IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-05-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:05:23 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
14:05:31 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make logs world-visible
14:05:34 [Zakim]
14:06:59 [wendy]
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]
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:
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:
14:26:50 [wendy]
1.4 and 1.5:
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]
15:12:13 [wendy]
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]
15:14:02 [wendy]
15:14:11 [wendy]
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]
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]
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
15:23:50 [wendy]
and option 4:
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 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]
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]
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]
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]
16:09:18 [Zakim]
16:10:46 [Zakim]
16:10:47 [Zakim]
16:10:48 [Zakim]
16:10:49 [Zakim]
16:10:49 [Zakim]
16:10:50 [Zakim]
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
16:17:43 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Becky review tom's previous work on personas and expand upon them [2]
16:17:43 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
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
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
16:17:43 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wendy, jenae, david update end-to-end analyses with atag/uaag [5]
16:17:43 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:17:43 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: michael write description of "functional characteristics" [6]
16:17:43 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
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
16:17:43 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: sailesh propose "handles" (short text phrases) for each success criteria. [8]
16:17:43 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
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