19:49:44 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
19:49:53 <wendy> RRSAgent, make log world-visibe
19:49:59 <wendy> RRSAgent, make log world-access
19:54:44 <MichaelC> MichaelC has joined #wai-wcag
19:57:50 <MichaelC> zakim, list conferences
19:57:50 <Zakim> I see WAI_WCAG()4:00PM active
19:57:51 <Zakim> also scheduled at this time is WAI_UAWG()2:00PM
19:58:06 <MichaelC> zakim, this is wai_wcag
19:58:06 <Zakim> ok, MichaelC; that matches WAI_WCAG()4:00PM
19:58:14 <MichaelC> zakim, I am Michael_Cooper
19:58:14 <Zakim> ok, MichaelC, I now associate you with Michael_Cooper
19:58:19 <MichaelC> zakim, mute me
19:58:19 <Zakim> sorry, MichaelC, muting is not permitted when only one person is present
19:58:24 <wendy> zakim, who's on the phone?
19:58:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see Michael_Cooper
19:59:24 <Zakim> +??P1
19:59:35 <bcaldwell> bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
19:59:40 <sh1mmer> Zakim, ??P1 is Tom
19:59:40 <Zakim> +Tom; got it
19:59:44 <Zakim> +Wendy
19:59:44 <MichaelC> zakim, mute me
19:59:45 <Zakim> Michael_Cooper should now be muted
19:59:50 <sh1mmer> Zakim, I am Tom
19:59:50 <Zakim> ok, sh1mmer, I now associate you with Tom
20:00:01 <wendy> zakim, who's on the phone?
20:00:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see Michael_Cooper (muted), Tom, Wendy
20:00:03 <sh1mmer> MichaelC can you hear me?
20:00:08 <Zakim> +??P2
20:00:12 <nabe> nabe has joined #wai-wcag
20:00:13 <rcastaldo> rcastaldo has joined #wai-wcag
20:00:18 <wendy> zakim, ??P2 is David_MacDonald
20:00:19 <rcastaldo> Hi folks
20:00:20 <Zakim> +David_MacDonald; got it
20:00:23 <Zakim> +??P3
20:00:31 <wendy> zakim, ??P3 is Ben_and_Gregg
20:00:31 <Zakim> +Ben_and_Gregg; got it
20:00:31 <sh1mmer> Zakim, mute me
20:00:32 <Zakim> Tom should now be muted
20:00:43 <Zakim> +??P5
20:00:45 <Zakim> +??P4
20:00:58 <MichaelC> roberto first
20:00:58 <wendy> zakim, ??P5 may be Yvette
20:00:58 <Zakim> +Yvette?; got it
20:01:09 <wendy> zakim, ??P4 may be Roberto_Castaldo
20:01:09 <Zakim> +Roberto_Castaldo?; got it
20:01:20 <Zakim> +??P6
20:01:28 <Zakim> +John_Slatin
20:01:37 <nabe> good morning
20:01:47 <sh1mmer> maybe Yvette could check the port number when she connects to irc
20:01:48 <wendy> Takayuki - are you on the phone?
20:01:56 <nabe> yes
20:02:02 <GVAN> GVAN has joined #wai-wcag
20:02:34 <wendy> zakim, ??P6 is Takayuki_Watanabe
20:02:34 <Zakim> +Takayuki_Watanabe; got it
20:03:06 <Zakim> +Sailesh_Panchang
20:03:15 <rellero> rellero has joined #wai-wcag
20:03:22 <rellero> Hi
20:03:34 <Zakim> +JasonWhite
20:03:35 <MichaelC> zakim, unmute me
20:03:35 <Zakim> Michael_Cooper should no longer be muted
20:03:40 <rellero> today I can follow only in IRC
20:03:42 <Zakim> +Becky_Gibson
20:04:04 <MattBOS> MattBOS has joined #wai-wcag
20:04:17 <sh1mmer> q+
20:04:19 <wendy> reports on action items
20:04:29 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
20:04:35 <wendy> david has played telecon tag with kansas accessibility center
20:04:44 <sh1mmer> Zakim, mute [Microsoft]
20:04:44 <Zakim> [Microsoft] was already muted, sh1mmer
20:04:55 <Zakim> +[IBM]
20:04:59 <wendy> zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta
20:04:59 <Zakim> +Mike_Barta; got it
20:05:00 <sh1mmer> q+
20:05:02 <sh1mmer> acxk
20:05:06 <sh1mmer> ack Tom
20:05:07 <bengt> bengt has joined #wai-wcag
20:05:13 <wendy> zakim, [IBM] is Andi_Snow-Weaver
20:05:13 <Zakim> +Andi_Snow-Weaver; got it
20:05:26 <Zakim> +??P12
20:05:55 <bengt> zakim, ??P12 is Bengt_Farre
20:05:55 <Zakim> +Bengt_Farre; got it
20:06:09 <Becky> Becky has joined #wai-wcag
20:06:09 <bcaldwell> ack Tom
20:06:15 <bengt> zakim, I am Bengt_Farre
20:06:18 <Zakim> ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
20:06:25 <bengt> zakim, mute me
20:06:25 <Zakim> Bengt_Farre should now be muted
20:07:12 <Zakim> +Paul_Bohman
20:07:25 <wendy> http://www.w3.org/2004/04/wcag-charter.html
20:08:12 <Zakim> +Vivien|Simon
20:08:21 <MattBOS> zakim, Vivien|Simon is temporarily me
20:08:21 <Zakim> sorry, MattBOS, I do not recognize a party named 'Vivien|Simon'
20:08:30 <MattBOS> zakim, Viv is temporarily me
20:08:30 <Zakim> +MattBOS; got it
20:11:03 <Zakim> +Kerstin_Goldsmith
20:11:06 <Zakim> -Kerstin_Goldsmith
20:12:02 <Zakim> +Kerstin_Goldsmith
20:12:03 <Zakim> -Sailesh_Panchang
20:13:11 <silvia> silvia has joined #wai-wcag
20:13:16 <bengt> where did mailing list go ?
20:13:43 <sh1mmer> the mailing list?
20:14:17 <bengt> there is no direct link anymore 
20:14:34 <bengt> found it in my history ...
20:14:39 <sh1mmer> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/
20:14:42 <Zakim> +Sailesh_Panchang
20:15:31 <bengt> the new layout only lists public_comments ...
20:16:44 <wendy> the link to mail archives is at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/#About
20:16:48 <wendy> under "mailing lists"
20:16:53 <wendy> 1st is public-comments
20:16:57 <wendy> 2nd is working group
20:17:16 <bengt> yep found it now
20:19:53 <rcastaldo> -q
20:19:55 <rcastaldo> q-
20:23:42 <wendy> ack Roberto
20:23:51 <wendy> zakim, Roberto_Castaldo is Yvette
20:23:51 <Zakim> +Yvette; got it
20:24:06 <wendy> zakim, who's on the phone?
20:24:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see Michael_Cooper, Tom (muted), Wendy, David_MacDonald, Ben_and_Gregg, Yvette?, Yvette, Takayuki_Watanabe, John_Slatin, JasonWhite, Becky_Gibson, Mike_Barta
20:24:09 <Zakim> ... (muted), Andi_Snow-Weaver, Bengt_Farre (muted), Paul_Bohman, MattBOS, Kerstin_Goldsmith, Sailesh_Panchang
20:24:15 <wendy> zakim, Yvette? is Roberto_Castaldo
20:24:15 <Zakim> +Roberto_Castaldo; got it
20:29:17 <MichaelC> q+
20:29:28 <wendy> ack kerstin
20:30:30 <wendy> wac and gv summarize changes in charter and w3c process
20:30:34 <wendy> questions from wg:
20:30:44 <wendy> 1. when will this go into effect? about one month
20:31:04 <wendy> 2. what about face-to-faces and Good Standing?  up to chair, but fairly lax b/c of travel constraints.
20:31:38 <wendy> 3. can i be an invited expert and in good standing and vote? yes. all current people in good standing will be invited as experts
20:31:55 <wendy> ack michael
20:33:19 <wendy> 4. what about participants who are deaf?  if someone who is deaf wants to participate, we will set up real-time captioning (ala the RDIG telecon that used web-streaming)
20:33:23 <wendy> relay may be another possibility
20:33:52 <wendy> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2003/06/event01-proceedings.html
20:34:35 <wendy> transcription: http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2003/04/28-captions.html
20:34:49 <wendy> ack john
20:35:37 <wendy> ack Andi
20:39:04 <wendy> looks like typo in milestones to list css and scripting techs twice in 3Q
20:39:14 <wendy> resolved: we approve this charter
20:39:40 <wendy> ===
20:39:42 <wendy> conformance
20:40:31 <wendy> should all success criteria be testable?
20:40:37 <wendy> ok for level 3 not to be testable
20:40:51 <sh1mmer> q+
20:41:04 <MattBOS> q+
20:41:56 <MichaelC> q+
20:42:24 <sh1mmer> ack Tom
20:42:26 <wendy> level 3 exist, but don't create a conformance level. not likely that people will claim.
20:42:46 <wendy> is the question that they are testable but testable to the same degree as level 1 and level 2?
20:43:11 <MichaelC> q+ : if we have untestable items at a given conformance level, it is not meaningful to call that "conformance"
20:43:29 <wendy> ack matt
20:44:19 <wendy> if it's hard to make sure you did it, and there's a lot of stuff to do, then tools won't likely do well and the only people who claim will be wrong.
20:44:47 <wendy> you can create 3 levels of guidelines, but only 1 and 2 should have a name applied that you can claim conformance to
20:44:50 <wendy> ack michael
20:44:50 <Zakim> Michael_Cooper, you wanted to if we have untestable items at a given conformance level, it is not meaningful to call that "conformance"
20:44:56 <GVAN> q+
20:45:13 <wendy> don't object to presence of untestable criteria, but they shouldn't be success criteria.
20:45:53 <wendy> 2 conformance levels + additional suggestions? or 3 conformance levels plus additional suggestions?  or x # of conformance levels without additional suggestions?
20:46:15 <wendy> mc supports any as long as we don't confound conformance w/idea of untestable items.
20:46:18 <wendy> ack john
20:47:20 <wendy> don't care how many levels of conformance. do care that difficult items related to language (guideline 3). can't support dropping them out.
20:47:24 <wendy> q+ to say, "style guide"
20:47:29 <wendy> ack kerstin
20:47:54 <wendy> don't care about how many levels, but conformance is inherently about testing
20:48:29 <wendy> ok to leave in as suggestions, but not part of conformance.
20:48:32 <wendy> testability is key.
20:49:06 <wendy> ack gvan
20:49:22 <wendy> if call it conformance and success criteria, it has to be testable.
20:49:33 <wendy> good idea to have "additional suggestions"
20:50:09 <wendy> checkpoints?
20:50:36 <wendy> if don't allow anything in between levels, each is all or nothing.
20:51:12 <wendy> level 3 of 3.1 is cognitive and learning and disability, but it is not the only guideline. over 1/2 of the guidelines cover cognitive and learning disabilities.
20:51:18 <wendy> ack wendy
20:51:18 <Zakim> wendy, you wanted to say, "style guide"
20:52:27 <wendy> ack andi
20:52:53 <wendy> would like one level (in interest of world harmonization), realize radical idea but...would likely help harmonization
20:53:03 <wendy> agree w/kerstin - if it's part of a conformance scheme, ithas to be testable
20:53:26 <wendy> chance it will end up in legislation. if have to defend from legal perspective, has to be testable
20:53:45 <wendy> ack yvette
20:54:13 <rellero> What about (3.3) actually deleted "Content is no more complex than is necessary" (>14.1), I think that not considering it at least at the level as 3 is inopportune
20:54:22 <wendy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0074.html
20:54:31 <wendy> listed different types of level 3 criteria
20:54:41 <wendy> some are testable, others might be better off as best practices
20:54:56 <wendy> first decide, which guidelines are testable (w/out thinking about testability)
20:55:03 <wendy> and those things that are good for accessibility
20:55:08 <wendy> that should be in best practice
20:55:14 <wendy> think about how to really help web accessiblity
20:55:19 <wendy> w/out thinking about which is what level already
20:55:31 <wendy> ack pau
20:55:41 <GVAN> q+
20:56:07 <wendy> must have missed discussions of style guide.  think it could be something valuable.
20:57:30 <wendy> could be a reality check for people who are trying to make a difference vs comply w/rules
20:57:34 <wendy> ack gv
20:57:51 <rcastaldo> q+
20:57:56 <Zakim> -Michael_Cooper
20:58:47 <wendy> suggest (to move forward) by saying we'll look at 3 levels and only put testable things in them. also have "other recommendations and measures" 
20:58:55 <wendy> other things you can do that don't fall into one of the success criteria
20:59:06 <DoyleB> DoyleB has joined #wai-wcag
20:59:38 <wendy> first, we shouild build them, then later decide whether they should go into guidelines or gateway or style guide/something similar.
20:59:55 <DoyleB> Sorry I am late, did not think I'd make it to a computer, cannot call-in.  This will haev to do for today.  Sorry I am late.
20:59:55 <wendy> at that time, could also decide if 3 levels of criteria should be in 2 or 3 levels.
21:00:39 <wendy> ack rob
21:00:43 <wendy> ack rc
21:00:51 <wendy> agree w/the suggestion.
21:00:55 <wendy> in italy, have issues w/new law.
21:01:43 <wendy> not all checkpoints in wcag 1.0 are testable.
21:02:21 <wendy> yvette: we should focus on the guideliens and not get hung up on levels
21:06:07 <wendy> ben: we've been here before.
21:06:20 <wendy> gv would like to postpone discussion about sorting out until we know what we're sorting.
21:06:22 <wendy> ack john
21:06:29 <wendy> how many untestable items are there in level 3?
21:07:16 <Zakim> -MattBOS
21:09:46 <wendy> q+
21:10:10 <wendy> not falling off the table - they are getting fixed or moving to gateway
21:10:12 <MattBOS> MattBOS has left #wai-wcag
21:10:14 <wendy> suggest a timelimit
21:10:25 <wendy> for when they get moved out of conformance scheme into someplace lese
21:10:29 <wendy> s/lese/else
21:12:22 <wendy> ack wendy
21:14:23 <wendy> propose that we draft a style guide. let's try a new way forward. we've talked about it, but never tried constructing it.
21:15:08 <wendy> don't think putting it in general techniques gives it the profile that people would like to see. don't think we could get agreement on that as a compromise. think style guide different from general techniquyes
21:15:29 <wendy> (propose wendy, paul, and matt work on propoal - if they are interested. think matt was first to propose a while ago)
21:17:24 <Zakim> -Sailesh_Panchang
21:17:29 <wendy> yvette - put non-testable stuff in one place
21:19:28 <wendy> can imagine that several people have thought up guidelines but decided not to post since not testable.
21:19:41 <wendy> what about an appendix in the working document that says, "items which are currently felt to be untestable?"
21:19:49 <wendy> we could gather them there so we dn't lose track of them.
21:20:56 <bengt> that would mean that evry level will be testable in the end ?
21:21:10 <wendy> 4 voices say, "would like to see style guide"
21:21:18 <wendy> do we have to do one or the other?
21:21:21 <wendy> do both?
21:21:42 <wendy> while we explore the style guide idea, let's have a place to store the untestable items so we don't lose them.
21:22:02 <wendy> is the idea to solicit ideas for more ntestable stuff?
21:22:10 <wendy> no, it's just a place to put the ones that we have
21:22:28 <DoyleB> Are we pulling the untestable items from the main guidelines document?  
21:22:50 <wendy> do we move it or just link to it?  move it
21:23:04 <wendy> we are moving untestable items from success criteria to an appendix at the end
21:23:43 <DoyleB> I'd prefer moving as opposed to linking - movign to the end sounds good to me.
21:23:44 <wendy> consensus: all success criteria should be testable 
21:24:12 <DoyleB> yes on teh consensus call
21:24:49 <wendy> gv reads language from: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0180.html
21:25:13 <wendy> sailesh had good edits: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0186.html
21:26:15 <wendy> action: john propose defn of testable
21:26:54 <wendy> do we want advisory items in teh document or not? do not have consensus. will put in appendix for now.
21:27:42 <wendy> ack david
21:27:50 <wendy> ack yvette
21:27:51 <wendy> ack john
21:28:17 <wendy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0182.html
21:28:37 <wendy> delete #1 under the defn of level 1 success criteria
21:28:45 <wendy> "Do not set limits on content or presentation;"
21:28:57 <wendy> not worded the way it is meant.
21:29:04 <wendy> should be clarified to mean "default presentatioN"
21:29:42 <wendy> s/resources/something less techy
21:30:35 <Zakim> -Roberto_Castaldo
21:30:43 <wendy> does anyone disagree w/deleting this item?
21:30:59 <wendy> not that *is* invisible, but it can be
21:31:10 <wendy> if there, it will be manifest in one way or another.
21:31:19 <wendy> possible to implement in way that is not visible in some presentations
21:32:27 <wendy> it presupposes a default user agent
21:32:28 <rcastaldo> 01I'm trying to re-enter in the meeting, but a voice says that "the conference is restricted at this time" 
21:32:37 <wendy> zakim, who's on the phone?
21:32:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see Tom (muted), Wendy, David_MacDonald, Ben_and_Gregg, Yvette, Takayuki_Watanabe, John_Slatin, JasonWhite, Becky_Gibson, Mike_Barta (muted), Andi_Snow-Weaver,
21:32:40 <Zakim> ... Bengt_Farre (muted), Paul_Bohman, Kerstin_Goldsmith
21:32:41 <bengt> over time
21:33:01 <wendy> hmm.
21:33:05 <wendy> we're close to ending
21:33:15 <wendy> consensus: will drop the 1st item of defn of level 1 success criteria
21:33:21 <rcastaldo> ok
21:33:27 <rellero> I agree
21:34:01 <wendy> 1. Build on Level 1;
21:34:01 <wendy>  
21:34:01 <wendy>    2. Increase accessibility both though additional facilitation of user
21:34:01 <wendy> agent based        
21:34:01 <wendy>        accessibility and through content and/or presentation that provides direct 
21:34:02 <wendy>        accessibility without requiring intervention by user agents or
21:34:04 <wendy> assistive technology;     
21:34:06 <wendy>  
21:34:08 <wendy>    3. The working group felt could be reasonably be applied to all Web resources;
21:34:10 <wendy> ack john
21:34:18 <wendy> not consistent that all level 2 build on level 1, since some guidelines don't have level 1 cirteria
21:34:44 <wendy> consensus: delete first item in proposed defn of level 2
21:34:45 <Zakim> -Kerstin_Goldsmith
21:34:46 <Zakim> -Mike_Barta
21:34:52 <Zakim> -John_Slatin
21:35:43 <bengt> ok
21:36:07 <rcastaldo> ok
21:36:20 <wendy> consensus to use this as existing set of criteria?  just lost a few people, ask again at beginning of next week's call
21:36:21 <Zakim> -Bengt_Farre
21:36:45 <Zakim> -Becky_Gibson
21:36:49 <Zakim> -Andi_Snow-Weaver
21:36:53 <Zakim> -Tom
21:36:55 <Zakim> -Yvette
21:36:56 <Zakim> -Paul_Bohman
21:36:57 <Zakim> -Wendy
21:36:57 <Zakim> -David_MacDonald
21:36:59 <Zakim> -Ben_and_Gregg
21:36:59 <bengt> bye
21:37:01 <rellero> bye
21:37:03 <Zakim> -JasonWhite
21:37:06 <rcastaldo> bye folks
21:37:06 <silvia> bye bye!
21:37:06 <Zakim> -Takayuki_Watanabe
21:37:07 <Zakim> WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
21:37:08 <Zakim> Attendees were Michael_Cooper, Tom, Wendy, David_MacDonald, Ben_and_Gregg, Roberto_Castaldo?, John_Slatin, Takayuki_Watanabe, Sailesh_Panchang, JasonWhite, Becky_Gibson,
21:37:10 <Zakim> ... Mike_Barta, Andi_Snow-Weaver, Bengt_Farre, Paul_Bohman, Vivien|Simon, MattBOS, Kerstin_Goldsmith, Yvette, Roberto_Castaldo
21:37:15 <silvia> silvia has left #wai-wcag
21:37:21 <rcastaldo> rcastaldo has left #wai-wcag
21:37:28 <wendy> zakim, bye
21:37:28 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wai-wcag
21:37:31 <wendy> RRSAGent, bye
21:37:31 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item:
21:37:31 <RRSAgent> ACTION: john propose defn of testable [1]
21:37:31 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/04/29-wai-wcag-irc#T21-26-15