IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-04-08

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:03:53 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
20:04:45 [Zakim]
20:05:39 [MichaelC]
MichaelC has joined #wai-wcag
20:06:19 [rscano]
20:06:23 [rscano]
hi Michael
20:08:20 [Zakim]
20:08:47 [wendy]
agenda+ ian's proposal
20:10:15 [wendy]
agenda+ Confirm consensus from last week (no conformance level lower than minimum (e.g., A-), should not prevent peopel from reporting intermediat eprogress.
20:10:27 [wendy]
agenda+ process claims?
20:10:42 [wendy]
agenda+ formal conformance statements between levels?
20:10:43 [Zakim]
20:10:58 [wendy]
agenda+ Definition of Levels?
20:11:05 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 1
20:11:05 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "ian's proposal" taken up [from wendy]
20:13:17 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
20:13:21 [wendy]
(are others hearing echo?)
20:13:29 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
20:13:32 [rscano]
20:13:34 [wendy]
20:14:20 [MattSEA]
MattSEA has joined #wai-wcag
20:14:32 [wendy]
gregg summarizes discussion form last week (scribe missed :\ dealing w/other stuff)
20:14:53 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
20:14:53 [Zakim]
agendum 1 closed
20:14:54 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
20:14:55 [Zakim]
2. Confirm consensus from last week (no conformance level lower than minimum (e.g., A-), should not prevent peopel from reporting intermediat eprogress. [from wendy]
20:15:18 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 2
20:15:18 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Confirm consensus from last week (no conformance level lower than minimum (e.g., A-), should not prevent peopel from reporting intermediat eprogress." taken up [from
20:15:21 [Zakim]
... wendy]
20:16:05 [wendy]
level lower than minimum?
20:16:39 [rscano]
no please :( otherwise what we make: pkzip-wcag ?
20:17:42 [GVAN]
GVAN has joined #wai-wcag
20:17:50 [bcaldwell]
20:17:57 [wendy]
some organizations feel unlikely to meet minimum and suggested A-
20:18:04 [wendy]
related to scoping issue
20:18:06 [wendy]
ack Loretta
20:18:18 [sh1mmer]
20:18:33 [wendy]
also, related to aggregation, number of pages, and how often content updated
20:18:40 [wendy]
ack Tom
20:19:02 [rscano]
if these organization don't meet minimum, they don't declare conformance... why if they are unable to make accessible web site we need to agree to give them possibility to put a conformance logo?
20:19:23 [wendy]
there is nothing stopping them from saying, "we don't meet minimum, but here' what we've done"
20:19:27 [wendy]
ack Microsoft
20:19:33 [wendy]
ack [Microsoft]
20:19:41 [bcaldwell]
zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta
20:19:41 [Zakim]
+Mike_Barta; got it
20:19:46 [wendy]
if minimum is not testable, then if site more than 100K suddently, doesn't bother?
20:19:59 [wendy]
testable - someone can verify it.
20:20:17 [Zakim]
20:20:44 [wendy]
consensus: we do not want to define a "lower than minimum" conformance claim (e.g., A-)
20:20:53 [sh1mmer]
20:21:03 [rscano]
20:21:17 [wendy]
ack Tom
20:21:20 [sh1mmer]
ack Tom_Croucher
20:21:24 [Zakim]
20:21:31 [rellero]
zakim, ??P1 is Roberto_Ellero
20:21:31 [Zakim]
+Roberto_Ellero; got it
20:21:46 [rellero]
zakim, mute me
20:21:46 [Zakim]
sorry, rellero, I do not see a party named 'rellero'
20:21:50 [wendy]
we should actively encourage people to do as much as possible.
20:21:54 [rellero]
zakim, I am Roberto_Ellero
20:21:54 [Zakim]
ok, rellero, I now associate you with Roberto_Ellero
20:22:00 [rellero]
zakim, mute me
20:22:00 [Zakim]
Roberto_Ellero should now be muted
20:22:04 [wendy]
"do as much as you can & write that down"
20:22:29 [bcaldwell]
hand up
20:22:39 [wendy]
ack David
20:23:04 [wendy]
don't encourage people calim conformance below min. level, but we don't discourage people to report progress between levels.
20:23:09 [wendy]
give people the option.
20:23:15 [wendy]
"give them permission"
20:23:17 [wendy]
ack John
20:23:18 [rscano]
so these make a conformance claim to single guidelines, not to a conformance level?
20:23:42 [wendy]
actively encourage report progress. perhaps provide a tool that they can use to make it easy to make comparisons.
20:23:56 [wendy]
ack bcaldwell
20:24:14 [wendy]
encourage claims via metadata (that implies intermediate steps), not useful to encourage what you did if not in metadata.
20:24:34 [wendy]
anyone feel that we should not encourage people to report in between.
20:24:40 [wendy]
hard enough to get people to report levels.
20:25:35 [wendy]
publicize progress between levels and further encourage them to do it in metadata.
20:25:41 [wendy]
q+ to ask clarification on john's q
20:25:49 [wendy]
ack wendy
20:25:49 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to ask clarification on john's q
20:27:14 [wendy]
last week talked about vpat, "we support this criterion" - could go into metadata. also human description of what we've done.
20:27:15 [wendy]
ack mike
20:27:44 [wendy]
are we specifying a metadta scheme? or metadata policy? is it part of conformance? or just a good idea to do something like this?
20:27:54 [wendy]
a "good idea" - not must. not success criteria.
20:28:02 [ben]
ben has joined #wai-wcag
20:28:43 [wendy]
metadata: if people were in the stream of content they are emitting, would make aggregation problem simpler.
20:29:01 [wendy]
then aggregated content could aggregate conformance info. makes it clearer about legal liability.
20:29:12 [wendy]
specifying communication means like that could be messy.
20:29:28 [wendy]
vpat would be one mechanism to publicize what you have done.
20:29:36 [rscano]
Like in P3P?
20:29:38 [wendy]
vpat is 508-specific
20:29:41 [sh1mmer]
20:30:04 [sh1mmer]
ack Tom_Croucher
20:30:23 [wendy]
perhaps we recommend that someone develop tools
20:30:31 [rscano]
yep this could be good
20:30:47 [wendy]
EARL is ideal format.
20:30:54 [wendy]
q+ EARL update
20:30:56 [Zakim]
20:31:13 [wendy]
useful to say something specific is specified to avoid interoperability problems.
20:31:18 [wendy]
20:31:23 [wendy]
ack EARL
20:31:25 [wendy]
20:31:27 [rscano]
20:31:35 [wendy]
ack update
20:32:03 [Zakim]
20:32:04 [rellero]
zakim, ??P1 is Roberto_Ellero
20:32:04 [Zakim]
+Roberto_Ellero; got it
20:32:18 [rellero]
zakim, I am Roberto_Ellero
20:32:18 [Zakim]
ok, rellero, I now associate you with Roberto_Ellero
20:32:22 [rellero]
zakim, mute me
20:32:22 [Zakim]
Roberto_Ellero should now be muted
20:32:36 [GVAN]
We encourage people to document and publicize progress between conformance levels. Further we encourage them to do so via metadata when and as it is possible.
20:34:01 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
20:34:01 [Zakim]
agendum 2 closed
20:34:02 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
20:34:03 [Zakim]
3. process claims? [from wendy]
20:34:08 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 3
20:34:08 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "process claims?" taken up [from wendy]
20:35:31 [sh1mmer]
20:35:50 [sh1mmer]
ack Tom_Croucher
20:36:13 [wendy]
shouldn't we say "look at ATAG" and that will guide you?
20:36:24 [wendy]
ATAG are authoring tool. we're talking about web apps.
20:36:31 [wendy]
it's a web app behaving as an authoring tool.
20:36:54 [Zakim]
20:36:57 [rscano]
if Web App generate contents, these are authoring tools :)
20:37:18 [wendy]
20:37:20 [wendy]
q+ matt
20:37:28 [wendy]
ack David
20:37:52 [wendy]
learning from 508, can we encourage the huge sites to push the responsibility of the content onto their service providers.
20:37:59 [wendy]
e.g., reuters, and other news agencies.
20:38:35 [wendy]
ack matt
20:38:47 [wendy]
in ATAG 2.0, guideline 1 is "make interface accessible"
20:38:56 [rscano]
ISO TS/16071
20:39:06 [wendy]
working on ISO 16071 is benchmark for accessibility of s/w apps
20:39:18 [wendy]
for web apps, we'll point to wcag
20:39:32 [rscano]
ISO/TS, not ISO :)
20:39:45 [wendy]
will atag cover all dynamically generated content as well as all web apps?
20:40:05 [wendy]
atag addresses the interface of the input mechanism. the output is how test quality of tools.
20:40:10 [wendy]
it's output must conform to wcag
20:40:29 [wendy]
how does someone test output when content to output doesn't exist at time of test?
20:40:37 [wendy]
atag has stuff for templates and collateral built into wcag
20:40:55 [wendy]
if producing content from a template, that template musst be accessible ala wcag
20:40:58 [wendy]
ack loretta
20:41:48 [wendy]
pushing the requirement to contributor, but conerne that needs a way to make sure that contractor has fulfilled obligation. thus, need a way to test.
20:41:50 [wendy]
ack mike
20:42:13 [ben]
zakim, [IBM] is Andi
20:42:13 [Zakim]
+Andi; got it
20:42:16 [wendy]
atag is covering the tool is accessible, output conform to wcag. if the tool is using template of productin, it's still content the author is producing
20:42:44 [wendy]
if using something at build-time (fed in from diff system), the only testable way to handle is "person providing the feed is responsible for claim about feed"
20:42:48 [wendy]
ack [IBM]
20:42:49 [GVAN]
20:43:04 [wendy]
our mailing list is good e.g., of web app that takes data from somewhere and presents.
20:43:23 [rscano]
also a Blog is an authoring tool, because it publish content input by an user?
20:43:38 [rscano]
also forum, chat, etc.?
20:43:44 [wendy]
1.3 "struct sep from presenation" - "derive programmatically"
20:43:57 [MattSEA]
20:44:08 [wendy]
mailing list is flat text. mailing list doesn't conform
20:44:19 [wendy]
it takes html markup out of messages
20:44:55 [wendy]
how do we apply this atag discussion to the mailing list discussion?
20:45:16 [wendy]
ack gvan
20:45:23 [wendy]
ack matt
20:45:41 [wendy]
not much of a stretch to call a mailing list an authoring tool. however, wouldn't.
20:45:55 [wendy]
the intent of posting to mailing list is not to create web content, it is ancillary.
20:45:56 [GVAN]
20:46:45 [wendy]
it isn't intended to be created as web content. thus, person creating web content is not using an authoring tool. if that the case, atag would apply to mail clients or anything that has a text area that could end up on the web.
20:47:03 [wendy]
question is: is the archiving tool an authoring tool? similar to aggregator issue.
20:48:12 [wendy]
ack gvan
20:48:15 [MattSEA]
q+ to talk about ATAG and conversion tools
20:48:43 [wendy]
ack andi
20:48:49 [wendy]
ack mike
20:49:24 [wendy]
if you include something that you didn't author, you can only say it is accessible if the thing you include claims it is accessible.
20:49:29 [ben]
20:50:02 [wendy]
in most cases, have a contract. if they claim conformance and don't, then should not be afraid of user suing, should be afraid of aggregator suing them.
20:50:16 [wendy]
you are responsible to use accessible content and create accessible content.
20:50:26 [rellero]
An important problem about backoffice is that it is necessary to be able to use also without js support
20:50:28 [wendy]
ack matt
20:50:28 [Zakim]
MattSEA, you wanted to talk about ATAG and conversion tools
20:50:31 [rscano]
and the problem returns with backoffice :)
20:51:01 [wendy]
atag 1 has "converstion tools"
20:51:07 [wendy]
atag 2 "indirect authoring functions"
20:51:11 [wendy]
matt reads from draft
20:51:17 [wendy]
(could you put uri of what you read?)
20:52:10 [wendy]
only 4 cps in atag 1 that apply to conversion tools in atag 1. (since so limited)
20:52:15 [wendy]
(tools are so limited)
20:52:30 [wendy]
likely more applicable to wcag as a web app (e.g., of mailing list)
20:52:33 [wendy]
20:53:19 [wendy]
atag is wcag-checking and repair+the user interface to prompt the author.
20:53:29 [wendy]
if there is no prompting, then value of atag is limited.
20:54:19 [rellero]
(about js support in backoffice) Even if the embedded editors (textarea, object) actually work only with recent versions of the browser, then the js support is less relevant than browser compatibility
20:54:58 [wendy]
you can only claim the lowest level of conformance of the materials you accept.
20:55:11 [wendy]
i.e., could not claim level 2 if 3rd party content on your site that only meets level 1
20:55:15 [wendy]
20:55:45 [wendy]
"synthetic" falls between the cracks of atag and wcag.
20:56:05 [wendy]
if have a tool that converts word docs to html, should be covered by wcag?
20:56:09 [wendy]
b/c of the output.
20:56:31 [wendy]
conversion tool type in atag that uses microsoft word as an example.
20:56:37 [wendy]
and there are techniques
20:56:46 [rellero]
in cut&paste?
20:56:48 [wendy]
the user interface should meet atag, and output should meet wcag
20:56:52 [rellero]
or as an application?
20:57:15 [wendy]
reiterate in wcag that when we say 'authored' don't necessarily mean notepad. if author includes things from another source, other source should make assertion.
20:57:24 [wendy]
20:58:00 [Zakim]
20:58:08 [wendy]
ack ben
20:58:25 [wendy]
the flexibility that we allow for scoping is important.
20:58:46 [wendy]
scope: can w3c claim that mails sent to mailing list is not accessible, but archives are conforming?
20:59:15 [wendy]
"we are accessble but x, y are not accessible"
20:59:23 [rscano]
for "user interface" intend also the HTML page content in a backoffice?
20:59:24 [wendy]
scope in such a way that can exclude content that have no control over.
20:59:27 [wendy]
21:00:22 [wendy]
ack mike
21:00:29 [nabe]
nabe has joined #wai-wcag
21:00:29 [wendy]
ack andi
21:01:10 [wendy]
if have a portal, portlet is a mail app, can't say that it is wcag compliant.
21:01:24 [wendy]
it's a web app
21:01:32 [wendy]
it's an aggregator question
21:01:35 [Zakim]
21:03:16 [wendy]
ack wendy
21:03:49 [wendy]
ack john
21:04:32 [wendy]
we can't recover intent, can't make it part of a test.
21:05:02 [wendy]
conformance claims between levels?
21:05:19 [sh1mmer]
21:05:25 [wendy]
who feels we should have conformance claims in between?
21:05:26 [sh1mmer]
ack Tom_Croucher
21:05:54 [wendy]
talked earlier about being open about what done between levels.
21:06:05 [wendy]
that suitable replacement for conformance claim (between levels)
21:06:17 [wendy]
could say "A" but never "A+"
21:07:18 [wendy]
consensus to remove statement in requirement doc that says
21:07:19 [wendy]
21:09:48 [wendy]
C1 - We want to have recognition for accomplishment beyond baseline.
21:10:00 [wendy]
interpret: that we have Level 1, levle2,3
21:10:12 [wendy]
C2 - It is good to have levels of conformance rather than just all or nothing.
21:10:36 [wendy]
seems redundant with C2
21:11:32 [wendy]
21:11:38 [wendy]
combine them?
21:11:46 [wendy]
one gives rationale, second says what should be
21:11:54 [rscano]
good idea
21:12:46 [wendy]
21:13:28 [wendy]
delete, " However, there is no agreement on whether, if checkpoints beyond the core set have been implemented, these need to be listed individually, with an "A+" conformance label associated with a list of additional checkpoints, or whether higher "discrete" levels of conformance (double-a, triple-a etc.) should be defined. "
21:13:30 [wendy]
21:13:50 [nabe1]
nabe1 has joined #wai-wcag
21:14:09 [rscano]
hi Takayuki
21:14:27 [wendy]
change statement from "If the working group defines a core set of checkpoints which must be satisfied before any conformance claim can be made, these will constitute a minimum level of conformance (e.g. "Level A")."
21:15:20 [nabe1]
good morning. Today's discussion is difficult. ;-)
21:15:20 [wendy]
to "the WG will define a core set of criteria that must be satisfied before any conformance claim can be made, these will constitute a min. level of conformance (e.g., "Level A")."
21:15:39 [wendy]
s/criteria/success criteria
21:19:27 [wendy]
consensus statements are to help people coming onboard. keep track of where we have been and where we are.
21:25:37 [Zakim]
21:29:43 [wendy]
action: wendy send proposals to changes in requirements document to the mailing list
21:30:26 [wendy]
consensus to publish consensus items in separate document. link to from home page.
21:31:15 [wendy]
heads up: will be redesigning home page per new WAI activity design.
21:32:06 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make log world-visible
21:32:47 [rscano]
21:34:37 [wendy]
ack David
21:35:00 [wendy]
perhaps separating conformance criteria (rules we set for ourselves) from definition of levels of conformance.
21:35:06 [Zakim]
21:35:09 [wendy]
currently, combined and confusing for people not involved in the process
21:36:01 [wendy]
everyone think about this is where we'll start next time
21:36:08 [wendy]
then, start out scope, before can clean up 1.2
21:36:51 [Zakim]
21:36:52 [Zakim]
21:36:54 [Zakim]
21:36:54 [rscano]
good night!
21:36:55 [Zakim]
21:36:55 [bengt]
21:36:56 [Zakim]
21:36:57 [Zakim]
21:36:57 [Zakim]
21:36:57 [rellero]
Happy Easter!
21:36:58 [Zakim]
21:36:59 [Zakim]
21:37:00 [Zakim]
21:37:02 [Zakim]
21:37:25 [Zakim]
21:37:32 [Zakim]
21:37:33 [Zakim]
21:37:34 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
21:37:35 [Zakim]
Attendees were Roberto_Scano, Bengt_Farre, Wendy, Roberto_Ellero, John_Slatin, Tom_Croucher, JasonWhite, Matt, David_McDonald, Ben_and_Gregg, Michael_Cooper, Paul_Bohman,
21:37:37 [Zakim]
... Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Mike_Barta, Andi
21:38:09 [nabe1]
Are you in summer time?
21:38:40 [wendyout]
yes. u.s. switched to summer time on sunday, europe the week before.
21:39:15 [nabe1]
Wow. so telecon starts at 5 am in Japan.
21:39:22 [rscano]
wow :)
21:39:35 [rellero]
21:39:43 [rscano]
good night from Venice :)
21:40:38 [rscano]
rscano has left #wai-wcag