14:05:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
14:05:31 <wendy> RRSAgent, make logs world-visible
14:05:34 <Zakim> +Sailesh_Panchang
14:06:59 <wendy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0333.html
14:10:30 <wendy> "select technology" should happen before "checklists"
14:10:35 <wendy> checklists will be technology-specific
14:10:45 <wendy> some questions for david about what he is intending
14:10:56 <wendy> "select checklist" mean "select technology"?
14:11:24 <wendy> perhaps "select technology" then "select checklist or techniques or both"
14:11:30 <wendy> from that go to technologies
14:11:39 <wendy> seems like too many paths, seems confusing.
14:12:05 <wendy> at top of wcag 1.0, link for checklist to "switch the view" - find that very helpful
14:12:20 <wendy> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/
14:12:27 <wendy> [contents]   [checklist] 
14:13:47 <wendy> how is "technology indie techniques" different from "techniques repository"
14:15:00 <wendy> action: wendy talk with david about diagram (give suggestions from this call for revision)
14:17:44 <wendy> some people want to go right to checklists
14:18:29 <wendy> checklists linked from guidelines?
14:18:41 <wendy> could work to treat checklists as independent entity
14:19:05 <wendy> could make ref at top of the document - a separate tool rather than a link from every guideline
14:20:05 <wendy> checklist is tool for evaluators
14:20:37 <wendy> evaluators - what kind of evaluators? evaluating content or author/evaluation tool?
14:23:47 <wendy> tom's personae from last sept: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003JulSep/0497.html
14:24:18 <wendy> action: Becky review tom's previous work on personas and expand upon them
14:25:33 <wendy> next week: review the revisions of graph and use cases
14:25:38 <wendy> end-to-end analyses
14:26:35 <wendy> 1.1 and 1.3: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/att-0054/gateway-outline
14:26:50 <wendy> 1.4 and 1.5: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0158.html
14:30:14 <wendy> should there be a success criteria if there is nothing specific for users to do.  
14:30:36 <wendy> places where things didn't fall into the hierarchy very well?
14:30:51 <wendy> when looked at 1.1, there were techs that supported both of the success criteria.
14:31:46 <wendy> if started with test cases, group those into techniques then group those into guidelines
14:32:01 <wendy> interesting to create guidelines by test cases of accessibility issues
14:32:34 <wendy> if someone creates a techniques that aids accessibility and we have nothing in the guidelines, what will we do?
14:32:45 <wendy> similar to the units of measurement issue - there is nothing in the guidelines right now.
14:32:49 <wendy> or is it a bug in the browser?
14:33:18 <wendy> UAAG rely on WCAG, but WCAG should speak to functional aspect of scalable text
14:33:27 <wendy> become an author responsibility of browsers are broken
14:34:59 <wendy> a large part of wcag 1.0 was author fixes for user agents
14:35:10 <wendy> in practice, if you want your content accessible, is the author's responsibility
14:35:57 <wendy> however, current movements say "use standards. browsers should follow standards"
14:36:08 <wendy> in some cases, there are techniques that are deprecated.
14:36:13 <wendy> techs specific to address browser bugs
14:36:18 <wendy> how much do we want to promote those?
14:37:05 <wendy> guidelines need to say "text needs to be scalable"
14:37:34 <wendy> we could include tech that says "broken browser support...." rely on UAAG for appropriate way to do it in browsers
14:40:17 <wendy> this was an issue raised in relation to reviewing JIS guidelines.
14:40:43 <wendy> there was agreement in november f2f to create guideline/success criteria related to readable fonts
14:41:02 <wendy> action: wendy make sure this is included in issues list and gets discussed in WCAG WG
14:41:37 <wendy> action: wendy make sure other proposals/issues from JIS are also included in issues list/discussion. if not proposals already, request someone write them.
14:42:13 <wendy> create guidelines for issues that user agents should address rather than authors?
14:43:30 <wendy> would this boil down to "until user agents...'
14:43:35 <wendy> handled by techniuqes
14:43:56 <wendy> section 508 created author requirements and functional criteria
14:44:36 <wendy> if guidelienes are functional characteristics, these are characterisitcs that content should have to be accessible to people with disabilities
14:44:49 <wendy> some met by user agents, some met by author's as interim measure...
14:45:02 <wendy> q+ to say, "slippery slope"
14:45:15 <wendy> guidelines say, "users should be able to do X"
14:49:39 <MichaelC> ack wendy
14:49:39 <Zakim> wendy, you wanted to say, "slippery slope"
14:50:56 <wendy> one reason for end-to-end was to get the individual pieces connected. look at what is missing.
14:51:12 <wendy> many pieces seem to be written w/out looking at other related pieces.
15:02:31 <wendy> wendy has joined #wai-wcag
15:02:46 <wendy> can't look at content alone, also have to look at user agent
15:02:54 <wendy> need to educate users
15:05:19 <wendy> end-to-end should include uaag and atag
15:05:28 <wendy> it should include references to other guidelines where appropriate
15:06:20 <wendy> action: wendy, jenae, david update end-to-end analyses with atag/uaag
15:07:04 <wendy> include atag and uaag in the big diagram?
15:08:21 <wendy> action: michael write description of "functional characteristics" 
15:08:54 <wendy> how many dangling techniques are there?
15:09:12 <wendy> (chris thinks about 3 or 4? )
15:10:39 <ChrisR> Here's the site that contains the current list of checks with associated test files: 
15:10:40 <ChrisR> http://oac.atrc.utoronto.ca/index.html
15:12:13 <wendy> mappings
15:12:33 <wendy> action: michael clean up mappings from html techs to success criteria and post to list
15:12:58 <wendy> david did comparison of 1.0 to 2.0 techniques
15:13:36 <wendy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JanMar/0384.html
15:14:02 <wendy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JanMar/0270.html
15:14:11 <wendy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JanMar/0257.html
15:14:38 <wendy> 1 - david's html 1.o to 2.0 tech mapping
15:14:50 <wendy> 2 - michael, david, and ben's html to guidelines mapping
15:15:00 <wendy> 3. david's css 1.0 to 2.0 tech mapping
15:15:02 <wendy> ===
15:18:09 <wendy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0191.html
15:18:16 <wendy> linking from guidelines to techniques
15:19:28 <wendy> wendy summarizes discussions with shawn, suggestion for option 5 at:
15:19:38 <wendy> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/04/links-from-wcag.html#Option5
15:19:51 <wendy> issues: link text gets long quickly, where link to?
15:20:15 <wendy> david mocked up single page - help people realize "you are here" and this is all the info related to this success criteria
15:21:51 <wendy> at a minimum, for july draft would like to see link after every success criteria so people can begin to see the big picture
15:21:59 <wendy> have something for people to reacte to
15:22:37 <wendy> like the "how to" but would like to have an icon that represents the concept so that there isn't so much text
15:22:47 <wendy> can we do this by level instead of success criteria?
15:23:08 <wendy> that was explored in a different option
15:23:21 <wendy> e.g., option 1 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/04/links-from-wcag.html#Option1
15:23:50 <wendy> and option 4: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/04/links-from-wcag.html#Option1
15:24:15 <wendy> I18N techniques had something off in margin
15:24:42 <wendy> two icons: one for techniques one for checklist
15:26:02 <wendy> make sure the icons have scent...talk with usability folks about how much scent icons have
15:26:12 <wendy> how likely for someone to follow icon if doesn't say "how to"
15:28:13 <wendy> how to boil language down?
15:28:18 <wendy> "how to ... 1.1"
15:28:36 <wendy> 1.1 is gobbledygook for people who don't live in guidelines.  "text equivalents" has scent.
15:28:45 <wendy> (or at least more scent than 1.1)
15:28:58 <wendy> in june 2003 draft, did we have keywords?
15:30:50 <wendy> katie haritos-shea introduced idea of "handles" for each guideline
15:31:10 <wendy> action: sailesh propose "handles" (short text phrases) for each success criteria. 
15:31:26 <wendy> we could use these in the traffic cop (instead of entire text of SC) as well as in links to techniques
15:31:48 <wendy> wait for revised flowchart to continue discussion on linkages
15:32:12 <wendy> ===
15:35:42 <wendy> css doesn't seem to make too much sense on its own. current draft has lots of issues.
15:35:46 <wendy> many is reiterating css spec.
15:35:51 <wendy> many techs rely on html techs
15:36:00 <wendy> use css diff for xml, x/html, svg
15:36:13 <wendy> what are the accessibility issues with css alone? most stem from combined use w/scripting.
15:36:26 <wendy> therefore, web apps and joint techs w/atag seems most interesting
15:36:57 <wendy> many of css techs (re: color) belong in gateway/tech indie
15:37:06 <wendy> discussion on list re: supporting technologies
15:38:35 <wendy> in html techs, where say use structure, then say "use css to style"
15:38:52 <wendy> how include that in css?
15:42:16 <wendy> wendy wants to do analysis of guidelines and how relate to css.  also talk w/css gurus about possible css issues. concern about css3, but in CR
15:42:17 <wendy> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-CSS-TECHS-20031219.html
15:43:44 <wendy> action: wendy talk with tim. write proposal for how to move forward with CSS techs.
15:44:43 <wendy> ===
15:44:46 <wendy> table headers
15:46:12 <wendy> most browsers seem to require scope
15:46:19 <wendy> if go w/th, should also consider scope
15:46:32 <wendy> disagreement with data
15:46:43 <wendy> th w/out scope does trigger screen readers to do things
15:46:51 <wendy> it's difficult to test
15:47:12 <wendy> however, have a test where heading is diagonal from the cell
15:47:16 <wendy> see if SR reads it
15:47:29 <wendy> scope to add th is not necessary
15:47:49 <wendy> scope is fairly recent. headers and id were first to be supported.
15:47:58 <wendy> scope mostly intended to be used with td
15:48:16 <wendy> scope is not necessary in row 1 or col 1
15:48:20 <wendy> want to make sure reason for scope
15:48:35 <wendy> doesn't make sense if we know scope is col
15:48:39 <wendy> th rule is one option.
15:49:13 <wendy> not bad to add something beyond html, but don't like th because it adds things that we dont need. using headers and id could get the same info.
15:50:35 <wendy> captions optinal on data tables?
15:50:46 <wendy> in wcag 1.0, priority 2
15:50:52 <wendy> caption *or* summary but not both
15:51:01 <wendy> both are necessary, they serve diff purposes
15:51:06 <wendy> summary = "" on layout table
15:51:21 <wendy> summary is not reliable
15:51:35 <wendy> has been used so many ways
15:51:40 <wendy> correc that?
15:51:45 <wendy> for layout tables, used summary=""
15:53:07 <wendy> use th in addition to headers/id
15:53:19 <wendy> from the list, if use headers/id don't also need to use th
15:53:30 <wendy> is that acceptable? 
15:53:53 <wendy> what is current pratice? what is ideal?
15:54:20 <wendy> current practice = how authors use table as well as how browsers and assistive technologies support table elements/attributes
15:54:33 <wendy> issues with visual impact of th. use styles!
15:54:52 <wendy> other reasons for using this markup?
15:54:57 <wendy> search engines?
15:55:25 <wendy> what does the spec say?
15:55:37 <wendy> there may be exceptions to the rule, but it's a simple rule.
15:55:49 <wendy> "all data tables should have th" exceptions are...other options are...
15:56:06 <wendy> whenever use colspan no need to use th
15:56:15 <wendy> only in simple talbe th work all the time
15:56:29 <wendy> for whom do we want this technique?
15:56:40 <wendy> authors. 
15:56:43 <wendy> screen readers?
15:57:00 <wendy> they can read any table cell-by-cell. behavior doesn't change knowing it is a data table.
15:57:06 <wendy> could announce "found data table"
15:57:34 <wendy> SRs have own algorithms to detect
15:57:42 <wendy> by default read as data table, can be frustrating
15:57:47 <wendy> user has to know to change reading mode
15:58:06 <wendy> data tables are difficult to navigate w/a SR
15:58:32 <wendy> q+ to say "s/layout tables/css"
15:59:23 <wendy> tables should have captions like maps show which direction is north
16:00:27 <wendy> if have th is empty cell, get no headings
16:00:32 <wendy> sailesh had example
16:02:10 <wendy> what about css?
16:02:37 <wendy> fix problem in 1.0, people assume summary needed for every table
16:03:01 <wendy> layout: summary=""  data="something about the data"
16:03:55 <wendy> should our focus be on how to distinguish between data and layout?  how to create good data tables is a much more difficult and interesting problem.
16:04:03 <wendy> let's put our energy there.
16:04:28 <wendy> and push css for layout
16:04:34 <wendy> no resolution today.
16:04:49 <wendy> how would this be refleted in techniques?
16:04:52 <wendy> in html techs
16:05:09 <Zakim> -Don_Evans
16:05:17 <wendy> next week: another 2 hour mtg? 3 hour?
16:06:24 <wendy> next week: issues w/html and gateway. 
16:06:38 <wendy> need new drafts, at least 2, so can publish something in july
16:06:50 <wendy> longer mtgs in next few weeks to help us get through those
16:08:37 <wendy> please contact wendy about how to help. i can help break tasks into smaller chunks.
16:08:48 <Zakim> -Becky_Gibson
16:09:18 <Zakim> -Jenae
16:10:46 <Zakim> -Jim_Thatcher
16:10:47 <Zakim> -Michael_Cooper
16:10:48 <Zakim> -Sailesh_Panchang
16:10:49 <Zakim> -Chris
16:10:49 <Zakim> -Ben
16:10:50 <Zakim> -Wendy
16:10:51 <Zakim> WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has ended
16:10:52 <Zakim> Attendees were Becky_Gibson, Jim_Thatcher, Wendy, Jenae, Chris, Michael_Cooper, Ben, Don_Evans, Sailesh_Panchang
16:16:47 <ChrisR> ChrisR has left #wai-wcag
16:17:40 <wendy> zakim, bye
16:17:40 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wai-wcag
16:17:43 <wendy> RRSAgent, bye
16:17:43 <RRSAgent> I see 9 open action items:
16:17:43 <RRSAgent> ACTION: wendy talk with david about diagram (give suggestions from this call for revision) [1]
16:17:43 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/12-wai-wcag-irc#T14-15-00
16:17:43 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Becky review tom's previous work on personas and expand upon them [2]
16:17:43 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/12-wai-wcag-irc#T14-24-18
16:17:43 <RRSAgent> ACTION: wendy make sure this is included in issues list and gets discussed in WCAG WG [3]
16:17:43 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/12-wai-wcag-irc#T14-41-02
16:17:43 <RRSAgent> ACTION: wendy make sure other proposals/issues from JIS are also included in issues list/discussion. if not proposals already, request someone write them. [4]
16:17:43 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/12-wai-wcag-irc#T14-41-37
16:17:43 <RRSAgent> ACTION: wendy, jenae, david update end-to-end analyses with atag/uaag [5]
16:17:43 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/12-wai-wcag-irc#T15-06-20
16:17:43 <RRSAgent> ACTION: michael write description of "functional characteristics"  [6]
16:17:43 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/12-wai-wcag-irc#T15-08-21
16:17:43 <RRSAgent> ACTION: michael clean up mappings from html techs to success criteria and post to list [7]
16:17:43 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/12-wai-wcag-irc#T15-12-33
16:17:43 <RRSAgent> ACTION: sailesh propose "handles" (short text phrases) for each success criteria.  [8]
16:17:43 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/12-wai-wcag-irc#T15-31-10
16:17:43 <RRSAgent> ACTION: wendy talk with tim. write proposal for how to move forward with CSS techs. [9]
16:17:43 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/12-wai-wcag-irc#T15-43-44