IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-04-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:01:09 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
14:01:15 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has joined #wai-wcag
14:01:22 [ben]
zakim, who is here?
14:01:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Don_Evans, Michael_Cooper, Chris_Ridpath, Dave_MacDonald, Jim_Thatcher
14:01:25 [Zakim]
On IRC I see ChrisR, RRSAgent, Zakim, donaldfevans, MichaelC, ben, sh1m, sh1mmer
14:02:01 [sh1m]
14:02:19 [Zakim]
14:02:26 [ben]
zakim, ??P14 is Ben
14:02:26 [Zakim]
+Ben; got it
14:02:35 [JimT]
JimT has joined #wai-wcag
14:03:00 [Zakim]
14:04:24 [sh1m]
14:04:25 [MattSEA]
MattSEA has joined #wai-wcag
14:05:02 [Zakim]
14:05:14 [sh1m]
Zakim, ??P19 is Tom
14:05:14 [Zakim]
+Tom; got it
14:05:15 [Zakim]
14:05:19 [sh1m]
Zakim, I am Tom
14:05:19 [Zakim]
ok, sh1m, I now associate you with Tom
14:05:26 [MattSEA]
zakim, drop matt
14:05:26 [Zakim]
Matt is being disconnected
14:05:27 [Zakim]
14:06:10 [Zakim]
14:07:40 [Zakim]
14:08:03 [wendy]
wendy has joined #wai-wcag
14:12:55 [MattSEA]
14:13:44 [MattSEA]
14:15:34 [wendy]
reminder: conformance discussions on thursday's calls. please come and discuss.
14:16:09 [wendy]
chris' email:
14:16:24 [wendy]
diffs in priorities (in WCAG 1.0) and levels (in WCAG 2.0)
14:19:52 [sh1m]
14:20:35 [wendy]
no direct connection with techniques and levels
14:22:09 [wendy]
definitions of conformance levels are currently being discussed
14:23:06 [wendy]
extra techniques in these levels that are "bonus" or "extra stuff"
14:23:11 [wendy]
what are the three levels + extra?
14:23:20 [wendy]
techniques are informative information.
14:23:51 [wendy]
they may contain things that authors could do, e.g., text equiv: alt, longdesc, title, etc.
14:24:02 [wendy]
in 1.0 they may have used d-link.
14:24:48 [wendy]
in 2.0, want to cover d-link, but message should be (if reading consensus correctly), "we used to use due to lack of support, but if using older asst. tech users, you can still use. we're not recommending b/c we want to movitate UAs to support longdesc"
14:25:14 [wendy]
authors need to know what to do to fulfill the guidelines.
14:25:22 [wendy]
needs to be easy to interpret
14:25:35 [wendy]
the checklists should clearly specifiy which techniques are sufficient to meet which success criteria
14:29:12 [wendy]
from what jenae and i did, we found some disconnects between looking at techniques back to success criteria dn vice-versa, looking at success criteria to techniques.
14:29:33 [wendy]
title on image is a level 1 (does not effect presentation), but is more of a priority 2 or 3 ala wcag 1.0 terms.
14:29:51 [wendy]
for both level 1 success criteria of guideline 1.1, you use the same set of techniques to achieve them.
14:29:57 [wendy]
however, our techniques only cover one or the other.
14:30:17 [wendy]
e.g., longdesc is level 1 #1 (a chart), but level 1 #2 is not covered.
14:32:08 [wendy]
we've labeled some as optional
14:32:30 [wendy]
want it to be clear that while title on img fits the definition of level 1, it is not the 1st technique you use.
14:32:44 [wendy]
need to make it clear that alt on img is sufficient (in some cases) and "title" is optional.
14:33:14 [wendy]
checklists can help clarify what is required, but this information should also be readily discernable from the techniques documents.
14:39:14 [wendy]
need to get success criteria information into the gateway
14:39:26 [wendy]
it will help tie the documents together
14:44:12 [MichaelC]
action: Ben: Create open issue: how do we indicate that some techniques are necessary, sufficient, optional?
14:45:53 [wendy]
14:48:35 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has joined #wai-wcag
14:49:02 [ben]
open issue on indicating techniques are necessary, sufficient, optional:
14:51:29 [wendy]
issues with guideline 1.1:
14:51:55 [wendy]
redundancy with #1 and #2 level 1 criteria,
14:52:01 [wendy]
3 possible ways to deal with:
14:52:05 [wendy]
1. combine the success criteria
14:52:11 [wendy]
2. handle at the technology-specific layer
14:52:14 [wendy]
3. handle in gateway
14:52:50 [wendy]
in html-techs, need more examples?
14:53:17 [wendy]
i.e., one for mona lisa and one for charts/maps
14:53:24 [wendy]
or not - only handle in gateway.
14:53:30 [wendy]
more exmaples in gateway
14:53:53 [wendy]
issue with technique - same tech used in 2 contexts.
14:54:23 [wendy]
applying info from gateway in html, w/out examples could be confusing. including examples could be helpful.
14:54:47 [wendy]
does this get back to the views? merging documents?
14:55:06 [wendy]
have talked about linking back to gateway from techniques.
14:55:18 [wendy]
in html link to gateway, "diff types of text equivs"
14:56:33 [wendy]
we looked at Guideline 1.3 and found we did not have the same redundancy as we did with 1.1 - due to the way the success criteria are written.
14:57:38 [wendy]
if adding redundancy makes issue clearer but buries the info (make it hard to find).
14:59:08 [wendy]
examples should be carried from guidelines to gateway to tech-specifics.
15:00:59 [MichaelC]
action: Wendy: Create action items for people to look at examples across the levels of documents and harmonize
15:01:26 [wendy]
so you can see the same examples carried through from "here's how it applies to guidelines/success criteria, gateway, and then how to do it in html"
15:01:36 [wendy]
jenae wanted to pair people from task force to wcag wg.
15:03:42 [wendy]
final piece is to create or find a test case
15:06:10 [wendy]
for 1.3 - do we link from gateway to html 4.01 spec or create a technique in html techs that says, "follow html spec here"
15:06:15 [wendy]
rationale link back to gateway
15:06:55 [wendy]
cross-references and other associations,
15:06:55 [wendy]
15:07:05 [wendy]
link to link rel="prev|next"?
15:07:56 [wendy]
Level 1 SC2: Any information presented through color is also available without color (for example, through context or markup or coding that does not depend on color).
15:08:01 [wendy]
no exisiting html techs. should there be?
15:08:05 [wendy]
describe the use of color attributes?
15:08:13 [wendy]
15:08:17 [wendy]
point to gateway
15:08:31 [wendy]
may also say, don't use these attributes in favor of css
15:08:58 [Zakim]
15:09:01 [wendy]
how much length will that add to the document?
15:09:15 [wendy]
if we address attributes that are not in current spec...need?
15:09:20 [wendy]
similar to embed element?
15:09:37 [wendy]
action: michael proposals for how to handles (tim can help with css)
15:10:08 [wendy]
headings pointed to from 1.3 as well as other places
15:10:42 [wendy]
there are several "see alsos" - worry about organization
15:11:14 [wendy]
look at that after get results of action items and look at overlap
15:13:28 [wendy]
too much information in gateway? split into separate documents - as before. a gateway (to direct people to techniqeus) and "common" of non-technology specifics
15:14:28 [wendy]
intermediary documents, w/out much info, can be confusing.
15:14:33 [wendy]
an issue, but can deal with later.
15:15:00 [wendy]
issue: techniques that don't seem to relate to criteria
15:15:14 [wendy]
we have techniques that we know need to be followed but we can't map to a guideline.
15:15:31 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
15:15:38 [wendy]
do we need a guideline for every technique?
15:15:41 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Michael_Cooper (3%), Tom (10%)
15:15:50 [wendy]
if we have a technique that addresses a bad habit, do we need a guideline?
15:15:55 [wendy]
zakim, mute tom
15:15:55 [Zakim]
Tom should now be muted
15:16:15 [wendy]
we do - use tech according to spec
15:16:36 [wendy]
however, need to be further in tech development process
15:17:47 [wendy]
as far as timelines go - if get public drafts of gateway and html in the next few weeks
15:18:20 [wendy]
look at big picture after publication of june draft
15:18:48 [wendy]
if all of the documents link to each other, if we update one, will we have to update the others?
15:19:59 [wendy]
likely, yes.
15:21:46 [wendy]
tom is putting issues into bugzilla and will be sending summaries to the list for discussions.
15:23:21 [wendy]
bugzilla is marker for issue, let discussion flow on mailing list ([bug#] in subject) - discussion of proposals, incorporate proposal w/consensus into the draft
15:23:45 [wendy]
in bugzilla, don't need to record entire discussion, but initial issue, initial link to mailing list discusison, and then point to text in draft once it is incoprorated.
15:23:50 [wendy]
15:24:47 [wendy]
helpful to have external examples?
15:25:07 [wendy]
e.g., "a clip from collated text transcript" is currently in gateway. it's embedded.
15:25:34 [wendy]
what about separate doucments? e.g., for color, show a series of pieces of text w/low and lower contrast to illustrate that lower contrast harder to read.
15:25:45 [wendy]
it could be linked into css techs for color
15:26:17 [wendy]
webmonkey-style examples?
15:29:26 [andy]
andy has joined #wai-wcag
15:29:44 [andy]
andy has left #wai-wcag
15:31:20 [wendy]
examples that are external are ok. good if other documents could reference as well.
15:32:55 [wendy]
W3C statement on DRC report:
15:33:35 [Zakim]
15:33:36 [Zakim]
15:33:38 [Zakim]
15:33:39 [Zakim]
15:33:40 [Zakim]
15:33:41 [Zakim]
15:33:42 [Zakim]
15:33:43 [Zakim]
15:33:44 [Zakim]
15:33:46 [Zakim]
15:33:55 [Zakim]
15:33:59 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has ended
15:34:01 [Zakim]
Attendees were Don_Evans, Michael_Cooper, Chris_Ridpath, Dave_MacDonald, Jim_Thatcher, Ben, Tim_Boland, Tom, Matt, Wendy, David_D
15:34:08 [wendy]
RRSAgent, bye
15:34:08 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items:
15:34:08 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ben: Create open issue: how do we indicate that some techniques are necessary, sufficient, optional? [1]
15:34:08 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
15:34:08 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Wendy: Create action items for people to look at examples across the levels of documents and harmonize [2]
15:34:08 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
15:34:08 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: michael proposals for how to handles (tim can help with css) [3]
15:34:08 [RRSAgent]
recorded in