IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-04-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
20:00:45 [Zakim]
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]
20:01:28 [Zakim]
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]
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]
20:03:15 [rellero]
rellero has joined #wai-wcag
20:03:22 [rellero]
20:03:34 [Zakim]
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]
20:04:04 [MattBOS]
MattBOS has joined #wai-wcag
20:04:17 [sh1mmer]
20:04:19 [wendy]
reports on action items
20:04:29 [Zakim]
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]
20:04:59 [wendy]
zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta
20:04:59 [Zakim]
+Mike_Barta; got it
20:05:00 [sh1mmer]
20:05:02 [sh1mmer]
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]
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]
20:07:25 [wendy]
20:08:12 [Zakim]
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]
20:11:06 [Zakim]
20:12:02 [Zakim]
20:12:03 [Zakim]
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]
20:14:42 [Zakim]
20:15:31 [bengt]
the new layout only lists public_comments ...
20:16:44 [wendy]
the link to mail archives is at
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]
20:19:55 [rcastaldo]
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]
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]
20:34:35 [wendy]
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]
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]
20:41:04 [MattBOS]
20:41:56 [MichaelC]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
20:57:56 [Zakim]
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]
21:09:46 [wendy]
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]
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]
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:
21:25:13 [wendy]
sailesh had good edits:
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
21:34:46 [Zakim]
21:34:52 [Zakim]
21:35:43 [bengt]
21:36:07 [rcastaldo]
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]
21:36:45 [Zakim]
21:36:49 [Zakim]
21:36:53 [Zakim]
21:36:55 [Zakim]
21:36:56 [Zakim]
21:36:57 [Zakim]
21:36:57 [Zakim]
21:36:59 [Zakim]
21:36:59 [bengt]
21:37:01 [rellero]
21:37:03 [Zakim]
21:37:06 [rcastaldo]
bye folks
21:37:06 [silvia]
bye bye!
21:37:06 [Zakim]
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