IRC log of au on 2004-07-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

08:10:52 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #au

08:11:09 [MattCPH]

zakim, this will be wai_au

08:11:09 [Zakim]

ok, MattCPH; I see WAI_AUWG(f2f)4:00AM scheduled to start 11 minutes ago

08:11:33 [MattCPH]

zakim, make log public

08:11:33 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'make log public', MattCPH

08:11:38 [MattCPH]

zakim, make log world

08:11:38 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'make log world', MattCPH

08:11:46 [MattCPH]

rrsagent, make log world

08:15:06 [chaalsCPH]

Present: Jan Richards (Chair)

08:15:16 [chaalsCPH]

Chaals, Greg, Maatt, Helle, Karen

08:15:20 [chaalsCPH]

JR:

08:15:45 [chaalsCPH]

... trying to get ATAG 2 out as last call later this year. - Matt was talking about end of august - is that relistic

08:16:00 [chaalsCPH]

MM: depends on how we do at this meeting

08:16:29 [chaalsCPH]

s/Maatt/Matt

08:20:39 [Greg]

Greg has joined #au

08:24:25 [chaalsCPH]

agenda+ review deliverables

08:25:15 [chaalsCPH]

agenda+ proposed changes to implementation techniques

08:25:36 [chaalsCPH]

1: deliverables

08:25:46 [chaalsCPH]

agenda+ work in implementaitons techniques

08:25:55 [chaalsCPH]

agenda+ workplan for completeing techniques

08:26:10 [chaalsCPH]

JR deliverables: minutes, ATAG2, Techniques Note for ATAG 2

08:26:51 [chaalsCPH]

... semi-annual revision of Techniques Note. These should be implementation detail for checkpoints and ghuidelines,for various tools, should cover evaluating tools.

08:27:02 [chaalsCPH]

... TimB has been sending stuff on this, but we haven't done a lot of it.

08:27:35 [chaalsCPH]

... We should be including ERT WG work (the group doesn't currrently exist, but ahs and will). Their AERT document is a low level doc that we should be incorporating.

08:27:48 [chaalsCPH]

... missing: W3C Note-track documents - ATAG references to WCAG.

08:28:35 [chaalsCPH]

... we are behind our milestones - July 2004 for Last Call, october for Candidate Rec. We are not a long way behind - if we have a god meeting we can catch up and have techniques close.

08:29:38 [chaalsCPH]

CMN Techniques are the big deal -= and evaluation techniques are important for getting out of Candidate Recommendation, since this is how you show you have implementation

08:30:01 [chaalsCPH]

JR Right. ATAG is in tough position for test suites becausee we are abstracted somewhat and have to have masses of material.

08:30:18 [chaalsCPH]

... not everything is simple atomic tests, most things aren't.

08:30:35 [chaalsCPH]

... and relies heavily on human judgement.

08:32:45 [chaalsCPH]

CMN It is possible, but there is a long long list of tests to wrtite out. It sdoesn't help that there isn't a clear way of testing conformance to WCAG that is blessed by the WCAG group...

08:33:02 [chaalsCPH]

JR RIght. I have done test to show that thngs fail, which is easier, since most tools fail some obvious test.

08:33:09 [chaalsCPH]

zakim, next agendum

08:33:09 [Zakim]

agendum 2. "proposed changes to implementation techniques" taken up [from chaalsCPH]

08:33:43 [chaalsCPH]

agenda+ workplan for completing test suite

08:36:00 [chaalsCPH]

JR Techniques for guidelines 3 and 4 are full of editor comments.

08:36:19 [chaalsCPH]

... need to clean these up. I assume since there has been no comment that people are fine with what we do an we can make decisions

08:37:16 [chaalsCPH]

Starting on Guideline Techniques

08:44:02 [chaalsCPH]

Guideline 3 - how to mark tyhings we think are necessary in practical terms?

08:44:10 [chaalsCPH]

CMN "necessary functionality"?

08:44:19 [chaalsCPH]

Greg: Strongly encouraged?

08:44:29 [chaalsCPH]

KM: link back to this section

08:44:40 [chaalsCPH]

JR: Can we go with strongly suggested as a palceholder?

08:44:44 [chaalsCPH]

Sure.

08:45:01 [chaalsCPH]

JR: We must indeed ensure that examples are accessible.

08:45:13 [chaalsCPH]

KM: This is really a note to ourselves...

08:45:35 [chaalsCPH]

JR: Right... e.g. make sure we describe images we use...

08:47:09 [chaalsCPH]

Update section on meaning of "prompt" with suggested new text

08:48:33 [chaalsCPH]

JR: Looking at "implementation notes" this is something that is here to show what it looks like.

08:48:50 [chaalsCPH]

KM So this emphasises that you need to keep several interelated checkpoints in your head at once

08:48:58 [chaalsCPH]

JR Right. This is a reminder to do this.

08:49:06 [chaalsCPH]

Keep implementation notes

08:53:07 [chaalsCPH]

CMN Don't think we should declare that it is always less effective to have review after development

08:53:12 [chaalsCPH]

Greg: Goes to process

08:54:22 [chaalsCPH]

CMN For example, 10 people imght create rubbish content and have one person fixing it afterwards...

08:56:40 [chaalsCPH]

JR: "allowing the author to create problems" is messy...

08:56:49 [chaalsCPH]

(discuss)

09:07:36 [chaalsCPH]

3.1.2 (now 3.1.1)

09:07:53 [chaalsCPH]

CMN "Consider..." isn't the technique

09:08:02 [chaalsCPH]

greg: Use appropriate mechanisms

09:09:58 [chaalsCPH]

JR 3.1.1.1 stuff OK?

09:11:30 [chaalsCPH]

CMN please don't change the URIs for each technique (i.e. the fragment identifier) since we are usng these in tools now

09:33:22 [chaalsCPH]

discussion of techniques...

09:33:32 [chaalsCPH]

Change 3.1.1.5 (tabindex)

09:44:36 [chaalsCPH]

3.1.1.7 - is this a thematic thing?

09:45:24 [chaalsCPH]

Covers shortcuts in general, and isn't really HTML specific - e.g. an SDK for mobile phone applications might prompt for consistent voice prompts for common functions.

10:05:39 [Greg]

Greg Pisocky has taken over the scribing after the first break

10:06:26 [Greg]

3.1.2(9) New number Prompting and Assisting for audio/video transcripts

10:08:50 [Greg]

3.1.1(9) was the previous 3.1.2(10) Any comments?

10:10:17 [Greg]

(b) was changed to read (b) Althought transcript writing isa complex process for long media files, existing transciription suites dor exist...

10:11:39 [Greg]

JR: 3.1.1(10) was 3.1.2(11) Prompting and assisting for audio/video captions:

10:12:02 [Greg]

MM MAGpie is open source not free

10:12:17 [Greg]

CMN: Do we want to point to Magpie in particular?

10:12:25 [Greg]

JR: No we can get rid of that.

10:13:00 [Greg]

CMN: The other one is "If you use an existing web resource then there may be captions available on the web.

10:13:23 [Greg]

JR: Right so do we use this stuff. Transcripts are a good candidate for storage and reuse.

10:14:05 [Greg]

CMN: It's more than that... So you have an ims descriped resource like a video so you can find the thing that someone else has made

10:17:14 [Greg]

JR: Added (d) The tool should be able to access audio/video captions, which may accompany existing resources.

10:18:38 [Greg]

JR: Moving along to the new 3.1.1(11)

10:18:58 [Greg]

CMN: Once this things are.. the techniques are all the same you're finding an alternative resource

10:20:35 [Greg]

JR: Shall we investigate consolidating instead of having 22 subparts... now make 3.1.1(9) to read "Prompting and assisting for alternative resources for multimedia (transcripts, captions, video transcripts, audio description, signed translations, still images, etc.)

10:21:56 [Greg]

Now the phrase "alternative resources" has been used to replace the specific instances (i.e., "audio/video caption" to cover the entire spectrum of multi-media alternative resources

10:23:01 [Greg]

KM: "are good candidates" in place of "are a good candidate"

10:23:52 [Greg]

CMN: The (d) point. The toold should be able to access alternative resources fro multimedia, which may be incorporated into existing media or exist separately

10:25:25 [Greg]

A number of sections have been deleted

10:25:49 [Greg]

JR: Meta data can go it had been its own section but other things can be meta data

10:26:24 [Greg]

CMN: So there are meta data resources around that are sort of like the multimedia thing but are sort of not. I would like to leave a placeholder for that

10:26:32 [Greg]

JR: Is it so different

10:26:49 [Greg]

CMN: Some examples of meta data are site structure

10:26:54 [Greg]

JR: Coming

10:28:11 [Greg]

CMN: Part of it is WCAG just says provide meta data. You should have an oral report, site structure. Some of it is sort of trivial and some is not. Things like putting URL metadata is a non trivial step.

10:29:09 [chaalsCPH]

action CMN: Justify the metadata placeholder in guideline 3.1 techniques

10:29:12 [Greg]

JR: Left here as a place holder (3.1.2(15) I will accept action items to justify keeping this as a placeholder. It's there and it's not number 10

10:29:37 [Greg]

JR: 11 Prompting and assisting for document structure

10:29:54 [Greg]

CMN: THis is one of those things where there's a huge amount of work to do

10:30:12 [Greg]

KM: Isn't this one of Barry's pet peeves?

10:30:47 [Greg]

JR: Yes but he sent me something that it did not necessarily imply to authoring tools per se

10:31:58 [Greg]

JR: This is definitely an open work item. Which when we come to our plan this afternoon will be assigned to somebody or multiple somebodies.

10:32:36 [Greg]

JR: The example shows we have detected this paragraph is actually a heading and the author can determine what kind of heading it is

10:32:44 [Greg]

KM: You can put me on that one

10:33:36 [Greg]

JR: Okay, and I am going to open up a work item list. Ther is Tech 3.1.1(11) That is structure which Karen would like to do. I remember

10:34:12 [Greg]

ACTION: Karen 3.1.1(11) structure

10:35:06 [Greg]

JR: Now we're on to 12 prompting and assisting the author for tabular structure which can be taken out of the document structure piece.

10:35:40 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #au

10:36:08 [Greg]

GP: If you can group cells you should also be able to split

10:38:07 [Greg]

KM: For layout tables we should not point out the possibility of using tables for layouts

10:38:47 [Greg]

MM: WCAG actually talked about last week. I am not sure if there is an actual decision about this. In effect it's an authoring tool issue.

10:40:24 [Greg]

CMN: The tool should differentiate between table structure and document layout

10:42:30 [Greg]

JR: Moving on to the example

10:43:00 [Greg]

3.1.1(17) is now 3.1.1(13)

10:44:29 [Greg]

Prompting and Assisting for Style Sheets - How granular should we get?

10:54:13 [Greg]

The style sheets issue became an open work item.

10:58:22 [Greg]

JR: While we're at it do we need to go into more depth on these multimedia things?

10:58:49 [Greg]

JR: Okay, set the Cascading Style Sheet items aside for now...

11:00:44 [Greg]

CMN: Give people some clues as to how to use the checkpoint in addition to how to test it...

11:01:22 [Greg]

CMN: The group has developed lots of nice atomic examples of how to do different things. You need more of them, not less

11:01:32 [Greg]

JR: Most of them are still here.

11:02:04 [Greg]

JR: Let's try to get through this.

11:08:12 [Greg]

The stylesheet issues were consolidated

11:08:37 [Greg]

3.1.1(14) Prompting and assisting for clearly written text

11:23:18 [Greg]

3.1.1915 Prompting and assisting for device independent handlers

11:23:38 [Greg]

CMN: I would put this next to the up to date stuff

11:23:46 [Greg]

JR: Where possible?

11:24:01 [Greg]

CMN: No, if it were not possible then the question doesn't arise

11:24:18 [Greg]

JR: We need an example of what the interface might look like for this

11:24:49 [Greg]

CMN: There's device independent handlers specific but then there's the whole accessibility of the device

11:26:10 [Greg]

CMN: The reason I would not merge this because there are a whole lot of Javascript programmers who don't think of themselves as interface designers. I tell you what, scripting is another great use case for storage and reuse. Store and reuse accessible scripts, code, etc.

11:26:20 [Greg]

MM: Which is what the techniques group is doing

11:33:01 [Greg]

JR:Open issue: 3.1.1(15) does deal with some formats that are not well served in other parts of our document and we need a strong piece here to cover that.

11:35:19 [Greg]

JR: Next is 3.1.1(16) Prompting and assisting for non-text supplements to text:

11:36:32 [Greg]

CMN: (b) Where subject metadata is available the tool can look up appropriate illustrations

11:37:04 [Greg]

JR: Let's add an example for this meta data item

11:38:58 [Greg]

JR: If the author has identified content as instructions then the tool can provide templates or automated utilities for extracting flow charts etc.

11:43:28 [Greg]

3.1.1(17) (Was 22...)

11:43:51 [Greg]

Prompting and Assisting for Other Types of Accessibility Information

11:45:50 [Greg]

OPEN ISSUE: These are items we wish to keep but are not sure where they fit.

11:48:41 [Greg]

3.1.1(18) NEW SECTION Prompting and Assisting the author to make use of up to date formats:

11:49:17 [Greg]

JR: BREAK for Lunch (1 Hour) and we will call into the Bridge

12:20:26 [Zakim]

WAI_AUWG(f2f)4:00AM has now started

13:11:22 [Greg]

Greg has joined #au

13:16:58 [Greg]

The zakim teleconference bridge was brought on Jutta Treviranus has joined

13:19:47 [Greg]

JR: Moving on to 8 techniques with strike throughs

13:23:33 [Greg]

deleted primarily because covered in other portions of the document

13:30:04 [Greg]

GP: technique 3.1.4 added A reminder can be presented to author when closing content

13:30:22 [Greg]

JR: Another technique is to let the user know right away

13:34:11 [Greg]

Greg has joined #au

13:35:49 [Greg]

KM: Should be consider rather than see (timing technique 3.1.5 for Technique 3.2.2)

13:40:03 [Greg]

JR: Moving to ATAG techniques 3.2.1

13:51:13 [Greg]

Greg has joined #au

14:08:09 [Greg]

Tim Boland from NIST joined

14:10:27 [Greg]

JR: Recap, all the items regarding interruption which used to live in checking techniques are now being moved to Checkpoint 4.1 Ensure the authoring practices are integrated into the workflow. We now have a new success criteria for Propting Checking Repair and Documentation PCR&D. THere is now an item before the group to reword that to reinforce it not occur just before the final save

14:10:49 [Greg]

TB: So the idea is to get the checkpoints to apply in a more general sense

14:11:07 [Greg]

JR: We are not removing checkpoints, we are rewording and rearranging

14:11:46 [Greg]

JT: I am thinking the rewording would have something to suggest the optimum efficiency. Doing it now rather than later because less work

14:12:37 [Greg]

CMN: At some stage before the completion of the workflow process.

14:13:15 [Greg]

JR: I agree with the second part and we can keep PCR&D because some of it can be done on a schedule

14:14:16 [Greg]

CMN: Restating the second point "Must occur before the completion of the authoring workflow"

14:14:44 [Greg]

JR: Jutta what do you think?

14:15:18 [Greg]

JT: Given that we have this negotiable the wording needs to include the timing

14:16:07 [Greg]

JR: Before we had at least once before the workflow. Now it might make more sense before the appropriate stage in the authoring workflow.

14:16:19 [Greg]

TB: The workflow session.

14:16:49 [Greg]

CMN: When a document is in a workflow process.

14:25:16 [Greg]

JR: New success criteria is PCR&D must occur before completion of authoring workflow. I will put a note in here to allow authoring tool to define scope of workflow with input from author. We can allow that, it's not something that must happen.

14:25:36 [Greg]

JR: Now to change the wording of the technique

14:26:17 [Greg]

JT: I am thinking of putting wording in that addresses the efficiency, best time to do it, what are some of the considerations

14:27:30 [Greg]

JR: ACTION Jutta and Greg working on the wording 3.2.2

14:34:58 [Greg]

Greg has left #au

14:53:50 [Greg]

Greg has joined #au

14:54:24 [Greg]

Back from the break

14:54:53 [Greg]

3.2.5 and now 3.2.6

14:55:11 [Greg]

JR: Covered in Guideline 4

15:10:59 [Greg]

Greg has joined #au

15:23:13 [Greg]

technique 3.3.2

15:24:00 [Greg]

JT: Rewording checking to apply to timing of prompting checking and repair

15:24:28 [Greg]

This applies to 3.2.2

15:25:04 [Greg]

JT: Will be pasting in

15:31:28 [Greg]

TB: Comments on language

15:32:58 [km]

km has joined #au

15:50:49 [Greg]

Greg has joined #au

15:52:21 [Greg]

Technique 3.4.6 was added.

16:04:00 [Greg]

note added for non-empty values

16:19:35 [km]

km has left #au

16:19:40 [MattCPH]

rrsagent, pointer?

16:19:40 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2004/07/12-au-irc#T16-19-40

16:23:00 [MattCPH]

rrsagent, bye

16:23:00 [RRSAgent]

I see 2 open action items:

16:23:00 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: CMN to Justify the metadata placeholder in guideline 3.1 techniques [1]

16:23:00 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/07/12-au-irc#T10-29-09

16:23:00 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Karen 3.1.1(11) structure [2]

16:23:00 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/07/12-au-irc#T10-34-12