IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-04-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

21:04:00 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
21:04:01 [bengt]
zakim, mute me
21:04:01 [Zakim]
Bengt_Farre should now be muted
21:04:51 [bengt]
BTW, its 2300 here in europe today
21:05:33 [Zakim]
21:05:46 [wendy]
agenda+ Ian's comments
21:05:51 [wendy]
agenda+ conformance
21:06:39 [wendy]
ian's proposal:
21:07:05 [wendy]
zakim, ??P13 is Kerstin_Goldsmith
21:07:05 [Zakim]
+Kerstin_Goldsmith; got it
21:07:07 [Zakim]
+ +1.703.920.aaaa
21:07:12 [Zakim]
21:08:07 [wendy]
zakim, +1.703.920.aaaa is John_Slatin
21:08:07 [Zakim]
+John_Slatin; got it
21:09:45 [wendy]
21:10:42 [bcaldwell]
bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
21:16:01 [wendy]
wac summarizes some of the topics from the f2f related to levels of conformance claims
21:16:18 [wendy]
vpat is a reporting tool, to report what you do, not an assertion that actually met it.
21:16:37 [wendy]
concept: be able to say which criteria have met
21:17:34 [wendy]
there is a column in the vpat to say if you have met the standard. there is a column to give details "if you wish."
21:18:02 [wendy]
that other column: equiv facilitation, etc.
21:18:19 [wendy]
says, "support or supports with minor exceptions" it doesn't use conformance or compliance wording.
21:18:34 [wendy]
vpat says how support not that meet
21:19:12 [wendy]
the concept of reporting in this way, is valuable
21:19:39 [wendy]
vpat is information sheet not a conformance claim
21:20:18 [wendy]
is it an interesting intermediary? if we want 3 level co nformance scheme but give people way to talk about whether or not they have met minimum, give them a format for describing what they have done. not making a claim, but moving in this direction.
21:20:32 [wendy]
then, end user can decide if a site they can visit/use or not.
21:20:53 [wendy]
21:20:56 [wendy]
ack Kerstin
21:21:43 [wendy]
two ideas: 1. have something that looks like vpat but is conformance statement isntead. could state individually which items have met.
21:21:58 [wendy]
q+ to say "idea of A- from the mtg"
21:23:28 [wendy]
ack wendy
21:23:28 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say "idea of A- from the mtg"
21:23:55 [wendy]
at f2f one developer said, "have heard A+ and AA+, what about A-?" in other words, i can't meet minimum, but i do 3 out of 4.
21:24:00 [wendy]
that's how vpat discussion came about.
21:24:34 [wendy]
proposal to have a conformance level of subminimum (A-). does anyone want to speak for or against this?
21:24:48 [wendy]
it's not a conformance claim since doesn't meet minimum.
21:25:22 [Zakim]
21:25:35 [wendy]
separate issue from detailed reporting.
21:25:50 [wendy]
q+ to say, "ian joining at bottom of hour"
21:26:18 [wendy]
21:27:49 [wendy]
there is no conformance level below the minimum if you don't minimum you can not make any claim of conformance.
21:30:40 [wendy]
ack kerstin
21:31:34 [wendy]
if there are success criteria dns omeone wants to say "i've met 4 out of 5" so there was a suggestion that we help people do that since it will happen anyway.
21:31:48 [wendy]
a form for people to list the pieces they have done, no matter how maps to conformance claim.
21:33:03 [wendy]
vpat is not a checklist. a checklist is checking off things you have done. vpat does not say you have met something.
21:34:14 [wendy]
if we do something, it probably should be a checklist that says "we conform"
21:34:56 [ben]
ben has joined #wai-wcag
21:35:18 [Zakim]
21:35:24 [wendy]
however, some companies will never be able to check items because they may not want to publish an itemized statement.
21:35:35 [ben]
ben has joined #wai-wcag
21:36:02 [wendy]
this could be metadata
21:36:26 [wendy]
21:36:34 [bcaldwell]
bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
21:36:35 [wendy]
21:37:20 [wendy]
checklist either tech-specific or of success criteria.
21:38:23 [bcaldwell]
bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
21:38:31 [wendy]
if made a listing of success criteria and place to check if met and place to write something.
21:38:38 [wendy]
metadata be ok up to checkmark but not beyond.
21:38:43 [wendy]
is there any place where that isn't true.
21:38:45 [wendy]
21:38:58 [wendy]
i.e., the comments beyond the check
21:39:46 [wendy]
would that additional info be useful to the user
21:40:12 [wendy]
could be a moot point if elements of a success criteria that were independently useful, would probably be separate success criteria
21:40:34 [wendy]
if conformance claims were metadata, who useful to and for what?
21:40:54 [wendy]
q+ to suggest to get back to + question
21:41:03 [wendy]
ack john
21:41:21 [bcaldwell]
zakim, [IBM] is Andi
21:41:21 [Zakim]
+Andi; got it
21:41:27 [wendy]
avoid cramming more angles onto the head of the pin.
21:41:34 [wendy]
(or angels? :)
21:41:55 [wendy]
21:42:01 [GVAN]
21:42:04 [wendy]
too fine-grained to work as metadata. prefer human-readable.
21:42:20 [wendy]
ack [IBM]
21:42:58 [wendy]
other comments from f2f: a developer had huge site, millions of pages. if min level were not automatically testable, could not comply (w/site of that scale)
21:43:44 [wendy]
when get into these ranges, use statistical sample of pages?
21:43:58 [wendy]
q+ to say "algorithm being developed by Dutch govnt"
21:45:41 [wendy]
(also applies to web apps where there may be a large finite number of states the app could be in that need to be tested)
21:46:11 [wendy]
ack gvan
21:46:32 [wendy]
when we are reporting, what are people going to use the report for?
21:46:48 [wendy]
if require in metadata, people could use for searching.
21:46:52 [Ian]
Ian has joined #wai-wcag
21:47:20 [Ian]
Let me know when I should join the call
21:47:28 [wendy]
vpat supports comparison between sites.
21:47:44 [wendy]
ian - how about at top of hour?
21:47:54 [Ian]
21:47:56 [wendy]
what is our role of our standard to make it easy to compare thing?
21:47:58 [wendy]
21:48:06 [wendy]
comparing doesn't make them more accessible.
21:48:24 [wendy]
ian - feel free to join now if you want to be involved in conformance-related discussion. :)
21:48:44 [wendy]
comparisons could drive people to attempt higher level of conformance
21:49:05 [wendy]
ack wendy
21:49:05 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say "algorithm being developed by Dutch govnt"
21:50:49 [wendy]
is it not useful for me to take notes?
21:52:31 [wendy]
ack jason
21:53:01 [wendy]
for lg amounts of content, it's not the content itself but the process that produces it.
21:53:34 [ben]
ben has joined #wai-wcag
21:54:57 [wendy]
applies to software apps.
21:55:20 [wendy]
scope: if can scope in or out parts of it. then say "accessible is everything that has been sampled and checked after it's last modification date"
21:55:42 [GVAN]
21:55:43 [wendy]
ack paul
21:56:02 [GVAN]
[Microsoft] is Michael
21:56:16 [ben]
zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta
21:56:16 [Zakim]
+Mike_Barta; got it
21:56:17 [wendy]
wrt big sites that are update frequently, to claim conformance of template/container/shell
21:56:33 [GVAN]
21:56:51 [wendy]
it may be good idea for syndicated content to allow people to claim that the template is accessible.
21:57:10 [wendy]
q+ to say, "aggregators should put pressure on syndicators. if give them way out, will take it"
21:57:13 [wendy]
ack Microsoft
21:57:18 [wendy]
ack [Microsoft]
21:57:58 [wendy]
if vet template, know site conforms, is not a true statement.
21:58:13 [wendy]
can't assume that can vet template and know site conforms.
21:58:17 [wendy]
leary of statistical samle.
21:58:19 [wendy]
21:58:33 [wendy]
like the idea of min level conformance be automatically testable. realize there are issues with that.
21:58:45 [wendy]
how are we proposing people make conformance claims if page is not authored by them?
21:58:50 [wendy]
21:58:52 [wendy]
ack gvan
21:59:19 [wendy]
worry about process-oriented. easy to say "went through process" and make a claim even if result is not accessible.
21:59:42 [wendy]
how does this comment effect our guidelines?
21:59:52 [wendy]
s/this comment/this discussion.
22:00:06 [wendy]
hearing each individual comment, not sure how comments effect our work.
22:00:13 [wendy]
don't want the ideas to fall off the tables.
22:00:21 [wendy]
ack john
22:00:45 [wendy]
agree with reservations about certifying the template.
22:01:05 [wendy]
statistical sampling is interesting.
22:01:38 [wendy]
part of what we can say about syndicated/aggregated content is that people who are interested in making conformance claims should have policies in place about the content they receive.
22:01:46 [wendy]
they can enforce that policy when they are buying the content.
22:01:55 [wendy]
ack wendy
22:01:55 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say, "aggregators should put pressure on syndicators. if give them way out, will take it"
22:03:39 [wendy]
ack Mike
22:04:00 [wendy]
agree, should not give people an out. however, don't want to test everything that i am syndicating in.
22:04:06 [wendy]
discuss the concept of content providers.
22:04:11 [wendy]
if providing content, need to conform.
22:04:25 [Zakim]
22:04:27 [wendy]
as aggregator, can sign page off as long as black-box feeds come from places that conform.
22:06:49 [wendy]
action: create issue in bugzilla for aggregator issues. assign to mike barta.
22:08:00 [wendy]
ack john
22:08:38 [wendy]
re: level 1 only being those things that are machine-testable, that creates risk of putting dev convenience ahead of making content accessible to users.
22:09:05 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
22:09:05 [Zakim]
I do not know what agendum had been taken up, wendy
22:09:08 [wendy]
22:09:11 [wendy]
22:09:17 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 1
22:09:17 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Ian's comments" taken up [from wendy]
22:09:27 [wendy]
22:09:57 [wendy]
how does this relate to our process?
22:11:00 [wendy]
these are not detailed review comments on the document. these are things to consider to help you move forward.
22:11:09 [wendy]
originally thought xag and wcag should be separate documents.
22:11:29 [wendy]
however, xag isn't progressing and it is important.
22:11:49 [wendy]
this was an attempt to help break through some log jams.
22:11:57 [wendy]
could help write a cleaner document.
22:12:24 [wendy]
some of xag stuff is well-known, could be easy to do.
22:12:31 [wendy]
would like to see some part of xag rather than none.
22:14:24 [wendy]
latest WCAG 2.0 draft:
22:15:20 [wendy]
the essence is: author can't provide emphasis if the format doesn't support it.
22:15:32 [wendy]
let the format say "emphasis is an accessibility feature"
22:15:51 [wendy]
then in wcag, say, "use the accessibility features of format specs" leave the rest to the spec.
22:16:12 [wendy]
this can reduce testing issues is that you won't have to force the author into doing things that are not directly representable in the markup language.
22:16:43 [wendy]
authoring responsibilities: use accessibility features of lang, do things that can't do alone in markup (consistentcy, clearn and simple lang, appropriate alt-text)
22:16:50 [wendy]
some things are not easily testable.
22:17:04 [wendy]
some things will have to be checked by humans.
22:17:11 [wendy]
move things to formats and improve testability.
22:17:41 [wendy]
ack Loretta
22:18:01 [wendy]
clearly organized around markup language, an example? or that only markup languages should apply.
22:18:12 [wendy]
XAG is XML Accessibility Guidelines.
22:18:25 [wendy]
many of them are general and apply to more than xml-based languages.
22:18:33 [wendy]
would like to see independent of xml
22:18:44 [wendy]
if format is style sheet, it should allow the following...
22:19:57 [wendy]
if you're a format designer and you're working with audio... (xag)
22:20:11 [wendy]
in wcag, say "use accessibility features"
22:20:58 [wendy]
if the format doesn't let you say, "this is an acronym"...can't do it.
22:21:23 [wendy]
don't know if can put into web content guidelines statements about what must be done by a format designer.
22:21:52 [wendy]
perhaps not requirements of wcag, but underlying statemnt.
22:21:59 [wendy]
"choose a technology that supports the following..."
22:22:11 [wendy]
these all be success criteria
22:22:30 [wendy]
agree that wcag shouldn't say what format designers need to do, that's why xag should be separate doc.
22:23:02 [wendy]
then, wcag say "use doc X that says what needs to be done in formats/languages"
22:23:15 [wendy]
wcag says "use format that conforms to xag"
22:23:26 [wendy]
1.4 says, "any text presented over a background.." (old wording)
22:23:38 [wendy]
that isn't something the author can do unless the technology supports it.
22:23:52 [wendy]
you could choose technology that supports, but still need to put it here as well.
22:24:01 [wendy]
foreground/background doesn't apply to every spec.
22:24:14 [wendy]
xag say, "for this kind of needs to be able to do X"
22:24:37 [wendy]
if wcag says, "use accessibility features. and these are the features of the format . here's what you need to implement"
22:24:56 [wendy]
you may only be using a subset of the formats features.
22:25:27 [wendy]
we can't write a standard that relies on a non-normative document.
22:25:43 [wendy]
the accessibility features of a technology are not xag they are another doc that is not normative.
22:26:04 [wendy]
e.g., use accessibility features of pdf. there is no normative document for PDF.
22:26:29 [Zakim]
22:27:07 [wendy]
it should be possible to use a tech along w/others to make it accessibl.e
22:27:10 [wendy]
xag could say how to do that.
22:27:12 [Zakim]
22:27:13 [wendy]
xag could be modular.
22:28:03 [wendy]
UAAG says, "it may be that you could use this to create accessible content even if non-conforming. there are always exceptions."
22:31:05 [wendy]
open captions would not meet requirements.
22:31:22 [wendy]
open captions don't use the caption feature of a format.
22:31:53 [wendy]
the user needs to have captions.
22:32:15 [wendy]
require author to use accessibility features. in formaat requirements, require caption features.
22:32:30 [wendy]
should require that it should be captioned.
22:32:45 [wendy]
why not include open captions at xag level?
22:33:28 [wendy]
xag should say, "for audio content to be accessble it must have captions. there are 2 ways of satisfying. format needs to support one of them."
22:34:18 [wendy]
can use non-accessibility features to meet wcag
22:34:27 [wendy]
[like the hn elements in html]
22:34:48 [bengt]
Web Content should not require XML ????
22:34:48 [wendy]
you may meet accessibility needs by using 1 or more formats. that's xag
22:34:53 [wendy]
xag says, "here's the accessibility need"
22:36:32 [Zakim]
22:36:46 [wendy]
ack john
22:37:06 [wendy]
merely telling people they should use accessibility features of a format, doesn't do the job.
22:37:16 [wendy]
you can use all of the accessibility features and still come up with garbage.
22:37:22 [wendy]
it'snot sufficient. it's 1/2 of the challenge.
22:40:20 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
22:40:32 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Loretta_Guarino_Reid (17%), Matt (4%), Andi (32%), Gregg_and_Ben (59%), John_Slatin (33%)
22:40:44 [wendy]
ack andi
22:41:00 [wendy]
there could be things put into the format that enhance accessibility but perhaps sholdn't be part of min level of conformance.
22:41:07 [wendy]
wcag should say "the things you have to do"
22:41:37 [wendy]
xag specify diff levels? sure
22:41:45 [wendy]
however, xag only specify how do in diff doc
22:41:51 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
22:42:02 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ian (19%), Matt (53%), Gregg_and_Ben (72%)
22:42:10 [Zakim]
22:42:17 [Zakim]
22:42:29 [wendy]
ack jason
22:42:47 [Ian]
zakim, what's the code?
22:42:47 [Zakim]
the conference code is 9224, Ian
22:42:54 [Ian]
I can't rejoin.
22:42:58 [Ian]
Probably since the call is over.
22:42:59 [wendy]
"accessibility features" mandated per format requirements. i.e., whatever satisfies format requirements are accessibility features.
22:42:59 [Ian]
Oh well.
22:43:05 [Ian]
Thanks for having me.
22:43:09 [wendy]
we're still here, ian. but closing/ending.
22:43:30 [wendy]
ok. thanks for being here.
22:43:32 [Ian]
I appreciated the chance to talk. I hope the comments can be useful. Good luck with WCAG 2.0.
22:43:44 [wendy]
open captions: just part of video stream.
22:44:49 [wendy]
captions, not best example for ian's purposes.
22:44:57 [MattSEA]
MattSEA has left #wai-wcag
22:45:02 [wendy]
but it shows that the model breaks.
22:45:14 [Zakim]
22:45:15 [Zakim]
22:45:17 [Zakim]
22:45:20 [Zakim]
22:45:21 [Zakim]
22:45:24 [Zakim]
22:45:25 [Zakim]
22:45:26 [Zakim]
22:45:30 [Zakim]
22:45:49 [nabe]
nabe has left #wai-wcag
22:46:22 [wendy]
zakim, bye
22:46:22 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Michael_Cooper, Matt, Wendy, Bengt_Farre, Paul_Bohman, Gregg_and_Ben, Takayuki_Watanabe, Kerstin_Goldsmith,
22:46:22 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
22:46:25 [Zakim]
... JasonWhite, John_Slatin, Andi, Mike_Barta, Ian
22:46:32 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make logs public-visible
22:46:41 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make logs world-access
22:51:42 [bengt]
bengt has left #wai-wcag
22:51:57 [wendy]
RRSAgent, bye
22:51:57 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item:
22:51:57 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: create issue in bugzilla for aggregator issues. assign to mike barta. [1]
22:51:57 [RRSAgent]
recorded in