21:00:37 RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag 21:00:37 MattSEA has joined #wai-wcag 21:00:47 Hi Wendy and MAtt 21:00:48 zakim, who's on the phone? 21:00:48 On the phone I see Dave_MacDonald, Yvette_Hoitink, ??P3, Wendy, Matt 21:00:52 Hi everyone 21:00:57 zakim, ??P3 is Bengt 21:00:57 +Bengt; got it 21:01:03 hello yvette 21:01:19 nabe has joined #wai-wcag 21:01:29 +??P5 21:01:32 hello watanabe-san! 21:01:38 +John_Slatin 21:01:47 zakim, ??P5 is Roberto_Costaldo 21:01:47 +Roberto_Costaldo; got it 21:01:48 chaalsMEL has joined #wai-wcag 21:02:08 good morning Wendy and everyone 21:02:19 morning all 21:02:23 good evening nabe :-) 21:02:31 evening chaals 21:02:34 zakim, mute me 21:02:34 Bengt should now be muted 21:02:49 zakim, who's making noise? 21:02:49 zakim, who's making noise? 21:02:54 +[IBM] 21:02:59 MattSEA, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Dave_MacDonald (19%), Yvette_Hoitink (14%), Roberto_Costaldo (93%), John_Slatin (20%), Wendy (10%) 21:03:05 +??P10 21:03:13 wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Dave_MacDonald (14%), Yvette_Hoitink (16%), Roberto_Costaldo (58%), John_Slatin (8%), [IBM] (17%), Wendy (41%) 21:03:14 zakim, ??P10 is Lisa_Seeman 21:03:16 +Lisa_Seeman; got it 21:03:21 +Ray_Whitmer 21:03:27 zakim, Roberto_Costaldo is really Roberto_Castaldo 21:03:27 +Roberto_Castaldo; got it 21:03:46 zakim, I am Yvette_Hoitink 21:03:46 ok, Yvette, I now associate you with Yvette_Hoitink 21:03:49 +??P12 21:03:59 zakim, ??P12 is CMN 21:04:00 I already had ??P12 as chaalsMEL, wendy 21:04:01 +??P13 21:04:29 -??P13 21:04:46 hi charles 21:04:57 ben has joined #wai-wcag 21:05:26 +??P15 21:05:36 info is lagging 21:06:16 +Shadi 21:06:22 +[Microsoft] 21:06:25 +??P18 21:06:29 shadi has joined #wai-wcag 21:06:38 zakim, ??P18 is Ben-and-Gregg 21:06:38 +Ben-and-Gregg; got it 21:06:55 nabe has left #wai-wcag 21:07:11 nabe has joined #wai-wcag 21:07:35 +Paul_Bohman 21:07:42 why not nordwijk ... 21:08:03 nabe has left #wai-wcag 21:08:40 nabe has joined #wai-wcag 21:08:46 + +1.206.412.aaaa 21:09:05 fine by me 21:09:16 noordwijk, the Netherlands you mean? 21:09:20 zakim, +1.206.412.aaaa is Greg_Lowney 21:09:20 +Greg_Lowney; got it 21:09:30 yeah where the space exhibition is 21:11:06 === 21:11:08 conformance 21:11:22 bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag 21:12:40 zakim, who's on the phone? 21:12:40 On the phone I see Dave_MacDonald, Yvette_Hoitink, Bengt (muted), Wendy, Matt, Roberto_Castaldo, John_Slatin, [IBM], Lisa_Seeman, Ray_Whitmer, chaalsMEL, ??P15, Shadi, [Microsoft], 21:12:43 ... Ben-and-Gregg, Paul_Bohman, Greg_Lowney 21:12:55 Watanabe-san - are you on the phone? (are you ??P15?) 21:13:36 Yes, I'm on the phone and listing. 21:13:43 ok. thank you. 21:14:11 zakim, ??P15 is Takayuki_Watanabe 21:14:11 +Takayuki_Watanabe; got it 21:14:34 zakim, who's making noise? 21:14:47 wendy, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Yvette_Hoitink (13%), Roberto_Castaldo (17%), John_Slatin (4%), chaalsMEL (12%), Ben-and-Gregg (75%) 21:14:55 zakim, mute me 21:14:55 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 21:15:46 ack Lisa 21:16:30 we're convinced something is in the wrong criteria level, we can reflect that change. 21:16:46 s/we're/if we're/ 21:16:51 ack Dave 21:16:57 GVAN has joined #wai-wcag 21:17:28 at f2f, kerstin brought up idea of levels and not being priorities. she had a hard time communicating the definitions of levels. 21:17:33 even though documented well. 21:18:22 SIDAR has a spanish discussion group. feeling that we should stop assigning levels and priorities. 21:18:34 wait until we have checkpoints and requirements correct. 21:18:46 we spend a lot of time arguing about priorities w/out having a good overall picture. 21:18:55 ack john 21:19:02 hand up 21:19:18 john took an action item to rewrite the front matter, including conformance, once it is nailed down. 21:19:22 +Katie_Haritos-Shea 21:19:28 +JasonWhite 21:19:32 q+ to say "free speech issue hard to sell in Netherlands" 21:19:48 ack yvette 21:19:48 zakim, unmute me 21:19:49 Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "free speech issue hard to sell in Netherlands" 21:19:51 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 21:20:22 diff between level 1 and level 2 is free speech issues. in NL we say "level 1 should be what matters most to accessibility" 21:20:37 "free speech" is an American concern 21:20:37 [SIDAR agrees with Yvette's point] 21:20:54 ack gvan 21:21:13 how many levels? without what goes into which ones 21:21:48 q+ to say "diff between how we define vs how we explain" 21:22:54 ack wendy 21:22:54 wendy, you wanted to say "diff between how we define vs how we explain" 21:27:20 we don't have to use strict v/i for level 1. we have some complicated detail rules for how we sort them, but could describe effect. 21:27:54 ack lisa 21:28:28 almost everything in wcag can be done through metadata, then no issue w/freedom of speech. 21:29:20 there are things only in level 3 that will effect more people than entire level 1 put together. 21:29:30 zakim, mute me 21:29:30 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 21:29:34 so, in terms of largest possible audience. that's not right. it's a question of burden. 21:29:42 silvia has joined #wai-wcag 21:29:57 ack chaals 21:29:59 hand up 21:30:02 Hi silvia 21:30:05 Hi all! 21:30:12 q+ to say "effectivity of a guideline depends on two things" 21:30:30 solve flicker with metadata that doesn't impinge on presentation? 21:30:51 people often take prioritization as rough guide, but then look at what can do in 6 months vs next year. 21:30:56 and building dev plan 21:31:07 any priority scheme is probably going to be a rough guide. 21:31:49 q+ 21:31:54 recognize that people will do partial conformance 21:32:24 2.3 http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-20040311/#flicker 21:32:25 +??P24 21:32:56 ack GVAN 21:32:59 means that using metadata, the author did something so that hte user would have a tool that detects that the content could cause PSE 21:33:15 web architecture - anything can link to anything 21:33:23 author who links to is responsible for the warning 21:33:26 zakim, unmute me 21:33:26 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 21:33:38 zakim, who's making noise? 21:33:51 wendy, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: Katie_Haritos-Shea (32%) 21:33:58 zakim, mute Katie 21:33:58 Katie_Haritos-Shea should now be muted 21:34:09 zakim, unmute Katie 21:34:09 Katie_Haritos-Shea should no longer be muted 21:34:45 separate priority and timeline into different dimensions. 21:35:14 when talking about conformance, don't think we should call them "priority" because people use the word differently. 21:35:19 q? 21:35:25 ack yvette 21:35:25 Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "effectivity of a guideline depends on two things" 21:36:05 DoyleB has joined #wai-wcag 21:36:11 if person links to material that might cause PSE, I don't want to check it everyday if I link to it. 21:36:34 no, there is metadta on the page and that should be enough. 21:36:41 you can't circumvent someone else's metadata. 21:37:01 if someone changes their video, and it does become dangerous, i won't know about it unless i check that link every day. 21:37:14 how do i deal with conformance if i link to changing material? 21:37:22 @@issue. putting aside for now. 21:38:01 effectiveness of a guideline depends on 2 things: 1 how much does the accessiblity increase if the gudieline is followed 2 how many people will implement the guideline 21:38:08 some of wcag 1.0 are so restrictive, they don't do them 21:39:27 proposal - level 1: easy to do, help accessiblity... 21:39:34 ack matt 21:39:47 zakim, mute me 21:39:47 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 21:39:52 q+ 21:40:33 many of level 1 things are "binary" in that if the informaiton is not provided, access is not possible. 21:40:53 as we move into some of the level 3, it is less binary and more difficult to determine if access is increased 21:41:25 our credibility goes down when we create high-priority guidelines that people can't see an immediate effect 21:41:29 ack lisa 21:41:53 linking to content and responsiblity - it's tricky. 21:42:27 q+ to say, "issues with data aggregation. 'it's the distributor that gets sued for janet, not janet' 21:43:21 not convinced that 2.3 can be met via metadata 21:45:53 priority depends on context. e.g., alt-text might be high priority on a top page and lower priority on a child page 21:46:39 when repairing a site, tend to prioritize based on how accessed a page is 21:46:59 when call something "easy" have a chicken/egg issue, in tht technology can make things easier 21:48:16 zakim, give each speaker 2 minutes 21:48:16 ok, wendy 21:48:42 ack chaals 21:48:43 chaalsMEL, you wanted to talk about the problems with defining easy 21:48:48 q- 21:48:54 bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag 21:49:03 SIDAR concerned that WCAG *not* define what is "easy" since that changes. 21:49:19 priorities are a rough guide 21:49:27 zakim, mute me 21:49:27 Yvette_Hoitink was already muted, Yvette 21:49:40 in order to determine if something is easy - are there examples and techniques? 21:50:06 if no testing guide, then those things that we think are simple can in fact be difficult 21:50:09 q? 21:50:17 ack gvan 21:50:51 almost every guideline that applies to blindness, also applies to other disabilities. we have some level 1 cognitive guidelines 21:50:54 q+ 21:51:06 level 1 - technology cna make it accessible 21:51:22 should differentiate between linking ot and incorporating within content 21:52:12 ack john 21:52:31 in the current draft, we do not talk abouyt priorities. we talk about levels. 21:52:52 levels are defined according to what can be done w/out setting limits on default visual presentation 21:53:15 off line for one minute be right back 21:53:17 priorities, in the sense of wcag 1.0, is not used here 21:53:23 q? 21:53:31 ack matt 21:53:39 [CMN notes that any kind of numbering scheme will be interepreted as priorities] 21:53:58 ack lisa 21:54:12 agree with Charles 21:54:23 i m back 21:54:35 can we standardize use of metadata? not everyone will agree about. controversial. 21:55:00 if we don't standardize, how would a user agent watch for a flag to warn? 21:55:09 warning - for epilepsy - yes, we'd have to standarize. 21:55:20 for others, have to direct users to a resource that will generate content accessibly. 21:55:54 when metadata is used to flag/indicate that something is not accessible, need standard/special tool would have to understand 21:56:19 pose question: are we looking at 2 or 3 levels? 21:56:20 zakim, unmute me 21:56:20 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 21:56:38 ack dave 21:57:03 dave: 3 levels (like olympics - common mechanisms 21:57:04 ack jason 21:57:05 q+ 21:57:24 will depend on if we allow intermediate conformance claim (partial conformance) 21:57:36 q+ to say "I like 3 but can't decide until dimension is clear" 21:57:51 if we don't, then unlikely that level 2 will be completely implemented. 21:58:03 ack gvan 21:58:22 if we load up 2 too heavily, no one will meet it and people will stop at 1 21:58:24 ack IBM 21:58:30 ack [IBM] 21:58:39 zakim, [IBM] is Andi 21:58:39 +Andi; got it 21:59:14 in interest of harmonizing standards worldwide, less levels less can be twisted. level 3 don't apply to all sites. in favor of removing 3. 21:59:34 no problem with providing that conformance, but should not be part of conformance. 21:59:43 s/that conformance/that guidance 22:00:12 2 questions: 1. shold we have 2 or 3 levels 2. should we move current level 3 to gateway 22:00:13 q? 22:00:14 ack yvette 22:00:14 Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "I like 3 but can't decide until dimension is clear" 22:00:29 like 3 levels, but should first decide the dimensions 22:00:58 depends on the criteria that we use to define the levels 22:01:28 q+ to say "results of straw poll from f2f" 22:01:50 zakim, stop timing 22:01:50 ok, wendy 22:02:58 what's a straw poll? 22:03:34 a straw poll i smore or less an unofficial vote 22:03:45 ok, thx 22:03:49 [yvette, a straw poll is a quick call for an unofficial (non-binding) vote. People present give a rough indication...] 22:05:52 q+ to say "currently, level 3 has both items that have a very specific audience and items that are just harder to do" 22:06:25 zakim, ??P24 is Kerstin 22:06:25 +Kerstin; got it 22:06:46 zakim, begin timing 22:06:46 I don't understand 'begin timing', wendy 22:06:52 zakim, resume timing 22:06:52 I don't understand 'resume timing', wendy 22:06:59 zakim, give each speaker 2 minutes 22:06:59 ok, wendy 22:07:02 q? 22:07:05 ack wendy 22:07:05 wendy, you wanted to say "results of straw poll from f2f" 22:07:07 ack yvette 22:07:07 Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "currently, level 3 has both items that have a very specific audience and items that are just harder to do" 22:07:19 like idea of removing some items to another document 22:07:30 ack lisa 22:07:51 if we go to 2 levels, imply some level 3 items move out. not acceptable to some. 22:07:55 ack P24 22:07:59 ack ??P24 22:08:17 zakim, mute me 22:08:17 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 22:09:10 important to ask the question - talk about 2 vs 3 are we talking about collapsing? 22:09:11 zakim, unmute me 22:09:11 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 22:09:23 ack katie 22:09:31 Q+ 22:10:19 khs: I liked Yvette's idea of turning it to 2 levels. Looking at broadest audience we can reach. For policymakers, 2 levels is easier. Not to say level 3 is less important. 22:10:25 q+ 22:10:28 ack chaalsMEL 22:10:29 chaalsMEL, you wanted to point out you can't stop people making partial conformance claims. You can help them to do it in a standardised way. 22:10:33 zakim, mute me 22:10:33 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 22:10:57 cmn: You can't prevent people from making partial conformance claims. You can help them to do it well. 22:11:23 systems designed so can use fluid conformance schemes. 22:11:39 q? 22:11:48 question isn't for all tiem, but next working draft 22:11:49 ack dave 22:12:28 we didn't define if we were going to take guidelines off table or combining them (at the f2f) 22:12:38 CMN Sidar's position is that this argument is distracting from more important work of getting the details of requirements nailed down, which is necessary before prioritising / assigning level / ... 22:13:09 ack gvan 22:13:34 support 3 levels. if collapse 2 and 3 into a single level, 2 will have so much in it, it will be too difficult to do and no one will do it. 22:14:22 or things will move from level 2 to level 1, making level 1 harder to achieve 22:15:12 ack matt 22:15:20 q+ 22:15:26 q_ 22:15:31 q? 22:16:00 never considered reducing to 2 levels to being combining. any one who claims level 3 for complex content doesn't actually meet level 3 22:16:06 many w3c docs have optional portions. 22:16:17 we don't have to move them to another document, we could leave in the document. 22:16:31 q+ 22:16:34 leave level 1 and 2 as is. create 2 actionable levels. 22:17:02 2 levels of conformance and list of other things can do (does not effect conformance) 22:17:21 q? 22:17:24 ack john 22:17:28 q- 22:17:42 ack john 22:18:12 q+ 22:18:22 if go with 2 levels, the language stuff is important, and might disappear in a 2 level scheme. 22:18:41 not satisfied that express it as a tsetable criterion, but want to keep working towards that. 22:18:43 ack jason 22:19:06 against removing items in level 3 22:19:16 it would remove them from consideration for a number of people 22:19:40 people will likely want to make intermediate conformance claims, but perhaps discuss how best support rather than allow or not. 22:19:55 prehaps have 2 level scheme, 3rd level reported in conformance scheme or metadata or something. 22:20:09 there are alternatives to having 3 levels 22:20:27 q+ 22:21:06 split conformance human form vs what said in metadata? don't confuse those issues. 22:21:09 ack chaals 22:21:10 chaalsMEL, you wanted to argue for high level of conformance 22:21:14 CMN I haven't seena lot of triple-A stuff (certainly nothing that is a large complex site) but I ahve seen poeple working towards it with credible development plans. Having people arguing against it as a realistic goal to set makes it hard to sell to clients, which is counter-productive - people can go to different lengths to improve accessibility and we should be helping the few who are trying to go "the full nine yards". Having stuff outside a main docume 22:22:20 q? 22:22:45 what we really mean: if you want to go the full 9 yards.... 22:22:58 calling AAA hard to do is a diservice to the items in AAA 22:23:07 zakim, who is here? 22:23:07 On the phone I see Dave_MacDonald, Yvette_Hoitink (muted), Bengt (muted), Wendy, Matt, Roberto_Castaldo, John_Slatin, Andi, Lisa_Seeman, Ray_Whitmer, chaalsMEL, Takayuki_Watanabe, 22:23:10 ... Shadi, [Microsoft], Ben-and-Gregg, Paul_Bohman, Greg_Lowney, Katie_Haritos-Shea, JasonWhite, Kerstin 22:23:12 On IRC I see bcaldwell, DoyleB, silvia, GVAN, nabe, shadi, chaalsMEL, MattSEA, RRSAgent, wendy, rcastaldo, Yvette, Zakim, bengt 22:23:14 instead, A are really important. "here's where we'd like you to get" 22:23:38 no matter the scheme, people will read, "must should may" 22:23:42 i.e., will read as priorities 22:23:48 ack doyle 22:23:55 q+ to say "use words instead of numbers, for example minimal, basic, advanced" 22:24:11 q+ 22:24:15 no one has said that level 3 are not important, but lokoing at creative ways to deal with those items 22:24:46 for many sites, level 3 might not come into play. don't think anyone said, "throw out" but perhaps go somewhere else like gateway. 22:25:04 personally, rather see 2, but if use 3 more people more likely to go for 2. if have 2, maybe people only go with 1. 22:25:15 ack bcaldwell 22:25:20 q- 22:25:55 like idea of leaving level 3 in as optional. 22:25:57 q+ 22:26:15 don't think of 2 vs 3 and plus conformance scheme are separate issues. 22:26:37 + conf claim should be an option. if not, then define a conformance scheme that has 3 attainable levels wth current scheme. 22:26:47 ack matt 22:27:14 metadata andconformance - idea a while ago that said n levels of conformance. 22:27:19 matt - can you provide uri? 22:28:16 URI: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JanMar/0422.html 22:28:20 in a lot of cases, AAA is hard. when we deal with metadata, advocates and status-seekers will do it. "average" pepole will not. 22:28:27 ack rcastaldo 22:28:48 3 levels - try not to make things too different from wcag 1.0. 22:28:50 action CMN: propose mechanism for metadata-based, profile-based conformance that can be used compatibly with WCAG conformance, whatever that ends up like. 22:29:08 don't enlarge gap between wcag 1.0 and 2.0. speaking as developer and teacher. 22:29:30 concerned about the gap that people will perceive. 22:29:55 concern that our credibility when people perceive that we are completely changing our minds. 22:30:09 group should give sense of continuity. it is important for policy makers. 22:30:23 our new law is based on wcag 1.0. 22:30:38 what will happen when wcag 2.0 is a recommendation and have a different definition of level? 22:30:47 I note that policymakers aren't specifying AAA or level 3 anyway. 22:30:47 q? 22:30:53 ack lisa 22:31:11 AAA is attainable with good support of techniques. 22:31:19 in germany, for many sites AAA is law. 22:31:32 navigational pages - level 3 22:32:00 the issue with level 3 is langugae and learning disabilities. some governments will want level 3 (for language issues). 22:32:03 Matt: I see more and more WCAG 1 levels appearing in project descriptions from my clients (Dutch government) 22:32:12 (to Matt I mean) 22:32:22 EUropean Parliament is trying to enforce its members to get AA conformance on Public web sites 22:32:24 is the goal a document that is easy for policy makers to adopt or is it to make content accessible? 22:32:38 removing items from conformance scheme, will discourage people to address particular issues. 22:32:41 q? 22:32:42 ack gvan 22:33:06 if we have 2 levels, people are likely to do only 1. 22:33:19 with 2 levels, not much granularity 22:33:24 agree 22:33:34 if sites can be more accessible, we should encourage them to be. 22:33:48 german example, picking pages that are more important, is good. 22:34:05 q? 22:34:34 if don't define specific sets, they won't have meaning. it's nice to have +, but no one can require that you do a + 22:34:47 ack dave 22:35:10 didn't realize there are some w3c docs that have optional informaitn. 22:35:43 they are profiles. ala svg tiny 22:35:52 zakim, stop timing 22:35:52 ok, wendy 22:36:17 comparing a technical standard to a guideline is apples and oranges 22:36:17 Let's be sure people know levels two and three are optional, if that's the case. 22:36:57 problem is with legislation. if included in conformance may not be so "optional" 22:37:28 do we have consensus? 22:37:35 zakim, unmute me 22:37:35 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 22:37:48 zakim, who's on the phone? 22:37:48 On the phone I see Dave_MacDonald, Yvette_Hoitink, Bengt (muted), Wendy, Matt, Roberto_Castaldo, John_Slatin, Andi, Lisa_Seeman, Ray_Whitmer, chaalsMEL (muted), Takayuki_Watanabe, 22:37:51 ... Shadi, [Microsoft], Ben-and-Gregg, Paul_Bohman, Greg_Lowney, Katie_Haritos-Shea, JasonWhite, Kerstin 22:38:32 dave - 3 levels, can live with 2 levels w/optional 3rd 22:38:45 don't want to drop stuff off 22:39:00 I am not now showing up on the phone list from IRC 22:39:04 gregg's taking notes. i'll stop minuting. 22:39:15 bengt - 3 levels 22:39:19 yvette agrees w/dave 22:39:49 matt - 2 lelves w/3rd optional 22:40:11 roberto - 3 levels 22:40:31 john - 3 levles. can live w/2 if nothing comes off the table 22:41:01 2 levels that include everything that is currently in 1,2,3 22:41:17 CMN 3 levels. Against another scheme. Strongly against taking stuff to another document or off the table 22:41:37 andi - 2 levels (current definition, w/level 3 being optional. can't live with level 3 collapsing into level 2.) 22:41:54 lisa - 3. ok with 2 that include everythitn from 1,2,3 22:41:55 (CMN speaking for Sidar) 22:42:00 can't live with making level 3 optional 22:42:33 doyle - 2 levels unless state it well that 2 and 3 are optional. don't want anything to go off the table. similar to andi. 22:44:42 q+ takayuki, shadi, mike, ben, gregg, paul, greg, katie, jason, kerstin 22:44:51 ack takayuki 22:45:04 can live with 3 levels 22:45:16 ack shadi 22:45:33 prefer 3 levels. ok w/3rd being optional. don't want to drop anything. 22:45:35 ack mike 22:46:32 happy with 3. ok to collapse with 2, but if not required, should not be there 22:46:33 ack ben 22:46:46 -Bengt 22:46:49 lean toward 3. could live with 2 collapsed, but advoate for + levels if do that. 22:46:57