IRC log of au on 2004-02-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:51:07 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #au
20:51:12 [m3mSEA]
zakim, this will be wai_auwg
20:51:12 [Zakim]
ok, m3mSEA; I see WAI_AUWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
20:56:38 [Zakim]
WAI_AUWG()4:00PM has now started
20:56:45 [Zakim]
20:59:18 [m3mSEA]
zakim, call matt-bos
20:59:18 [Zakim]
I am sorry, m3mSEA; I don't have the necessary resources to dial out right now
20:59:27 [m3mSEA]
zakim, call matt-bos
20:59:27 [Zakim]
I am sorry, m3mSEA; I don't have the necessary resources to dial out right now
20:59:41 [Zakim]
20:59:42 [Zakim]
20:59:59 [m3mSEA]
zakim, ??P1 is Karen
20:59:59 [Zakim]
+Karen; got it
21:00:03 [Zakim]
21:00:18 [m3mSEA]
zakim, [IBM] is Barry
21:00:18 [Zakim]
+Barry; got it
21:00:28 [m3mSEA]
zakim, [IBM.a] is Kip
21:00:28 [Zakim]
+Kip; got it
21:01:27 [Zakim]
21:03:34 [Zakim]
21:05:56 [m3mSEA]
agenda+ Proposed new definitions
21:06:08 [m3mSEA]
agenda+ Remaining open issues
21:06:17 [m3mSEA]
agenda+ Further guideline prep for TR
21:06:22 [m3mSEA]
agenda+ charter revisions
21:06:26 [m3mSEA]
zakim, who's here?
21:06:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Barry, Matt, Karen, Kip, Treviranus, Greg_Pisocky
21:06:27 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, m3mSEA
21:06:58 [m3mSEA]
regrets: Tim Boland
21:08:08 [m3mSEA]
zakim, take up agendum 1
21:08:09 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Proposed new definitions" taken up [from m3mSEA]
21:08:23 [m3mSEA]
jt: Has everyone followed the definitions on the list?
21:09:51 [m3mSEA]
km: list of definitions:
21:09:58 [m3mSEA]
21:10:51 [m3mSEA]
jr: Accessibility Problem, Accessible Content, etc. all have to hang together.
21:11:18 [m3mSEA]
jt: You're proposing that the msg sent by Jan on Sunday should be the ones?
21:11:44 [m3mSEA]
km: Yes, through "accessible authoring tool interface"
21:12:03 [m3mSEA]
21:12:37 [m3mSEA]
s/authoring tool interface/authoring practice/
21:12:56 [m3mSEA]
km: "Accessible web content" and "accessible AU interface" are cyclical.
21:13:21 [m3mSEA]
jt: Equivalent alternative information...
21:13:31 [m3mSEA]
jr: There's equivalent and there's alternative. Two different things.
21:13:50 [m3mSEA]
jr: Someone had an issue with referencing disability in terms of accessibility.
21:14:37 [m3mSEA]
jr: Jon Hanna brings up the issue that accessibility may not mean just to disability.
21:14:47 [m3mSEA]
mm: But that's out of scope for WAI's definition of accessibility.
21:15:20 [m3mSEA]
The World Wide Web Consortium's (W3C) commitment to lead the Web to its full potential includes promoting a high degree of usability for people with disabilities.
21:15:49 [m3mSEA]
jt: Jon supports making it clear that this is explicitly so.
21:16:54 [m3mSEA]
jt: In the staged approach, you'd refer back to WCAG for "accessibility problem"?
21:16:57 [m3mSEA]
jr: Yes.
21:17:14 [m3mSEA]
km: You define accessible Web content as Web content without accessibility problems.
21:17:41 [m3mSEA]
jr: WCAG specifically says Web content.
21:18:10 [m3mSEA]
km: So, change accessible content to accessible Web content?
21:18:22 [m3mSEA]
jr: I don't mind removing the word Web.
21:18:30 [m3mSEA]
jt: Karen is proposing we keep it.
21:19:24 [m3mSEA]
jt: Agreed to replace accessible content with accessible Web content and removing def. for accessible content?
21:22:19 [m3mSEA]
jt: Thoughts on the term accessibility?
21:22:25 [m3mSEA]
jr: I'm fine with what's there.
21:23:44 [m3mSEA]
ACCESSIBILITY (some of the old text could go in the introduction)
21:23:45 [m3mSEA]
Within these guidelines, the concept of accessibility has two senses:
21:23:45 [m3mSEA]
- *accessible web content* refers to the content produced by tools being
21:23:45 [m3mSEA]
accessible by people regardless of disability, and
21:23:45 [m3mSEA]
- "accessible authoring tool interface" refers to the tools, themselves, being
21:23:45 [m3mSEA]
accessible by people regardless of disability.
21:26:01 [m3mSEA]
jt: How do we handle this between ATAG and WCAG?
21:26:09 [m3mSEA]
km: I think this can go in Accessibility Problem.
21:26:19 [m3mSEA]
jr: I think this goes into the Note on how ATAG and WCAG go together.
21:26:39 [m3mSEA]
km: From ATAG References to WCAG?
21:26:41 [m3mSEA]
jr: Yes.
21:26:49 [m3mSEA]
jt: Does that make it clearer?
21:27:29 [m3mSEA]
jr: That talks about our relative priority checkpoints.
21:29:08 [m3mSEA]
jt: Other proposed definitions?
21:29:18 [m3mSEA]
jr: We then have terms that we're still working on.
21:29:37 [m3mSEA]
jr: There's new work being done further down.
21:30:07 [m3mSEA]
jr: Applicable WCAG Requirements:
21:30:16 [m3mSEA]
JR: Those WCAG checkpoints that could reasonably to applied to the web content
21:30:16 [m3mSEA]
produced by an authoring tool. A WCAG checkpoint is "not applicable" only if
21:30:16 [m3mSEA]
the authoring tool lacks the capability to produce content that could fail the
21:30:16 [m3mSEA]
checkpoint. However, the inability of an authoring tool to pass a checkpoint
21:30:16 [m3mSEA]
does not make the checkpoint "not applicable".
21:30:50 [m3mSEA]
jr: So if you have a checkpoint that couldn't possibly fail, then it's n/a. But if it couldn't add alt text, that's not enough to say n/a.
21:31:53 [m3mSEA]
jr: I think it's important to say "if you can fail it, then you can't claim n/a"
21:31:59 [m3mSEA]
km: Agree.
21:33:05 [m3mSEA]
jr: Authoring Tool Interface:
21:33:22 [m3mSEA]
originally: The means by which an authoring tool is operated by an author.
21:33:31 [m3mSEA]
new: The means by which an author operates an authoring tool and receives
21:33:31 [m3mSEA]
information on the state of the tool.
21:33:51 [m3mSEA]
km: Unsure if state covers everything.
21:33:58 [m3mSEA]
jt: More like communication.
21:34:33 [m3mSEA]
jr: Volunteers?
21:34:55 [m3mSEA]
km: I can try to see if I can convey something more than state.
21:35:36 [m3mSEA]
action: jutta work on definition of Authoring Tool Interface (state)
21:35:50 [m3mSEA]
jr: Checking:
21:36:08 [m3mSEA]
was: The process by which web content is searched for accessibility problems.
21:36:26 [m3mSEA]
new: (includes "check for") The process by which web content is searched for accessibility problems. This
21:36:26 [m3mSEA]
applies to searches performed automatically or with assistance from the
21:36:26 [m3mSEA]
author. The search may be performed at specific times or be performed on an
21:36:26 [m3mSEA]
continuous basis as Web content is modified. For more information on checking,
21:36:26 [m3mSEA]
see ATAG checkpoint 3.2.
21:37:17 [m3mSEA]
gp: Would using "search" in other areas of accessibility affect this? Is it really a search process? Scan?
21:37:28 [m3mSEA]
jr: I could go with scan.
21:38:18 [m3mSEA]
mm: "Evaluated" goes with W3C terminology.
21:39:00 [m3mSEA]
jr: The process by which web content is evaluated for accessibility problems. This applies to evaluations performed automatically...
21:39:05 [m3mSEA]
21:39:33 [m3mSEA]
jr: Check for would go away:
21:40:31 [m3mSEA]
"as used in 4.1, check for can refer to 3 types of checking: 1) automatically (validity, testing content of a link); 2) Needing help from the author; 3) Must rely mostly on the author and can only ask the author to check.
21:40:33 [m3mSEA]
21:40:54 [m3mSEA]
jr: This includes a lot of junk that doesn't belong here.
21:41:51 [m3mSEA]
km: I'm okay with deleting "check for"
21:41:59 [m3mSEA]
mm: Is there anything that can go anywhere else?
21:42:10 [m3mSEA]
jr: It's already there. There's nothing here that needs to be there.
21:42:23 [m3mSEA]
km: I'll check the techniques to see if anything is lost.
21:42:32 [m3mSEA]
jr: Repairing:
21:42:40 [m3mSEA]
The process by which web content, identified as an accessibility problem,
21:42:40 [m3mSEA]
is modified (corrected, completed, or deleted) so that no accessibility
21:42:40 [m3mSEA]
problem remains.
21:42:56 [m3mSEA]
new: The process by which Web content is modified to solve accessibility
21:42:56 [m3mSEA]
problems. This applies to modifications performed automatically or with
21:42:56 [m3mSEA]
assistance from the author. For more information on repairing, see ATAG
21:42:56 [m3mSEA]
checkpoint 3.3.
21:44:24 [m3mSEA]
jt: "Repairing"
21:44:28 [m3mSEA]
jr: ok.
21:44:33 [m3mSEA]
jr: Workflow:
21:45:16 [m3mSEA]
jt: My thoughts on this is that since we're defining workflow, most of my comments are in how we're using the term. I would propose changing the wording a bit.
21:45:27 [m3mSEA]
jr: "familiar or customary sequence of steps"
21:46:02 [m3mSEA]
km: I like customary.
21:46:56 [m3mSEA]
jr: Agreed, using "customary" instead of "required"?
21:46:59 [m3mSEA]
21:47:04 [m3mSEA]
jr: That's all of 'em.
21:47:06 [m3mSEA]
21:47:17 [m3mSEA]
zakim, next agendum
21:47:17 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Remaining open issues" taken up [from m3mSEA]
21:47:54 [m3mSEA]
jt: Concept of a usability study override
21:48:02 [m3mSEA]
21:49:10 [m3mSEA]
jt: Concept was to allow someone who thought of a better way and could run a real usability study could use that to make a claim. We haven't decided as a group whether this is a good or bad thing.
21:51:19 [m3mSEA]
mm: I'm worried that this is a loophole. Might be better to allow a manual override that we could approve.
21:52:16 [m3mSEA]
jr: If we had a number of questions, would there be an issue if we handled MS first, etc.? What if we wind down the group?
21:52:27 [m3mSEA]
jr: Is there an ISO standard for usability standards?
21:53:01 [m3mSEA]
gp: There's an ISO 9241: Usability metrics.
21:55:52 [m3mSEA]
km: Is the whole idea superfluous?
21:56:20 [m3mSEA]
jt: This came from developer members of the group, who felt we couldn't come up with rules that were as good as theirs.
21:59:36 [m3mSEA]
mm: I don't know where we can draw a line for this.
22:00:02 [m3mSEA]
jt: We have objective measures in success criteria, but it's hard to have all cases in there.
22:00:20 [m3mSEA]
mm: Also hard to ensure that all usability tests will cover everything.
22:02:08 [m3mSEA]
zakim, close this agendum
22:02:08 [Zakim]
agendum 2 closed
22:02:09 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
22:02:10 [Zakim]
3. Further guideline prep for TR [from m3mSEA]
22:02:11 [m3mSEA]
zakim, take up agendum 4
22:02:11 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "charter revisions" taken up [from m3mSEA]
22:03:24 [m3mSEA]
mm: I'll put out a new draft charter today or tomorrow.
22:03:40 [m3mSEA]
action mm: New charter draft
22:04:51 [Zakim]
22:04:54 [Zakim]
22:04:55 [Zakim]
22:04:56 [Zakim]
22:04:57 [Zakim]
22:04:57 [Zakim]
22:04:58 [Zakim]
WAI_AUWG()4:00PM has ended
22:04:59 [Zakim]
Attendees were Matt, Karen, Barry, Kip, Treviranus, Greg_Pisocky
22:05:03 [m3mSEA]
zakim, bye
22:05:03 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #au
22:05:06 [m3mSEA]
rrsagent, bye
22:05:06 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items:
22:05:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jutta work on definition of Authoring Tool Interface (state) [1]
22:05:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:05:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: mm to New charter draft [2]
22:05:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in