IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-06-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:55:04 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
19:55:13 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
19:55:13 [Zakim]
ok, sh1mmer, I see WAI_WCAG()4:00PM already started
19:55:20 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
19:55:20 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [Microsoft]
19:55:34 [sh1mmer]
RRSAgent, make logs world visible
19:55:34 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make logs world visible', sh1mmer. Try /msg RRSAgent help
19:56:41 [Zakim]
19:56:47 [nabe]
nabe has joined #wai-wcag
19:57:03 [nabe]
good morning
19:57:04 [bengt]
zakim, ??p1 is Bengt_Farre
19:57:04 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
19:57:14 [bengt]
zakim, I am Bengt_Farre
19:57:14 [Zakim]
ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
19:57:22 [bengt]
zakim, mute me
19:57:22 [Zakim]
Bengt_Farre should now be muted
19:58:49 [Becky]
Becky has joined #wai-wcag
19:59:08 [Zakim]
19:59:19 [andyjudson]
andyjudson has joined #wai-wcag
19:59:50 [Zakim]
19:59:58 [Zakim]
19:59:58 [Zakim]
20:00:15 [bengt]
hmm, I cant hear anything !
20:00:17 [rcastaldo]
rcastaldo has joined #wai-wcag
20:00:26 [rcastaldo]
HI all
20:00:47 [Zakim]
20:00:48 [Zakim]
20:00:51 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, I am Tom
20:00:51 [Zakim]
ok, sh1mmer, I now associate you with Tom_Croucher
20:00:52 [sh1mmer]
mute me
20:00:56 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, mute me
20:00:56 [Zakim]
Tom_Croucher should now be muted
20:01:09 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike
20:01:09 [Zakim]
+Mike; got it
20:01:16 [Zakim]
20:01:17 [Zakim]
20:01:19 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, unmute me
20:01:19 [Zakim]
Tom_Croucher should no longer be muted
20:01:38 [Zakim]
20:01:46 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, mute me
20:01:47 [Zakim]
20:01:48 [Zakim]
Tom_Croucher should now be muted
20:01:49 [bengt]
zakim, ??P1 is Bengt_Farre
20:01:49 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
20:01:58 [rcastaldo]
Zakim, I am Roberto_Castaldo
20:01:58 [Zakim]
sorry, rcastaldo, I do not see a party named 'Roberto_Castaldo'
20:02:00 [bengt]
zakim, I am Bengt_Farre
20:02:00 [Zakim]
ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
20:02:05 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:02:05 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Mike, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Becky_Gibson, Tom_Croucher (muted), John_Slatin, ??P7, ??P6, ??P8, Bengt_Farre, Wendy
20:02:06 [bengt]
zakim, mute me
20:02:06 [bcaldwell]
bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
20:02:07 [Zakim]
Bengt_Farre should now be muted
20:02:16 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, unmute me
20:02:16 [Zakim]
Tom_Croucher should no longer be muted
20:02:17 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
20:02:19 [bengt]
zakim, who is making noise
20:02:19 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is making noise', bengt
20:02:26 [bengt]
zakim, who is making noise ?
20:02:27 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Mike (24%), Tom_Croucher (44%), ??P7 (90%), ??P8 (36%)
20:02:29 [Zakim]
20:02:38 [Zakim]
bengt, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Mike (17%), Katie_Haritos-Shea (4%), John_Slatin (37%), ??P7 (33%), ??P8 (7%), Wendy (18%)
20:02:46 [Zakim]
20:02:47 [rcastaldo]
I've muted
20:02:50 [MichaelC]
MichaelC has joined #wai-wcag
20:03:00 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
20:03:00 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Mike, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Becky_Gibson, Tom_Croucher, John_Slatin, ??P7, ??P6, ??P8, Bengt_Farre (muted), Wendy, Michael_Cooper, Matt
20:03:00 [GVAN]
GVAN has joined #wai-wcag
20:03:05 [MichaelC]
zakim, I am Michael_Cooper
20:03:05 [Zakim]
ok, MichaelC, I now associate you with Michael_Cooper
20:03:09 [MichaelC]
zakim, mute me
20:03:09 [Zakim]
Michael_Cooper should now be muted
20:03:17 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, ??P7
20:03:17 [Zakim]
I don't understand '??P7', sh1mmer
20:03:19 [rcastaldo]
I should be ??P7
20:03:21 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, mute ??P7
20:03:21 [Zakim]
??P7 should now be muted
20:03:36 [wendy]
zakim, ??P7 may be Roberto_Castaldo
20:03:36 [Zakim]
+Roberto_Castaldo?; got it
20:03:38 [bengt]
noise gone
20:03:40 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:03:40 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Mike, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Becky_Gibson, Tom_Croucher, John_Slatin, Roberto_Castaldo? (muted), ??P6 (muted), ??P8, Bengt_Farre (muted), Wendy, Michael_Cooper
20:03:42 [rcastaldo]
20:03:43 [Zakim]
... (muted), Matt
20:03:57 [bengt]
watanabe ?
20:03:59 [wendy]
zakim, ??P6 may be Takayuki
20:03:59 [Zakim]
+Takayuki?; got it
20:04:06 [wendy]
zakim, ??P8 may be Gregg_and_Ben
20:04:06 [Zakim]
+Gregg_and_Ben?; got it
20:04:09 [rcastaldo]
Hi Michael
20:04:15 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:04:15 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Mike, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Becky_Gibson, Tom_Croucher, John_Slatin, Roberto_Castaldo? (muted), Takayuki? (muted), Gregg_and_Ben?, Bengt_Farre (muted), Wendy,
20:04:18 [Zakim]
... Michael_Cooper (muted), Matt
20:04:20 [MichaelC]
Hi Roberto - long time...
20:04:20 [nabe]
Yes, I think P6 is me.
20:04:27 [rcastaldo]
20:04:29 [rcastaldo]
20:05:13 [wendy]
can someone minute?
20:05:38 [wendy]
i guess i will.
20:05:50 [wendy]
latest draft:
20:05:52 [wendy]
20:06:16 [nabe]
I can't hear anything on the phone.
20:06:22 [wendy]
20:06:45 [wendy]
takayuki - maybe call back in?
20:06:47 [Zakim]
20:06:51 [Zakim]
20:07:22 [Zakim]
20:07:46 [wendy]
zakim, ??P6 is Takayuki
20:07:46 [Zakim]
+Takayuki; got it
20:08:01 [wendy]
you can hear now. ;)
20:08:23 [rellero]
rellero has joined #wai-wcag
20:08:30 [wendy]
leave 1.1 aside for now since it is in process of being reworded.
20:08:40 [rcastaldo]
HI Roberto
20:08:40 [wendy]
20:09:03 [rellero]
hi, my line is only 28 Kbps, I follow only in irc
20:09:53 [wendy]
scoping may help sort out issues with 1.2
20:10:08 [wendy]
ack john
20:10:15 [wendy]
refer to jason's recent email:
20:10:27 [wendy]
basis of proposal: don't think scoping at level of individual success criteria
20:10:56 [Zakim]
+ +1.512.339.aaaa
20:11:09 [wendy]
zakim, +1.512.339.aaaa is Andi
20:11:09 [Zakim]
+Andi; got it
20:14:08 [GVAN]
20:14:14 [Andi]
Andi has joined #wai-wcag
20:14:16 [wendy]
ack gvan
20:16:06 [sh1mmer]
20:16:08 [sh1mmer]
20:16:50 [wendy]
q+ to ask "others for reaction to jason's msg. he posits 2 options. can people speak to the issues he raises?"
20:17:29 [Zakim]
20:17:42 [wendy]
ack tom
20:18:35 [wendy]
axes: content type (e.g., images), levels, scoping
20:18:50 [Zakim]
20:19:42 [Zakim]
20:19:43 [wendy]
ack wendy
20:19:43 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to ask "others for reaction to jason's msg. he posits 2 options. can people speak to the issues he raises?"
20:20:40 [Zakim]
20:22:13 [Zakim]
20:22:18 [MichaelC]
20:22:59 [wendy]
current draft text: The scope of the conformance claim. The scope describes which parts of a site or application are included in the claim. (for example, a single page, an entire site, or a clearly defined portion of a site.)
20:23:35 [wendy]
how do we describe what is included in scope of conformance claim or not?
20:23:40 [wendy]
ack john
20:23:58 [wendy]
not do scoping in success criteria, but provide guidance in conformance/scoping section.
20:24:06 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
20:24:17 [wendy]
ack michael
20:24:19 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Mike (5%), Katie_Haritos-Shea (18%), John_Slatin (61%), Gregg_and_Ben? (14%), Wendy (9%)
20:24:46 [wendy]
support first of jason's proposals
20:25:01 [wendy]
unless expect conformance claims to be machine-readable, not sure it makes much difference.
20:25:36 [wendy]
general scoping mechanisms are the only that make sense
20:25:56 [wendy]
q+ to say, "conformance profiles"
20:26:18 [GVAN]
20:26:30 [wendy]
ack wendy
20:26:30 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say, "conformance profiles"
20:26:31 [GVAN]
ack wendy
20:28:20 [Andi]
20:29:10 [wendy]
ack gvan
20:29:11 [sh1mmer]
20:29:17 [MichaelC]
zakim, mute me
20:29:17 [Zakim]
Michael_Cooper should now be muted
20:29:27 [wendy]
conformance profiles? templates and examples to help people write their conformance claims.
20:30:26 [wendy]
possible profiles: type of content (multimedia or document vs web application), purpose of content (portal vs e-commerce vs education)
20:30:34 [wendy]
guidance (ala UAAG 1.0, but not as complicated)
20:31:10 [wendy]
how do we deal w/fact that if we went with 1 but not 2, it would eliminate success criteria b/c we know they can't be applied everywhere.
20:31:35 [wendy]
ack and
20:31:36 [wendy]
ack andi
20:31:58 [wendy]
exceptions in the guidelines are not a good idea, but things will be in level 1 that policy makers will require conformance to, when it might not be appropriate.
20:32:10 [wendy]
conformance profiles could help people udnerstand when and what to apply to
20:32:21 [wendy]
something stronger, e.g., model policy?
20:32:26 [wendy]
ack tom
20:32:41 [wendy]
agenda+ conformance profiles or model policies?
20:32:48 [GVAN]
20:33:00 [wendy]
what's scope vs what's defining appropriate methods?
20:33:15 [wendy]
e.g., 1.1 "text equivalents are explicitly associated...exception..."
20:33:39 [wendy]
if we got rid of the exception, unless put back in by policy makers it would make accessible spelling tests impossible.
20:33:46 [wendy]
is that scoping or dealing w/accessibility issue?
20:34:46 [wendy]
difference between what is scoping to define what needs to be done and scoping for the bounds of reasonableness (and not creating unusable guidelines). should be separated.
20:34:58 [wendy]
20:35:09 [wendy]
ack john
20:35:44 [wendy]
example of something that would come out o flevel 1 if we don't scope?
20:36:24 [Zakim]
20:36:28 [Andi]
wendy, mute me please
20:36:29 [wendy]
move forward, carry these ideas to see if they hold up as we walk through
20:36:40 [wendy]
andi, you can mute yourself by typing, "zakim, mute me"
20:36:52 [Andi]
zakim, mute me
20:36:52 [Zakim]
Andi should now be muted
20:36:56 [wendy]
20:37:35 [wendy]
tests; could say "we do 1.1 except we don't provide captions for spelling tests"
20:37:53 [wendy]
how do you avoid, "we're level 1 conformant except we don't provide alternatives for images"
20:38:12 [bcaldwell]
20:38:34 [wendy]
ack gvan
20:38:40 [wendy]
1.2 - wanted to leave out webcams
20:39:28 [bcaldwell]
20:40:45 [Zakim]
20:40:49 [sh1mmer]
20:41:11 [sh1mmer]
ack Tom
20:42:05 [wendy]
webcams w/speech recognition? scoping them out is not dealing w/accessibility, dealing w/hardships
20:42:26 [Zakim]
20:46:36 [Andi]
20:47:48 [wendy]
ack andi
20:48:12 [wendy]
concept of "essential function"
20:48:33 [wendy]
e.g., for ski resort, need webcam to get info? not usually, often available elsewhere on the site.
20:48:41 [wendy]
ack john
20:48:44 [GVAN]
20:49:23 [wendy]
asked question about images transmitted from rover (generated from tool, auto transmitted, and published w/no human intervention)
20:49:29 [wendy]
webcams seem to have similar issues
20:50:25 [MattSEA]
MattSEA has joined #wai-wcag
20:50:41 [wendy]
ack gvan
20:50:47 [wendy]
function is important concept.
20:51:01 [wendy]
"essential function" can be problematic. e.g., of mobile phone.
20:51:05 [wendy]
primary: dialing and talking
20:51:11 [wendy]
secondary: charging batteries, etc.
20:51:13 [wendy]
not useful
20:51:40 [wendy]
ack Mike
20:51:48 [GVAN]
20:52:36 [wendy]
creating scoping for people to create conformance claims, if they have inaccessible content doesn't make snse.
20:52:37 [wendy]
ack gvan
20:53:26 [wendy]
gregg uses analogy of building w/windows and need to describe what you can see outside of the windows.
20:53:34 [wendy]
in order to make the building accessible
20:53:49 [wendy]
webcams are often like windows
20:54:23 [wendy]
we're writing guidelines on how to make content accessible, in conformance we say "you can't make claim if you aren't accessible" except where there is undue burden.
20:54:59 [wendy]
ack john
20:55:29 [Zakim]
20:55:41 [Zakim]
20:56:04 [Zakim]
20:56:05 [Zakim]
20:56:10 [Zakim]
20:56:36 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
20:56:45 [wendy]
zakim, who's muted?
20:56:45 [Zakim]
I see Katie_Haritos-Shea, Bengt_Farre, Michael_Cooper muted
20:56:47 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Tom_Croucher (45%), Takayuki (4%), ??P7 (48%), Gregg_and_Ben? (44%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (76%), Wendy (10%)
20:56:55 [wendy]
zakim, ??P7 may be Roberto_Castaldo
20:56:55 [Zakim]
+Roberto_Castaldo?; got it
20:57:01 [wendy]
zakim, mute Roberto_Castaldo
20:57:01 [Zakim]
Roberto_Castaldo? should now be muted
20:57:08 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:57:08 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Katie_Haritos-Shea (muted), Becky_Gibson, Tom_Croucher, John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben?, Bengt_Farre (muted), Wendy, Michael_Cooper (muted), Matt, Takayuki, Andi,
20:57:11 [Zakim]
... Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Sailesh_Panchang, ??P0, Roberto_Castaldo? (muted)
20:57:18 [wendy]
zakim, ??P0 may be Kerstin
20:57:18 [Zakim]
+Kerstin?; got it
20:57:55 [wendy]
what are the resolutions for 1.2?
20:58:16 [wendy]
moving on to 2.1
20:58:38 [wendy]
21:02:51 [wendy]
" where the functionality or its outcome can be described in a sentence," - can this be removed?
21:04:29 [wendy]
sentences can be very long. is this an issue?
21:04:40 [wendy]
needs to be rewritten and clarified
21:05:04 [wendy]
why not "words" - sentence is too long. however, "words" is even more vague.
21:05:16 [wendy]
what about "phrase?"
21:06:09 [wendy]
if get rid of scoping in level 1, it is the same as the level 3 criterion.
21:07:05 [wendy]
21:07:06 [wendy]
21:07:54 [wendy]
most are methods, not exceptions. those that are exceptions:
21:07:54 [wendy]
the time limit is an important part of a real-time event (for example, an auction), and no alternative to the time limit is possible or;
21:07:54 [wendy]
the time limit is part of an activity where timing is essential (for example, competitive gaming or time-based testing) and time limits can not be extended further without invalidating the activity.
21:08:08 [wendy]
(level 1 criterion)
21:09:22 [Zakim]
21:10:45 [wendy]
overarching "scope" for whole guideline, "unless specific real-time events or rules of competition make such control impossible."
21:11:08 [wendy]
also, scope in most criterion ala, "content that blinks for more than 3 seconds" and " moving or time-based content."
21:11:18 [wendy]
thus, not exceptions, but scoping is built in
21:12:03 [wendy]
21:12:04 [wendy]
21:12:14 [wendy]
"documents greater than 50,000 words or sites larger than 50 perceived pages"
21:12:33 [wendy]
how to require structure around a 1 paragraph note?
21:12:49 [wendy]
just one p element...but says, "hierarchical structure,
21:12:49 [wendy]
table of contents (for pages) or site map (for sites),
21:12:49 [wendy]
alternate display order (for pages) or alternate site navigation mechanisms (for sites)
21:12:51 [wendy]
21:13:08 [wendy]
trying to say, "if small enough, don't have to do"
21:13:34 [wendy]
times when don't need to provide skip navigation links
21:14:08 [Zakim]
21:14:19 [wendy]
21:14:21 [wendy]
21:14:40 [wendy]
"If a user error is detected, and suggestions for correction are known and can be provided without jeopardizing security or purpose (for example, test validity), they are provided "
21:14:47 [wendy]
similar or different than what have seen before?
21:16:06 [wendy]
types of exceptions: impossibility (e.g., if can't describe in words, no need for description), destroy function (e.g., captioning spelling tests), counter-productive (e.g., no need for skip nav links if onl y have 3 links),
21:16:39 [wendy]
this seems to be combo of impossibility (may not be able to provide suggestions) and function (jeopardizing security)
21:16:56 [wendy]
"Where consequences are significant and time-response is not important"
21:17:29 [wendy]
if not significant, not useful to do. therefore, additional category, "useful"
21:17:57 [wendy]
level 3 for 2.5
21:17:58 [wendy]
Where the input options are known, there are less than 75 of them, and they can be provided without jeopardizing security, test validity, etc, users are allowed to select from a list of options as well as to enter text directly.
21:18:21 [wendy]
"known" = possibility, "<75" = counterproductive, "jeoparding..."=function
21:18:46 [wendy]
21:18:46 [wendy]
21:19:37 [wendy]
level 2, #4: note "This does not include use of foreign words in text where such usage is a standard extension of the language."
21:21:45 [wendy]
scoping related to this, i.e., art, poems
21:23:05 [wendy]
but, only 3.1 level 3 #4
21:23:12 [wendy]
the others are applicable, even to poems or archives
21:23:31 [wendy]
however, #4 (complexity of content) could it be scoped out for art? archives?
21:23:47 [wendy]
21:23:48 [wendy]
21:23:59 [wendy]
"Except where the site has documented that a specification was violated for backward compatibility or compatibility with assistive technology,"
21:24:48 [wendy]
that's scoping that applies across the site
21:24:56 [wendy]
falls into counterproductive category?
21:26:41 [wendy]
we've identified 4 primary reasons to create scopig (refer to 4 categories)
21:30:18 [sh1mmer]
21:30:26 [wendy]
ack tom
21:30:40 [Zakim]
21:30:49 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make log world
21:31:42 [wendy]
action: gregg write up 4 categories of exceptions that we identified to begin discussion on the list
21:31:57 [wendy]
horizontal vs vertical concept?
21:32:01 [wendy]
clarification about scoping
21:32:20 [Zakim]
21:32:21 [wendy]
proposals about conformance profiles?
21:32:36 [wendy]
in some cases we see scoping and in others we see exceptions.
21:32:51 [wendy]
is there a way to make them all one or the other?
21:33:12 [wendy]
ack loretta
21:33:31 [wendy]
can we capture the reasons that we have scoping/exceptions?
21:33:43 [wendy]
then, within each guideline, we can highlight where the principles change the interpretation
21:34:21 [wendy]
need to capture how we intend this to be used, particularly by regulatory bodies
21:34:53 [wendy]
if we assume vertical scoping, but wcag 2.0 adopted by someone who does not allow vertical scoping...creates an issue
21:36:05 [nabe]
21:36:36 [wendy]
action: loretta work with gregg on capturing how intend wcag 2.0 to be used, particularly by regulatory bodies.
21:36:57 [wendy]
vertical: large parts of site don't conform (archive)
21:37:07 [wendy]
horizontal: images (pieces taht go across several page)
21:37:18 [wendy]
vertical: one particular page or section of site
21:37:35 [Zakim]
21:37:45 [wendy]
horzizontaL: particular element applied across site (e.g., images, webcams that create content)
21:38:01 [wendy]
my site is accessible, except this page that has a webcam - then that's vertical
21:38:39 [wendy]
problem: if say "site except advertisements" but every page has handle?
21:38:47 [wendy]
perhaps another category, "source of content"
21:40:36 [rcastaldo]
Goodbye folks
21:40:37 [Zakim]
21:40:38 [Zakim]
21:40:38 [Zakim]
21:40:39 [Zakim]
21:40:40 [Zakim]
21:40:41 [Zakim]
21:40:42 [Zakim]
21:40:43 [Zakim]
21:40:44 [Zakim]
21:40:46 [Zakim]
21:40:47 [rcastaldo]
rcastaldo has left #wai-wcag
21:40:48 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
21:40:50 [Zakim]
Attendees were Bengt_Farre, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Becky_Gibson, Tom_Croucher, John_Slatin, Mike, Wendy, Michael_Cooper, Matt, Roberto_Castaldo?, Takayuki?, Gregg_and_Ben?,
21:40:53 [Zakim]
... Sailesh_Panchang, Takayuki, Andi, Kerstin_Goldsmith, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Kerstin?
21:41:05 [wendy]
21:41:12 [wendy]
1. poll re: 2 lists or 1
21:41:27 [wendy]
2. registration for f2f open. closes on 7 july
21:41:34 [wendy]
3. reduced rate for hotel expires on 29 june
21:41:39 [wendy]
RRSAgent, bye
21:41:39 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items:
21:41:39 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: gregg write up 4 categories of exceptions that we identified to begin discussion on the list [1]
21:41:39 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:41:39 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: loretta work with gregg on capturing how intend wcag 2.0 to be used, particularly by regulatory bodies. [2]
21:41:39 [RRSAgent]
recorded in