IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-06-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:03:41 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
20:03:45 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make log world
20:03:59 [wendy]
Chair: Gregg Vanderheiden
20:04:23 [wendy]
20:04:33 [Zakim]
20:04:45 [bengt]
zakim, ??P4 is Bengt_Farre
20:04:45 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
20:04:56 [bengt]
zakim, I am Bengt_Farre
20:04:56 [Zakim]
ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
20:04:58 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:04:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P0, John_Slatin, Matt, Wendy, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Bengt_Farre
20:05:02 [nabe]
zakim, ??P0 is Takayuki_Watanabe
20:05:02 [Zakim]
+Takayuki_Watanabe; got it
20:05:03 [Zakim]
20:05:18 [bengt]
zakim, who is making noise ?
20:05:28 [Zakim]
bengt, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: John_Slatin (25%), Matt (9%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (25%), Bengt_Farre (15%), [Microsoft] (86%)
20:05:52 [wendy]
zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta
20:05:52 [Zakim]
+Mike_Barta; got it
20:05:53 [Zakim]
20:05:55 [rscano]
rscano has joined #wai-wcag
20:05:58 [bengt]
zakim, who is making noise ?
20:06:01 [rellero]
zakim, ??P5 is Roberto_Ellero
20:06:01 [Zakim]
+Roberto_Ellero; got it
20:06:10 [Zakim]
bengt, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Takayuki_Watanabe (9%), John_Slatin (33%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (4%), ??P5 (17%), Wendy (39%)
20:06:12 [rellero]
zakim, mute me
20:06:13 [Zakim]
sorry, rellero, I do not see a party named 'rellero'
20:06:14 [Zakim]
20:06:28 [rellero]
zakim, rellero is Roberto_Ellero
20:06:28 [Zakim]
sorry, rellero, I do not recognize a party named 'rellero'
20:06:31 [bcaldwell]
bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
20:06:40 [rscano]
hi from rscano *mobile edition :-)
20:06:46 [rellero]
20:06:47 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:06:47 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Takayuki_Watanabe, John_Slatin, Matt, Wendy, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Bengt_Farre, Mike_Barta, Roberto_Ellero, ??P7
20:06:53 [wendy]
zakim, mute Roberto_Ellero
20:06:53 [Zakim]
Roberto_Ellero should now be muted
20:06:59 [rellero]
20:07:08 [wendy]
zakim, ??P7 is Gregg_Vanderheiden_and_Ben_Caldwell
20:07:08 [Zakim]
+Gregg_Vanderheiden_and_Ben_Caldwell; got it
20:07:17 [GVAN]
GVAN has joined #wai-wcag
20:08:09 [Zakim]
20:08:10 [wendy]
Regrets: Avi Arditti, Roberto Scano, Andy Judston, Roberto Castaldo, Gian Sampson-Wild, Doyle Burnett, Andi Snow-Weaver, Becky Gibson
20:08:41 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:08:41 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Takayuki_Watanabe, John_Slatin, Matt, Wendy, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Bengt_Farre, Mike_Barta, Roberto_Ellero (muted), Gregg_Vanderheiden_and_Ben_Caldwell,
20:08:44 [Zakim]
... Katie_Haritos-Shea
20:09:36 [wendy]
20:10:21 [wendy]
Christian, et al comments at:
20:11:13 [wendy]
Scribe: Wendy Chisholm
20:11:25 [wendy]
CB WCAG 1.0 adopted as standard in Germany.
20:11:48 [wendy]
people argued that document from 1999 is too old for a document to be adopted in 2002. Now, 2004, similar argument.
20:12:10 [wendy]
In 1.0, there are some time-dependent issues (e.g., "until user agents.")
20:12:41 [wendy]
everyone waiting for 2.0, however don't know when available. thus we went for 1.0.
20:13:17 [wendy]
how quickly will 2.0 be published? possible to publish 1.0 errata before 2.0 becomes recommendation?
20:13:36 [wendy]
gv we have looked at issue with taking a 1.1 through recommendation process.
20:13:50 [wendy]
worried that it will set 2.0 back further (if we focus on 1.1)
20:15:43 [wendy]
also, want to avoid confusion between 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0. enough confusion around 1.0 and 2.0.
20:15:58 [wendy]
desirable to adopt wcag w/out specifying a version number?
20:16:14 [wendy]
so that adopt whatever is current at the given time.
20:17:55 [wendy]
or create a mechanism to migrate to 2.0 once it is available.
20:18:05 [wendy]
difficult b/c it is not published by ISO or CEN.
20:18:56 [wendy]
have a clause that says will revisit technical standards over time or if sig. chnges occur in environment.
20:19:04 [wendy]
20:19:11 [wendy]
however, that does not mean it is adopted automatically.
20:19:21 [wendy]
we could go through all of these discussions again.
20:19:30 [wendy]
worry about ability to convince government a second time.
20:19:54 [wendy]
W3C Recommendations are "real" standards, e.g., HTML, XML.
20:20:18 [wendy]
However, there has been some discussion about taking WCAG 2.0 through ISO process.
20:20:31 [wendy]
Some WCAG 1.0 checkpoints had to be reworded into legislative language.
20:20:35 [wendy]
e.g., "until user agents"
20:20:54 [wendy]
Similar to 508 issue.
20:22:03 [wendy]
We are trying to write in such a way that can be adopted in policy and to avoid every country rewording to meet their needs.
20:22:20 [wendy]
Related to the "official translation" issue.
20:22:29 [wendy]
Know that is being discussed.
20:23:06 [wendy]
Understand don't want to publish 1.1, but useful to have clarifications, e.g., about until user agent checkpoints.
20:23:57 [wendy]
20:24:43 [Zakim]
20:25:13 [MichaelC]
MichaelC has joined #wai-wcag
20:25:19 [MichaelC]
zakim, I am Michael_Cooper
20:25:19 [Zakim]
ok, MichaelC, I now associate you with Michael_Cooper
20:25:23 [MichaelC]
zakim, mute me
20:25:23 [Zakim]
Michael_Cooper should now be muted
20:26:12 [wendy]
wac we have 3 options (not mutually exclusive):
20:26:24 [wendy]
1. update user agent accessibility page (
20:28:08 [wendy]
2. update errata page (with informative errata)
20:28:55 [wendy]
3. publish revised edition of WCAG 1.0 that deprecates *some* of the until user agent checkpoints (don't think we can do all) - only do if don't have to go through entire Rec process)
20:29:47 [wendy]
produced a matching document between 1.0 and 2.0. expected close match between p1 in 1.0 and level 1 in 2.0.
20:29:52 [wendy]
needed to make migration easy
20:30:02 [wendy]
our mapping is more detailed than your mapping
20:30:21 [wendy]
need a document that says "migrate from 1.0 to 2.0... here's what you do"
20:30:33 [wendy]
stronger requirements, weaker, deprecated
20:31:02 [wendy]
we intend to provide that information - not only for people to use, but to ensure we've done our job well.
20:32:15 [wendy]
felt that some criteria are refering to UAAG, because UAAG not adopted in legislation.
20:32:26 [wendy]
enforcement only on WCAG not UAAG
20:32:37 [wendy]
if transfer responsiblities to UAAG, it goes into a "grey zone"
20:33:03 [wendy]
2.2 level 2 (stop or pause content)
20:33:47 [wendy]
problem is not referencing other guidelines, but making assumptions about user agent
20:34:29 [wendy]
if we don't make any assumptions about what the user's tools can do, then author has a lot more work to do. how do you propose we address that?
20:34:53 [wendy]
ok to make assumptions about what they currently do, not what they *might* do
20:35:37 [wendy]
there will always be a browser that is broken. does that mean that we must always plan for the worst case?
20:35:59 [wendy]
in germany, made a timeline that said "everything older than 3 years, need not be taken care of"
20:37:29 [wendy]
what about other technologies, not just html? what about upcoming technologies and that wcag 2.0 will be around for ~5 years? what about pushing user agents and asst techs to do what they are supposed to do?
20:37:37 [wendy]
ack wendy
20:38:38 [wendy]
we want to remove the barriers as much as possible. if i assume something that may not happen, then there is no guarantee.
20:39:02 [MichaelC]
20:39:09 [MichaelC]
ack Michael
20:39:26 [wendy]
q+ to ask, "support for standards."
20:39:32 [wendy]
difference between techniques and guidelines.
20:39:46 [MichaelC]
zakim, mute me
20:39:46 [Zakim]
Michael_Cooper should now be muted
20:41:48 [wendy]
ack wendy
20:41:48 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to ask, "support for standards."
20:42:25 [wendy]
adoption by government creates need for people to follow.
20:42:41 [wendy]
if people feel it is too heavy, business can create pressure to ease the burden.
20:45:17 [wendy]
however, atag and uaag not likely to be adopted by governments...although 508 does include software accessibility guidelines that are related/directly map to aspects of atag and uaag.
20:47:00 [RylaDog]
RylaDog has joined #wai-wcag
20:47:09 [RylaDog]
20:47:23 [wendy]
what does it mean, "techniques are informative"
20:47:28 [wendy]
q+ katie
20:47:48 [wendy]
gv explains guidelines, techniques, and checklists
20:47:58 [wendy]
issues related to making checklists normative
20:49:52 [wendy]
ack katie
20:53:08 [wendy]
related to atag/uaag in law, people are validating more b/c of internal policies. perhaps by default, browsers will support standards.
20:53:56 [wendy]
wrt tables, they are not technology-dependent. they are a feature of presenting information.
20:54:02 [wendy]
thus, they should be part of the guidelines.
20:55:06 [wendy]
ack john
20:55:11 [Zakim]
20:55:23 [wendy]
the place where tables is covered, they are covered abstractly - using structural elements.
20:57:08 [wendy]
because it was a big point in 1.0 and basically vanished in 2.0
21:01:36 [wendy]
Topic: Guideline 1.1
21:03:40 [wendy]
new proposal:
21:03:56 [wendy]
1. collapses information from criteria into defn of equivalent
21:04:12 [wendy]
2. removed "exception" (sensory experience) by incorporating into success criteria
21:04:29 [wendy]
3. instead of "a text equiv" to "equiv alternative" which collapses 1.2 into 1.1
21:05:09 [wendy]
this syncs w/guideline 1 in 1.0
21:05:47 [wendy]
in 1.0, multimedia subset of guideline 1.1.
21:06:14 [wendy]
ack Mike
21:07:06 [wendy]
1.2 seems much broader and concern about comibning w/1.1
21:07:07 [wendy]
ack john
21:07:11 [GVAN]
21:07:40 [wendy]
instead of dividing line being multimedia, if there is time-based material then synch audio description under 1.2 and keep separate
21:08:27 [wendy]
level 3 under 1.1 (text doc that includes descriptions) - is providing a text equiv for the equivalents in 1.2
21:09:47 [wendy]
radio show is time-dependent, but no need to sync equivalents
21:10:04 [Zakim]
21:10:20 [wendy]
zakim, ??P5 is Kerstin_Goldsmith
21:10:20 [Zakim]
+Kerstin_Goldsmith; got it
21:11:15 [wendy]
breaking proposal into 3 parts:
21:12:10 [wendy]
1. consensus: remove the phrase, "serve the same purpose or convey the same information"
21:13:22 [wendy]
2. consensus: remove the phrase, "except when the sole to create a sensory experience..."
21:14:38 [wendy]
3. use "non-text equivalents" instead of "equivalent alternatives" which moves audio description into 1.1
21:14:40 [wendy]
21:14:43 [wendy]
21:14:59 [wendy]
then, do all images have to be described w/an audio file?
21:15:05 [wendy]
ack gvan
21:15:36 [wendy]
ack john
21:16:09 [wendy]
doesn't say, "provide equivalent alternatives for visual content"
21:16:19 [wendy]
success criteria would discuss types of content
21:16:37 [wendy]
e.g., SC 1, level 1 talks about text alternatives, there are 3 things under that that are more specific.
21:17:03 [GVAN]
21:18:47 [wendy]
q+ to ask "why only move audio description and not also captions?"
21:20:05 [wendy]
ack wendy
21:20:05 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to ask "why only move audio description and not also captions?"
21:23:42 [wendy]
1.1 uses "text equivalents" and 1.2 is about multimedia/interactive
21:27:21 [wendy]
alternative vs equivalent - people's feelings?
21:27:35 [bengt]
Mime multipart actually defines it as alternative
21:27:56 [wendy]
"text alternative" is more appropriate, since not actually writing an "equivalent" for a painting
21:28:27 [wendy]
consensus: use "text alternative" instead of "text equivalent"
21:28:33 [Zakim]
21:29:28 [RylaDog]
RylaDog has left #wai-wcag
21:30:09 [bcaldwell]
bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
21:33:30 [wendy]
define "explicitly associated?" remove "programatically"?
21:34:17 [wendy]
txt alt are explicitly associated (link) w/non-text content and 1 of the following is true...
21:35:02 [wendy]
non-text content that does not provide info or functionality can be ignored by asst. tech
21:35:21 [wendy]
"is marked in a be ignored?"
21:36:10 [wendy]
this is d, "non-text content that does not provide function or information is marked such that it can be ignored..."
21:36:53 [wendy]
... =
21:37:01 [wendy]
functionality or asst technologies
21:38:36 [wendy]
adopted other proposed wording
21:38:40 [wendy]
thanks john and mike!
21:38:52 [Zakim]
21:38:54 [Zakim]
21:38:55 [Zakim]
21:38:56 [Zakim]
21:38:56 [Zakim]
21:38:57 [Zakim]
21:38:58 [Zakim]
21:38:59 [Zakim]
21:39:04 [Zakim]
21:39:07 [Zakim]
21:39:08 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
21:39:09 [Zakim]
Attendees were John_Slatin, Matt, Wendy, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Bengt_Farre, Takayuki_Watanabe, Mike_Barta, Roberto_Ellero, Gregg_Vanderheiden_and_Ben_Caldwell, Katie_Haritos-Shea,
21:39:11 [Zakim]
... Michael_Cooper, Kerstin_Goldsmith
21:39:28 [bengt]
bengt has left #wai-wcag
21:39:48 [nabe]
nabe has left #wai-wcag
21:47:47 [wendy]
zakim, bye
21:47:47 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
21:47:53 [wendy]
RRSAgent, bye
21:47:53 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items