IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-03-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

21:00:37 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
21:00:37 [MattSEA]
MattSEA has joined #wai-wcag
21:00:47 [rcastaldo]
Hi Wendy and MAtt
21:00:48 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
21:00:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Dave_MacDonald, Yvette_Hoitink, ??P3, Wendy, Matt
21:00:52 [Yvette]
Hi everyone
21:00:57 [wendy]
zakim, ??P3 is Bengt
21:00:57 [Zakim]
+Bengt; got it
21:01:03 [wendy]
hello yvette
21:01:19 [nabe]
nabe has joined #wai-wcag
21:01:29 [Zakim]
21:01:32 [wendy]
hello watanabe-san!
21:01:38 [Zakim]
21:01:47 [wendy]
zakim, ??P5 is Roberto_Costaldo
21:01:47 [Zakim]
+Roberto_Costaldo; got it
21:01:48 [chaalsMEL]
chaalsMEL has joined #wai-wcag
21:02:08 [nabe]
good morning Wendy and everyone
21:02:19 [chaalsMEL]
morning all
21:02:23 [Yvette]
good evening nabe :-)
21:02:31 [Yvette]
evening chaals
21:02:34 [bengt]
zakim, mute me
21:02:34 [Zakim]
Bengt should now be muted
21:02:49 [MattSEA]
zakim, who's making noise?
21:02:49 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
21:02:54 [Zakim]
21:02:59 [Zakim]
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 [Zakim]
21:03:13 [Zakim]
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 [wendy]
zakim, ??P10 is Lisa_Seeman
21:03:16 [Zakim]
+Lisa_Seeman; got it
21:03:21 [Zakim]
21:03:27 [MattSEA]
zakim, Roberto_Costaldo is really Roberto_Castaldo
21:03:27 [Zakim]
+Roberto_Castaldo; got it
21:03:46 [Yvette]
zakim, I am Yvette_Hoitink
21:03:46 [Zakim]
ok, Yvette, I now associate you with Yvette_Hoitink
21:03:49 [Zakim]
21:03:59 [wendy]
zakim, ??P12 is CMN
21:04:00 [Zakim]
I already had ??P12 as chaalsMEL, wendy
21:04:01 [Zakim]
21:04:29 [Zakim]
21:04:46 [bengt]
hi charles
21:04:57 [ben]
ben has joined #wai-wcag
21:05:26 [Zakim]
21:05:36 [bengt]
info is lagging
21:06:16 [Zakim]
21:06:22 [Zakim]
21:06:25 [Zakim]
21:06:29 [shadi]
shadi has joined #wai-wcag
21:06:38 [wendy]
zakim, ??P18 is Ben-and-Gregg
21:06:38 [Zakim]
+Ben-and-Gregg; got it
21:06:55 [nabe]
nabe has left #wai-wcag
21:07:11 [nabe]
nabe has joined #wai-wcag
21:07:35 [Zakim]
21:07:42 [bengt]
why not nordwijk ...
21:08:03 [nabe]
nabe has left #wai-wcag
21:08:40 [nabe]
nabe has joined #wai-wcag
21:08:46 [Zakim]
+ +1.206.412.aaaa
21:09:05 [Yvette]
fine by me
21:09:16 [Yvette]
noordwijk, the Netherlands you mean?
21:09:20 [wendy]
zakim, +1.206.412.aaaa is Greg_Lowney
21:09:20 [Zakim]
+Greg_Lowney; got it
21:09:30 [bengt]
yeah where the space exhibition is
21:11:06 [wendy]
21:11:08 [wendy]
21:11:22 [bcaldwell]
bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
21:12:40 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
21:12:40 [Zakim]
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 [Zakim]
... Ben-and-Gregg, Paul_Bohman, Greg_Lowney
21:12:55 [wendy]
Watanabe-san - are you on the phone? (are you ??P15?)
21:13:36 [nabe]
Yes, I'm on the phone and listing.
21:13:43 [wendy]
ok. thank you.
21:14:11 [wendy]
zakim, ??P15 is Takayuki_Watanabe
21:14:11 [Zakim]
+Takayuki_Watanabe; got it
21:14:34 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
21:14:47 [Zakim]
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 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
21:14:55 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:15:46 [wendy]
ack Lisa
21:16:30 [wendy]
we're convinced something is in the wrong criteria level, we can reflect that change.
21:16:46 [chaalsMEL]
s/we're/if we're/
21:16:51 [wendy]
ack Dave
21:16:57 [GVAN]
GVAN has joined #wai-wcag
21:17:28 [wendy]
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 [wendy]
even though documented well.
21:18:22 [wendy]
SIDAR has a spanish discussion group. feeling that we should stop assigning levels and priorities.
21:18:34 [wendy]
wait until we have checkpoints and requirements correct.
21:18:46 [wendy]
we spend a lot of time arguing about priorities w/out having a good overall picture.
21:18:55 [wendy]
ack john
21:19:02 [GVAN]
hand up
21:19:18 [wendy]
john took an action item to rewrite the front matter, including conformance, once it is nailed down.
21:19:22 [Zakim]
21:19:28 [Zakim]
21:19:32 [Yvette]
q+ to say "free speech issue hard to sell in Netherlands"
21:19:48 [wendy]
ack yvette
21:19:48 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
21:19:49 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "free speech issue hard to sell in Netherlands"
21:19:51 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
21:20:22 [wendy]
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 [wendy]
"free speech" is an American concern
21:20:37 [chaalsMEL]
[SIDAR agrees with Yvette's point]
21:20:54 [wendy]
ack gvan
21:21:13 [wendy]
how many levels? without what goes into which ones
21:21:48 [wendy]
q+ to say "diff between how we define vs how we explain"
21:22:54 [wendy]
ack wendy
21:22:54 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say "diff between how we define vs how we explain"
21:27:20 [wendy]
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 [wendy]
ack lisa
21:28:28 [wendy]
almost everything in wcag can be done through metadata, then no issue w/freedom of speech.
21:29:20 [wendy]
there are things only in level 3 that will effect more people than entire level 1 put together.
21:29:30 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
21:29:30 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:29:34 [wendy]
so, in terms of largest possible audience. that's not right. it's a question of burden.
21:29:42 [silvia]
silvia has joined #wai-wcag
21:29:57 [wendy]
ack chaals
21:29:59 [GVAN]
hand up
21:30:02 [rcastaldo]
Hi silvia
21:30:05 [silvia]
Hi all!
21:30:12 [Yvette]
q+ to say "effectivity of a guideline depends on two things"
21:30:30 [wendy]
solve flicker with metadata that doesn't impinge on presentation?
21:30:51 [wendy]
people often take prioritization as rough guide, but then look at what can do in 6 months vs next year.
21:30:56 [wendy]
and building dev plan
21:31:07 [wendy]
any priority scheme is probably going to be a rough guide.
21:31:49 [MattSEA]
21:31:54 [wendy]
recognize that people will do partial conformance
21:32:24 [wendy]
21:32:25 [Zakim]
21:32:56 [bcaldwell]
ack GVAN
21:32:59 [wendy]
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 [wendy]
web architecture - anything can link to anything
21:33:23 [wendy]
author who links to is responsible for the warning
21:33:26 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
21:33:26 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
21:33:38 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
21:33:51 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: Katie_Haritos-Shea (32%)
21:33:58 [wendy]
zakim, mute Katie
21:33:58 [Zakim]
Katie_Haritos-Shea should now be muted
21:34:09 [wendy]
zakim, unmute Katie
21:34:09 [Zakim]
Katie_Haritos-Shea should no longer be muted
21:34:45 [wendy]
separate priority and timeline into different dimensions.
21:35:14 [wendy]
when talking about conformance, don't think we should call them "priority" because people use the word differently.
21:35:19 [wendy]
21:35:25 [wendy]
ack yvette
21:35:25 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "effectivity of a guideline depends on two things"
21:36:05 [DoyleB]
DoyleB has joined #wai-wcag
21:36:11 [wendy]
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 [wendy]
no, there is metadta on the page and that should be enough.
21:36:41 [wendy]
you can't circumvent someone else's metadata.
21:37:01 [wendy]
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 [wendy]
how do i deal with conformance if i link to changing material?
21:37:22 [wendy]
@@issue. putting aside for now.
21:38:01 [wendy]
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 [wendy]
some of wcag 1.0 are so restrictive, they don't do them
21:39:27 [wendy]
proposal - level 1: easy to do, help accessiblity...
21:39:34 [wendy]
ack matt
21:39:47 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
21:39:47 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:39:52 [GVAN]
21:40:33 [wendy]
many of level 1 things are "binary" in that if the informaiton is not provided, access is not possible.
21:40:53 [wendy]
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 [wendy]
our credibility goes down when we create high-priority guidelines that people can't see an immediate effect
21:41:29 [wendy]
ack lisa
21:41:53 [wendy]
linking to content and responsiblity - it's tricky.
21:42:27 [wendy]
q+ to say, "issues with data aggregation. 'it's the distributor that gets sued for janet, not janet'
21:43:21 [wendy]
not convinced that 2.3 can be met via metadata
21:45:53 [wendy]
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 [wendy]
when repairing a site, tend to prioritize based on how accessed a page is
21:46:59 [wendy]
when call something "easy" have a chicken/egg issue, in tht technology can make things easier
21:48:16 [wendy]
zakim, give each speaker 2 minutes
21:48:16 [Zakim]
ok, wendy
21:48:42 [wendy]
ack chaals
21:48:43 [Zakim]
chaalsMEL, you wanted to talk about the problems with defining easy
21:48:48 [wendy]
21:48:54 [bcaldwell]
bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
21:49:03 [wendy]
SIDAR concerned that WCAG *not* define what is "easy" since that changes.
21:49:19 [wendy]
priorities are a rough guide
21:49:27 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
21:49:27 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink was already muted, Yvette
21:49:40 [wendy]
in order to determine if something is easy - are there examples and techniques?
21:50:06 [wendy]
if no testing guide, then those things that we think are simple can in fact be difficult
21:50:09 [wendy]
21:50:17 [wendy]
ack gvan
21:50:51 [wendy]
almost every guideline that applies to blindness, also applies to other disabilities. we have some level 1 cognitive guidelines
21:50:54 [MattSEA]
21:51:06 [wendy]
level 1 - technology cna make it accessible
21:51:22 [wendy]
should differentiate between linking ot and incorporating within content
21:52:12 [wendy]
ack john
21:52:31 [wendy]
in the current draft, we do not talk abouyt priorities. we talk about levels.
21:52:52 [wendy]
levels are defined according to what can be done w/out setting limits on default visual presentation
21:53:15 [DoyleB]
off line for one minute be right back
21:53:17 [wendy]
priorities, in the sense of wcag 1.0, is not used here
21:53:23 [wendy]
21:53:31 [wendy]
ack matt
21:53:39 [chaalsMEL]
[CMN notes that any kind of numbering scheme will be interepreted as priorities]
21:53:58 [wendy]
ack lisa
21:54:12 [rcastaldo]
agree with Charles
21:54:23 [DoyleB]
i m back
21:54:35 [wendy]
can we standardize use of metadata? not everyone will agree about. controversial.
21:55:00 [wendy]
if we don't standardize, how would a user agent watch for a flag to warn?
21:55:09 [wendy]
warning - for epilepsy - yes, we'd have to standarize.
21:55:20 [wendy]
for others, have to direct users to a resource that will generate content accessibly.
21:55:54 [wendy]
when metadata is used to flag/indicate that something is not accessible, need standard/special tool would have to understand
21:56:19 [wendy]
pose question: are we looking at 2 or 3 levels?
21:56:20 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
21:56:20 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
21:56:38 [wendy]
ack dave
21:57:03 [wendy]
dave: 3 levels (like olympics - common mechanisms
21:57:04 [wendy]
ack jason
21:57:05 [GVAN]
21:57:24 [wendy]
will depend on if we allow intermediate conformance claim (partial conformance)
21:57:36 [Yvette]
q+ to say "I like 3 but can't decide until dimension is clear"
21:57:51 [wendy]
if we don't, then unlikely that level 2 will be completely implemented.
21:58:03 [wendy]
ack gvan
21:58:22 [wendy]
if we load up 2 too heavily, no one will meet it and people will stop at 1
21:58:24 [wendy]
ack IBM
21:58:30 [wendy]
ack [IBM]
21:58:39 [bcaldwell]
zakim, [IBM] is Andi
21:58:39 [Zakim]
+Andi; got it
21:59:14 [wendy]
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 [wendy]
no problem with providing that conformance, but should not be part of conformance.
21:59:43 [wendy]
s/that conformance/that guidance
22:00:12 [wendy]
2 questions: 1. shold we have 2 or 3 levels 2. should we move current level 3 to gateway
22:00:13 [GVAN]
22:00:14 [wendy]
ack yvette
22:00:14 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "I like 3 but can't decide until dimension is clear"
22:00:29 [wendy]
like 3 levels, but should first decide the dimensions
22:00:58 [wendy]
depends on the criteria that we use to define the levels
22:01:28 [wendy]
q+ to say "results of straw poll from f2f"
22:01:50 [wendy]
zakim, stop timing
22:01:50 [Zakim]
ok, wendy
22:02:58 [Yvette]
what's a straw poll?
22:03:34 [DoyleB]
a straw poll i smore or less an unofficial vote
22:03:45 [Yvette]
ok, thx
22:03:49 [chaalsMEL]
[yvette, a straw poll is a quick call for an unofficial (non-binding) vote. People present give a rough indication...]
22:05:52 [Yvette]
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 [wendy]
zakim, ??P24 is Kerstin
22:06:25 [Zakim]
+Kerstin; got it
22:06:46 [wendy]
zakim, begin timing
22:06:46 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'begin timing', wendy
22:06:52 [wendy]
zakim, resume timing
22:06:52 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'resume timing', wendy
22:06:59 [wendy]
zakim, give each speaker 2 minutes
22:06:59 [Zakim]
ok, wendy
22:07:02 [wendy]
22:07:05 [wendy]
ack wendy
22:07:05 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say "results of straw poll from f2f"
22:07:07 [wendy]
ack yvette
22:07:07 [Zakim]
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 [wendy]
like idea of removing some items to another document
22:07:30 [wendy]
ack lisa
22:07:51 [wendy]
if we go to 2 levels, imply some level 3 items move out. not acceptable to some.
22:07:55 [wendy]
ack P24
22:07:59 [wendy]
ack ??P24
22:08:17 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
22:08:17 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
22:09:10 [wendy]
important to ask the question - talk about 2 vs 3 are we talking about collapsing?
22:09:11 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
22:09:11 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
22:09:23 [wendy]
ack katie
22:09:31 [GVAN]
22:10:19 [MattSEA]
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 [MattSEA]
22:10:28 [MattSEA]
ack chaalsMEL
22:10:29 [Zakim]
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 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
22:10:33 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
22:10:57 [MattSEA]
cmn: You can't prevent people from making partial conformance claims. You can help them to do it well.
22:11:23 [wendy]
systems designed so can use fluid conformance schemes.
22:11:39 [wendy]
22:11:48 [wendy]
question isn't for all tiem, but next working draft
22:11:49 [wendy]
ack dave
22:12:28 [wendy]
we didn't define if we were going to take guidelines off table or combining them (at the f2f)
22:12:38 [chaalsMEL]
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 [wendy]
ack gvan
22:13:34 [wendy]
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 [wendy]
or things will move from level 2 to level 1, making level 1 harder to achieve
22:15:12 [wendy]
ack matt
22:15:20 [GVAN]
22:15:26 [GVAN]
22:15:31 [GVAN]
22:16:00 [wendy]
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 [wendy]
many w3c docs have optional portions.
22:16:17 [wendy]
we don't have to move them to another document, we could leave in the document.
22:16:31 [DoyleB]
22:16:34 [wendy]
leave level 1 and 2 as is. create 2 actionable levels.
22:17:02 [wendy]
2 levels of conformance and list of other things can do (does not effect conformance)
22:17:21 [wendy]
22:17:24 [wendy]
ack john
22:17:28 [GVAN]
22:17:42 [wendy]
ack john
22:18:12 [bcaldwell]
22:18:22 [wendy]
if go with 2 levels, the language stuff is important, and might disappear in a 2 level scheme.
22:18:41 [wendy]
not satisfied that express it as a tsetable criterion, but want to keep working towards that.
22:18:43 [wendy]
ack jason
22:19:06 [wendy]
against removing items in level 3
22:19:16 [wendy]
it would remove them from consideration for a number of people
22:19:40 [wendy]
people will likely want to make intermediate conformance claims, but perhaps discuss how best support rather than allow or not.
22:19:55 [wendy]
prehaps have 2 level scheme, 3rd level reported in conformance scheme or metadata or something.
22:20:09 [wendy]
there are alternatives to having 3 levels
22:20:27 [MattSEA]
22:21:06 [wendy]
split conformance human form vs what said in metadata? don't confuse those issues.
22:21:09 [wendy]
ack chaals
22:21:10 [Zakim]
chaalsMEL, you wanted to argue for high level of conformance
22:21:14 [chaalsMEL]
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 [GVAN]
22:22:45 [wendy]
what we really mean: if you want to go the full 9 yards....
22:22:58 [wendy]
calling AAA hard to do is a diservice to the items in AAA
22:23:07 [bcaldwell]
zakim, who is here?
22:23:07 [Zakim]
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 [Zakim]
... Shadi, [Microsoft], Ben-and-Gregg, Paul_Bohman, Greg_Lowney, Katie_Haritos-Shea, JasonWhite, Kerstin
22:23:12 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bcaldwell, DoyleB, silvia, GVAN, nabe, shadi, chaalsMEL, MattSEA, RRSAgent, wendy, rcastaldo, Yvette, Zakim, bengt
22:23:14 [wendy]
instead, A are really important. "here's where we'd like you to get"
22:23:38 [wendy]
no matter the scheme, people will read, "must should may"
22:23:42 [wendy]
i.e., will read as priorities
22:23:48 [wendy]
ack doyle
22:23:55 [Yvette]
q+ to say "use words instead of numbers, for example minimal, basic, advanced"
22:24:11 [rcastaldo]
22:24:15 [wendy]
no one has said that level 3 are not important, but lokoing at creative ways to deal with those items
22:24:46 [wendy]
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 [wendy]
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 [wendy]
ack bcaldwell
22:25:20 [Yvette]
22:25:55 [wendy]
like idea of leaving level 3 in as optional.
22:25:57 [GVAN]
22:26:15 [wendy]
don't think of 2 vs 3 and plus conformance scheme are separate issues.
22:26:37 [wendy]
+ conf claim should be an option. if not, then define a conformance scheme that has 3 attainable levels wth current scheme.
22:26:47 [wendy]
ack matt
22:27:14 [wendy]
metadata andconformance - idea a while ago that said n levels of conformance.
22:27:19 [wendy]
matt - can you provide uri?
22:28:16 [Yvette]
22:28:20 [wendy]
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 [wendy]
ack rcastaldo
22:28:48 [wendy]
3 levels - try not to make things too different from wcag 1.0.
22:28:50 [chaalsMEL]
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 [wendy]
don't enlarge gap between wcag 1.0 and 2.0. speaking as developer and teacher.
22:29:30 [wendy]
concerned about the gap that people will perceive.
22:29:55 [wendy]
concern that our credibility when people perceive that we are completely changing our minds.
22:30:09 [wendy]
group should give sense of continuity. it is important for policy makers.
22:30:23 [wendy]
our new law is based on wcag 1.0.
22:30:38 [wendy]
what will happen when wcag 2.0 is a recommendation and have a different definition of level?
22:30:47 [MattSEA]
I note that policymakers aren't specifying AAA or level 3 anyway.
22:30:47 [wendy]
22:30:53 [wendy]
ack lisa
22:31:11 [wendy]
AAA is attainable with good support of techniques.
22:31:19 [wendy]
in germany, for many sites AAA is law.
22:31:32 [wendy]
navigational pages - level 3
22:32:00 [wendy]
the issue with level 3 is langugae and learning disabilities. some governments will want level 3 (for language issues).
22:32:03 [Yvette]
Matt: I see more and more WCAG 1 levels appearing in project descriptions from my clients (Dutch government)
22:32:12 [Yvette]
(to Matt I mean)
22:32:22 [rcastaldo]
EUropean Parliament is trying to enforce its members to get AA conformance on Public web sites
22:32:24 [wendy]
is the goal a document that is easy for policy makers to adopt or is it to make content accessible?
22:32:38 [wendy]
removing items from conformance scheme, will discourage people to address particular issues.
22:32:41 [wendy]
22:32:42 [wendy]
ack gvan
22:33:06 [wendy]
if we have 2 levels, people are likely to do only 1.
22:33:19 [wendy]
with 2 levels, not much granularity
22:33:24 [rcastaldo]
22:33:34 [wendy]
if sites can be more accessible, we should encourage them to be.
22:33:48 [wendy]
german example, picking pages that are more important, is good.
22:34:05 [MattSEA]
22:34:34 [wendy]
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 [wendy]
ack dave
22:35:10 [wendy]
didn't realize there are some w3c docs that have optional informaitn.
22:35:43 [wendy]
they are profiles. ala svg tiny
22:35:52 [wendy]
zakim, stop timing
22:35:52 [Zakim]
ok, wendy
22:36:17 [wendy]
comparing a technical standard to a guideline is apples and oranges
22:36:17 [DoyleB]
Let's be sure people know levels two and three are optional, if that's the case.
22:36:57 [wendy]
problem is with legislation. if included in conformance may not be so "optional"
22:37:28 [wendy]
do we have consensus?
22:37:35 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
22:37:35 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
22:37:48 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
22:37:48 [Zakim]
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 [Zakim]
... Shadi, [Microsoft], Ben-and-Gregg, Paul_Bohman, Greg_Lowney, Katie_Haritos-Shea, JasonWhite, Kerstin
22:38:32 [wendy]
dave - 3 levels, can live with 2 levels w/optional 3rd
22:38:45 [wendy]
don't want to drop stuff off
22:39:00 [DoyleB]
I am not now showing up on the phone list from IRC
22:39:04 [wendy]
gregg's taking notes. i'll stop minuting.
22:39:15 [bengt]
bengt - 3 levels
22:39:19 [wendy]
yvette agrees w/dave
22:39:49 [wendy]
matt - 2 lelves w/3rd optional
22:40:11 [wendy]
roberto - 3 levels
22:40:31 [wendy]
john - 3 levles. can live w/2 if nothing comes off the table
22:41:01 [wendy]
2 levels that include everything that is currently in 1,2,3
22:41:17 [chaalsMEL]
CMN 3 levels. Against another scheme. Strongly against taking stuff to another document or off the table
22:41:37 [wendy]
andi - 2 levels (current definition, w/level 3 being optional. can't live with level 3 collapsing into level 2.)
22:41:54 [wendy]
lisa - 3. ok with 2 that include everythitn from 1,2,3
22:41:55 [chaalsMEL]
(CMN speaking for Sidar)
22:42:00 [wendy]
can't live with making level 3 optional
22:42:33 [wendy]
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 [wendy]
q+ takayuki, shadi, mike, ben, gregg, paul, greg, katie, jason, kerstin
22:44:51 [wendy]
ack takayuki
22:45:04 [wendy]
can live with 3 levels
22:45:16 [wendy]
ack shadi
22:45:33 [wendy]
prefer 3 levels. ok w/3rd being optional. don't want to drop anything.
22:45:35 [wendy]
ack mike
22:46:32 [wendy]
happy with 3. ok to collapse with 2, but if not required, should not be there
22:46:33 [wendy]
ack ben
22:46:46 [Zakim]
22:46:49 [wendy]
lean toward 3. could live with 2 collapsed, but advoate for + levels if do that.
22:46:57 [wendy]
could live with optional, but don't want to see stuff diappear
22:47:00 [wendy]
ack gregg
22:47:44 [wendy]
prefer 3. could live with 2 collapsed. making 3rd optional would be too confusing
22:47:45 [wendy]
ack paul
22:48:01 [wendy]
prefer 2 levels w/optional. could live with 3 levels. don't like collapsing.
22:48:03 [wendy]
ack greg
22:48:34 [wendy]
probably for 3. agree that 3 would be less fundamental change and more people would do 2.
22:48:52 [wendy]
confused about "optional" since 2 and 3 are already optional.
22:49:09 [wendy]
"optional" are different class
22:50:15 [Zakim]
22:51:11 [wendy]
in this sense, optional is not normative.
22:51:17 [Zakim]
22:51:21 [DoyleB]
I am going to have to go soon, too!
22:51:59 [wendy]
ack katie
22:52:08 [wendy]
prefer 2 levels. not ok w/throwing anything off the table.
22:52:46 [wendy]
ack jason
22:53:02 [wendy]
can live with 3 levels. not w/3 levels being non-normatife
22:53:04 [wendy]
ack kerstin
22:53:16 [wendy]
can live with 3 levels, 3rd being optional. can not live with 3rd being collapsed up into 1 and 2
22:53:21 [wendy]
prefer not to have 3 normative levels
22:53:39 [wendy]
ack katie
22:54:23 [wendy]
22:54:40 [wendy]
3 levels: 13
22:54:44 [wendy]
2 levels w/optional 3rd: 6
22:55:03 [wendy]
noone who couldn't live w/3, although 3 want to figure out at end before make decision.
22:55:15 [wendy]
2 collapsed - many who could live with, but 5 who could not
22:55:50 [wendy]
6 that could not live with and 6 with first choice (combining into 2 levels)
22:56:36 [wendy]
q+ to say, "next step - how we define those 3 levels"
22:58:51 [Zakim]
22:58:52 [rcastaldo]
22:58:52 [Zakim]
22:58:53 [Zakim]
22:58:54 [Zakim]
22:58:55 [Zakim]
22:58:55 [Zakim]
22:58:56 [Zakim]
22:58:56 [Zakim]
22:58:58 [Zakim]
22:59:00 [Zakim]
22:59:00 [rcastaldo]
rcastaldo has left #wai-wcag
22:59:02 [Zakim]
22:59:03 [silvia]
22:59:04 [Zakim]
22:59:06 [Zakim]
22:59:06 [silvia]
silvia has left #wai-wcag
22:59:08 [Zakim]
22:59:10 [Zakim]
22:59:12 [Zakim]
22:59:12 [shadi]
shadi has left #wai-wcag
22:59:14 [Zakim]
22:59:16 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
22:59:18 [Zakim]
Attendees were Dave_MacDonald, Yvette_Hoitink, Wendy, Matt, Bengt, John_Slatin, Lisa_Seeman, Ray_Whitmer, Roberto_Castaldo, chaalsMEL, Shadi, [Microsoft], Ben-and-Gregg,
22:59:21 [Zakim]
... Paul_Bohman, Greg_Lowney, Takayuki_Watanabe, Katie_Haritos-Shea, JasonWhite, Andi, Kerstin
22:59:39 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make log public-visible
22:59:46 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make log world-access
23:00:00 [nabe]
nabe has left #wai-wcag
23:00:08 [wendy]
RRSAgent, bye
23:00:08 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item:
23:00:08 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: CMN to propose mechanism for metadata-based, profile-based conformance that can be used compatibly with WCAG conformance, whatever that ends up like. [1]
23:00:08 [RRSAgent]
recorded in