-irc#T16-13-51
16:43:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wendy take action to develop/find a technique for css, scripting, html [7]
16:43:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/02/04-wai-wcag-irc#T16-21-28
16:43:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wendy udpate css xml for references [8]
16:43:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/02/04-wai-wcag-irc#T16-22-38
16:43:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: dave look at 1.0 techs and 2.0 techs and where do they conflict? [9]
16:43:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/02/04-wai-wcag-irc#T16-30-15
16:43:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wendy check with micahel about publishing mapping of success criteria to html techs [10]
16:43:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/02/04-wai-wcag-irc#T16-34-16