IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-07-12
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 17:03:56 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
- 17:03:57 [rscano]
- hi wendy
- 17:03:59 [wendy]
- hello all
- 17:04:05 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- Hi Wendy
- 17:04:16 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "user generated content"
- 17:04:23 [wendy]
- Meeting: 12 July 2004 WCAG WG F2F
- 17:04:36 [rscano]
- rscano has changed the topic to: Meeting: 12 July 2004 WCAG WG F2F
- 17:05:09 [rscano]
- Roberto Ellero is joined :)
- 17:05:18 [wendy]
- Present: Becky Gibson, Andi Snow-Weaver, Don Evans, Alex Li, Ben Caldwell, Kerstin Goldsmith, Wendy Chisholm, Gregg Vanderheiden, John Slatin, Katie Haritos-Shea, Takayuki Watanabe, Mike Barta, (on the phone) Roberto Scano, Yvette Hoitink, Bengt Farre
- 17:05:32 [wendy]
- Topic: Conformance, Scoping
- 17:05:39 [wendy]
- Chair: Gregg Vanderheiden
- 17:05:44 [wendy]
- Scribe: Wendy Chisholm
- 17:05:57 [wendy]
- going around the room to collect important roles and important issues
- 17:05:58 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- on the phone += Lisa Seeman, Roberto Ellero
- 17:06:17 [wendy]
- thx yvette
- 17:06:24 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- np
- 17:06:31 [wendy]
- Roles for conformance, scoping
- 17:06:48 [wendy]
- - allow people with very large legacy sites to claim conformance to new material w/out being disqualified for archives
- 17:07:23 [wendy]
- - if have large web app, lots of functions and code, could you use scoping to only apply to new features of new release of the code even if old code is not conforming?
- 17:07:30 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #wai-wcag
- 17:07:36 [wendy]
- q+ to say "testing"
- 17:07:39 [wendy]
- :)
- 17:07:41 [rscano]
- this is the same that we are doing in Italy for the italian law :)
- 17:07:42 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 17:07:42 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say "testing"
- 17:07:48 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "user generated content"
- 17:07:56 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 17:07:56 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "user generated content"
- 17:08:28 [wendy]
- scoping to exclude content made by visitors, e.g. book reviews on amazon that might use foreign language
- 17:08:37 [wendy]
- archives, forums, community contributed content
- 17:08:42 [rscano]
- this is an ATAG issue... IMHO
- 17:08:55 [wendy]
- roberto - please clarify?
- 17:09:21 [rscano]
- the creation of accessible code must be done by the web application and web application that generate content must conform to ATAG.
- 17:09:48 [wendy]
- q+ roberto
- 17:09:53 [rscano]
- so if a guestbook let people to put contents, the web application must clean the code
- 17:10:51 [wendy]
- ack roberto
- 17:11:37 [wendy]
- q+ john slatin
- 17:11:46 [wendy]
- what about jargon?
- 17:11:53 [wendy]
- q+ mike barta
- 17:11:55 [wendy]
- q+ andi
- 17:11:59 [wendy]
- ack slatin
- 17:12:01 [wendy]
- ack barta
- 17:12:02 [wendy]
- q?
- 17:12:07 [wendy]
- q+ katie
- 17:12:10 [wendy]
- ack john
- 17:12:21 [wendy]
- feedback on the phone??
- 17:12:22 [bengt]
- ouch
- 17:12:25 [rscano]
- auch!
- 17:12:28 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- Wendy, could you ask John to speak up?
- 17:12:52 [wendy]
- moving the mic
- 17:12:57 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- Much better, thx
- 17:13:32 [wendy]
- john will start conversation with person to help encourage advertisers to conform to wcag
- 17:13:37 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "realtime content"
- 17:13:43 [wendy]
- ack mike
- 17:13:46 [wendy]
- can you hear mike?
- 17:13:51 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- hardly
- 17:14:00 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- give mike a mic
- 17:14:02 [wendy]
- :)
- 17:14:07 [rscano]
- he will sing? :D
- 17:14:09 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- still hardly
- 17:14:13 [bengt]
- doesnt help ?
- 17:14:27 [rscano]
- someone make captioning please :)
- 17:14:52 [wendy]
- even if conforms to uaag, doesn't cover email, etc. where there are apps that people create the content.
- 17:15:06 [wendy]
- ack andi
- 17:15:26 [wendy]
- no matter what we do with scoping, if its acceptable to us, we still have to sell to govnts.
- 17:15:38 [wendy]
- the regulations are teh bottom line for industry
- 17:15:40 [wendy]
- s/teh/the
- 17:16:15 [wendy]
- if we allow scoping, it isn't our scoping that will "carry the day" if an entity says that scoping only allowed in following ways, that's what people will live with.
- 17:16:34 [wendy]
- captioning - sorry roberto, i can't type that fast. :)
- 17:16:46 [rscano]
- ;)
- 17:17:02 [wendy]
- q- katie
- 17:17:24 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 17:17:24 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "realtime content"
- 17:17:44 [wendy]
- can never control where guidelines will be applied. should just focus on what makes content accessible or not.
- 17:17:52 [GVAN]
- q
- 17:17:58 [GVAN]
- q+
- 17:18:01 [wendy]
- realtime content is another example that could be scoped out for some guidelines
- 17:18:37 [wendy]
- if scope out realtime, then news wouldn't have to be captioned anymore.
- 17:18:49 [wendy]
- ack gvan
- 17:20:11 [wendy]
- q+ john
- 17:21:43 [wendy]
- if don't address, we are copping out. if not obvious to us, and we live and breathe this, how will governments address?
- 17:21:45 [wendy]
- ack john
- 17:22:05 [wendy]
- have to figure out how to sell what we do to policy makers (work with EOWG)
- 17:22:06 [wendy]
- q+ katie
- 17:22:11 [GVAN]
- Q+ katie
- 17:22:30 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "should address scoping, but not in SC"
- 17:22:34 [rscano]
- we apply as: "u must can do this if is for a primary scope for the web site contents"
- 17:22:36 [wendy]
- ack katie
- 17:22:40 [wendy]
- q+ rscano
- 17:22:50 [GVAN]
- Q+ don
- 17:23:15 [wendy]
- governments depend on technical orgs to determine what a standard is. to do the legwork. (echoing gv)
- 17:23:15 [rscano]
- q-
- 17:24:03 [wendy]
- governments need very specific "sections" (A, AA, AAA). we must give specific options to governments so they don't invent their own.
- 17:24:27 [wendy]
- vendors will do what government tells them to do (period).
- 17:24:39 [wendy]
- governments need a standard to point o.
- 17:24:41 [wendy]
- s/o/to
- 17:25:10 [wendy]
- in addition to guidelines, do we need a "notebook of key info that we've gathered"?
- 17:25:22 [wendy]
- i.e., a collection of how diff governments are referencing wcag 1.0
- 17:25:34 [rscano]
- ok I can do for italian one :)
- 17:26:20 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- I can do the Netherlands
- 17:26:44 [wendy]
- how different policies relate to WCAG 1.0
- 17:26:50 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/
- 17:26:51 [rscano]
- http://www.pubbliaccesso.gov.it/biblioteca/documentazione/studio_lineeguida/requisiti_tecnica.htm these are italian, with reference to WCAG and Section 508 (a draft... tomorrow we ill change...)
- 17:26:58 [wendy]
- but, with more detail about how relates to WCAG 1.0
- 17:27:09 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 17:27:09 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "should address scoping, but not in SC"
- 17:27:15 [GVAN]
- Q+ katie
- 17:27:40 [wendy]
- good to provide info about scoping but nhot in guidelines themselves
- 17:27:48 [wendy]
- q+ alex mike
- 17:27:56 [wendy]
- ack katie
- 17:28:47 [wendy]
- recognize that some pieces will be chunked off into law
- 17:28:56 [wendy]
- will help us understand how being used and how to harmonize
- 17:30:31 [wendy]
- ack mike
- 17:30:48 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- could you ask mike to speak up again?
- 17:30:53 [wendy]
- we need conformance and scoping in the guidelines. if they are not clear how to apply, every country will have diff laws.
- 17:31:32 [wendy]
- we release our software in more than 30 languages, thus that many different laws makes it *very* difficult.
- 17:31:34 [wendy]
- ack alex
- 17:31:44 [wendy]
- our feedback from customers is "do you meet A, AA or AAA?"
- 17:32:12 [wendy]
- if we can scope out parts of our content, that makes it much easier for us.
- 17:32:20 [wendy]
- can more easily priority 1 or 2.
- 17:32:46 [wendy]
- should we put scoping in the levels? for level 1 do x, level 2 y, and level 3 everything?:
- 17:32:55 [wendy]
- e.g., everything created before wcag 2.0 is out of scope.
- 17:33:01 [wendy]
- (before wcag 2.0 is released)
- 17:33:17 [wendy]
- everything create after wcag 2.0 is enacted then can draw a clear line.
- 17:33:23 [wendy]
- dating is important
- 17:33:27 [wendy]
- q+ andi
- 17:33:31 [wendy]
- ack don
- 17:34:07 [wendy]
- the aggregator problem. the site looks like it is very deep but aggregator. feedfactory. does content that we aggregate need to conform?
- 17:34:12 [wendy]
- ack andi
- 17:34:14 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ lisa
- 17:34:16 [wendy]
- q+ katie
- 17:34:18 [wendy]
- ack lisa
- 17:35:11 [wendy]
- hearing 2 things want to scope out: 1. scope out and keep it that way - e.g., msg board 2. would like to, but "unfair" (advertising)
- 17:35:27 [wendy]
- q+ mike
- 17:35:39 [GVAN]
- Q+
- 17:36:25 [wendy]
- there is a risk in saying, "someone else providing content, doesn't have to be accessible"
- 17:36:32 [wendy]
- would like different categories to be handled differently.
- 17:36:35 [GVAN]
- Q+ john
- 17:36:40 [wendy]
- e.g., request an accessible advertising feed.
- 17:36:49 [wendy]
- news feed, different, because more choice.
- 17:36:52 [wendy]
- ack katie
- 17:37:14 [wendy]
- govnt standpoint from dealing w/content agg: at state dept broadcast network. take feeds from diff companies.
- 17:37:43 [wendy]
- goes to govnt employees. in-house decision (via 508) is that even if inaccessible content comes in, what is broadcast is accessible.
- 17:38:03 [wendy]
- ack mike
- 17:38:15 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- louder please
- 17:38:50 [wendy]
- ability to exempt oneself for ads, news, etc. don't think suggesting can scope them out. part of legal agreement should be that they will provide certain level of accessibility.
- 17:39:03 [wendy]
- then aggregator can only claim lowest level of claim coming from syndication.
- 17:39:09 [wendy]
- need a relationship w/content provider.
- 17:39:15 [wendy]
- ad content fundamentally no diff from news content.
- 17:39:29 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "rss feeds"
- 17:39:29 [wendy]
- there are contracts in place. part of the contract should be a conformance claim.
- 17:39:33 [wendy]
- ack gvan'
- 17:39:36 [wendy]
- ack gvan
- 17:40:00 [wendy]
- q+ break
- 17:40:34 [wendy]
- quandry: too draconian or too big of a loophole. need to find the sweet spot in the middle.
- 17:40:56 [wendy]
- can't let people scope anything out (too big of a loophole) - they will outsource everything saying, "it's all 3rd party, thus we can scope out"
- 17:41:00 [wendy]
- q+ lisa
- 17:41:17 [wendy]
- put it in the conformance claim - can only claim conformance if content aggregating has some sort of conf. claim.
- 17:41:27 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- I can hardly hear Mike
- 17:41:28 [wendy]
- if do in metadata, too much burden. (??)
- 17:41:37 [rscano]
- Agree
- 17:41:45 [GVAN]
- Q+ BREAK
- 17:42:08 [wendy]
- ack john
- 17:42:16 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 17:42:16 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "rss feeds"
- 17:42:18 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q-
- 17:42:37 [wendy]
- ack lisa
- 17:43:07 [wendy]
- ads: diff than losing a feature. that's cashflow. can lose source of revenue.
- 17:43:31 [wendy]
- features: depends on who you are. if you are a small site, then less leverage. if larger, and someone loses a feed, they be more concerned.
- 17:43:38 [wendy]
- that's where laws and regs can step in.
- 17:43:41 [rscano]
- I'm working with John Slatin about accessible banners guidelines ;-)
- 17:43:46 [wendy]
- ack break
- 17:43:57 [wendy]
- taking a 15 minute break
- 17:44:04 [rscano]
- ok I go for dinner :)
- 17:44:28 [rscano]
- If I hang-up i can rejoin?
- 17:44:39 [bengt]
- just shout loud here and we rejoin :)
- 17:44:54 [rscano]
- ok I go for spaghetti :)
- 17:45:29 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- enjoy
- 17:58:57 [wendy]
- is anyone on the phone w/us right now?
- 17:59:18 [rscano]
- no, i'm eating spaghetti :)
- 17:59:55 [wendy]
- :)
- 17:59:59 [wendy]
- bon app
- 18:00:24 [rscano]
- thank u :)
- 18:01:15 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- I just rejoined
- 18:01:37 [rscano]
- I will rejoin... let me make the last spaghetti :)
- 18:01:58 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- that's fast food ;-)
- 18:02:09 [bengt]
- say when to rejoin
- 18:02:25 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- I already rejoined but there doesn't seem to be anyone there yet
- 18:02:34 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- they're talking to themselves but not in a meeting yet
- 18:02:46 [rscano]
- back :)
- 18:02:52 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- you can hear the gossip though :-)
- 18:02:56 [rscano]
- eheheh
- 18:03:00 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- microphones are still on
- 18:03:02 [rscano]
- Me and Roberto Ellero can stay another 1 hour because tomorrow we wake up at 4 o clock for go to Rome for the government working group for multimedia guidelines :-/
- 18:03:14 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- ouch
- 18:03:23 [rscano]
- yep
- 18:03:35 [rscano]
- multimedia and software application :)
- 18:03:36 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- I've slept until noon today to be able to stay until the end
- 18:03:51 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- nice! so you won't be there tomorrow?
- 18:04:06 [rellero]
- no :-I
- 18:04:14 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- bad timing...
- 18:04:14 [rscano]
- no :-I
- 18:04:21 [rscano]
- eh, call Mr. Berlusconi :)
- 18:04:30 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- Hope you can come to the fall meeting, I hope it will be in Amsterdam
- 18:04:31 [rellero]
- LOL
- 18:04:54 [rscano]
- I will offer a venice meeting again, when you want :)
- 18:05:00 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- Join again Bengt
- 18:05:19 [rscano]
- ---- END OF BREAK ----
- 18:05:19 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q?
- 18:05:35 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- wendy is MIA
- 18:06:18 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ katie
- 18:06:19 [GVAN]
- Q+ katie
- 18:06:20 [wendy]
- wendy was trying to find out how to get the usability video for us to view
- 18:06:25 [wendy]
- :)
- 18:06:28 [rscano]
- wow
- 18:06:40 [rscano]
- now attending.... ?
- 18:06:44 [rscano]
- Bengt?
- 18:06:50 [GVAN]
- ack katie
- 18:06:55 [bengt]
- ahem, had mute button on ...
- 18:06:55 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- lisa?
- 18:07:02 [rscano]
- ok bengt :)
- 18:07:03 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- lol
- 18:07:12 [rscano]
- on the phone: Yvette, Roberto Scano, Roberto Ellero, Bengt Farre
- 18:08:04 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- Gregg, you've become harder to hear though :-)
- 18:09:50 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "not every country has accessibility laws"
- 18:10:08 [wendy]
- captioning:
- 18:10:08 [GVAN]
- Q+ andi
- 18:10:16 [GVAN]
- Q+ mike
- 18:10:20 [wendy]
- katies suggests we need lawyer in group to
- 18:10:33 [wendy]
- create bridge to agencies creating law
- 18:11:04 [wendy]
- yvette says there are countries might chose other options than law for accessibility
- 18:11:35 [wendy]
- we must be careful not to eliminate options where law would not work
- 18:11:41 [wendy]
- understood
- 18:11:46 [wendy]
- andy:
- 18:11:53 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- ack Yvette
- 18:11:53 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "not every country has accessibility laws"
- 18:12:02 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- ack andi
- 18:12:25 [wendy]
- legal input might not be the only option, feedback from gov. entities would be good, too.
- 18:12:38 [rscano]
- Italian Government is W3C member
- 18:12:44 [wendy]
- gregg: contact person in each organization might be good.
- 18:12:49 [rscano]
- i can check for they partecipation ;-)
- 18:13:11 [wendy]
- q+wendy
- 18:13:41 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- ack mike
- 18:13:44 [wendy]
- roberto - please bring your comments to the phone queue, ok?
- 18:13:59 [rscano]
- opps sorry :)
- 18:14:04 [GVAN]
- btw: wendy is kerstin and gvan is wendy :)
- 18:14:19 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- ??
- 18:14:20 [GVAN]
- q+ john
- 18:14:22 [GVAN]
- q+ alex
- 18:14:25 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- crossdressing Gregg?
- 18:14:30 [wendy]
- :=_
- 18:14:34 [wendy]
- :-)
- 18:14:56 [wendy]
- wendy says: w3c is in contact with organizations, good contact,
- 18:15:06 [wendy]
- several contacts in EU
- 18:15:11 [wendy]
- Judy is in constant contact
- 18:15:21 [wendy]
- we are encouraging people to be more formal about it.
- 18:15:30 [wendy]
- 2 from access board, as we have seen
- 18:15:49 [wendy]
- comparisons are there, as well, JIIS from Japan, etc.
- 18:15:56 [wendy]
- more comparisons needed.
- 18:16:18 [wendy]
- comformance profiles needed for WCAG like ATAG
- 18:16:36 [wendy]
- possible profiles: web apps, e-commerce, art, blogs, etc.
- 18:17:10 [wendy]
- different types of content, we need to aggregate examples and create profiles for them.
- 18:17:13 [wendy]
- for example
- 18:17:29 [wendy]
- if you have a document that is over 50,000 words, this is not a web app, but could be a document.
- 18:17:46 [wendy]
- these are the most likely success criterion you would be using if you are XYZ profile
- 18:18:01 [wendy]
- gregg asks "does this mean that there are guidelines that are N/A?"
- 18:18:10 [wendy]
- wendy says, it's more like scoping.
- 18:18:50 [wendy]
- Mike: these sound more like informative docs .... if wcag 2.0 comes out, and US has different interpretation than other countries,
- 18:19:02 [wendy]
- then we are concered (MS, IBM, etc.)
- 18:19:06 [wendy]
- q+ john
- 18:19:21 [wendy]
- wendy says,
- 18:19:31 [GVAN]
- ack wendy
- 18:20:10 [wendy]
- one more tool for incorporating UAAG, ATAG, and WCAG together ... we might need to look at the UAAG model,
- 18:20:14 [GVAN]
- ack john
- 18:20:33 [GVAN]
- q+ gvan
- 18:21:14 [GVAN]
- q+ wendy to say, "policy examples ala EOWG suite"
- 18:21:44 [wendy]
- john says: good suggestion as an informative document to model accessibility policy ....
- 18:23:01 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- wendy, could you ask Alex to speak up please?
- 18:23:19 [wendy]
- alex: this is a chicken and egg thing: a lot of government agencies have no idea what they are doing
- 18:23:30 [wendy]
- same standard across the globe
- 18:23:34 [wendy]
- is needed.
- 18:24:17 [wendy]
- ack alex
- 18:24:29 [wendy]
- q+ lisa
- 18:24:35 [wendy]
- q+ katie
- 18:24:57 [GVAN]
- GVAN has joined #wai-wcag
- 18:25:05 [wendy]
- gregg says: if we have hard principles that need to get into the guidelines
- 18:25:28 [GVAN]
- q?
- 18:25:31 [wendy]
- if we try to get too much help text into the guidelines that might get in the way.
- 18:25:47 [wendy]
- gv continues: the excellent should not be the enemy of the good.
- 18:25:49 [GVAN]
- ack gvan
- 18:26:41 [wendy]
- gv continues: if there is a certain amount that is pretty good progress, and then the next layer is better, and the
- 18:26:49 [wendy]
- next layer is excellent.
- 18:27:08 [wendy]
- we don't want to push excellent to the top, add scoping claims, and then everyone scopes everything out.
- 18:27:38 [wendy]
- gv: we are, by the way, going to be creating a companion doc for rationale for the guidelines that can sometimes be very
- 18:27:43 [wendy]
- carefully handcrafted.
- 18:27:57 [wendy]
- so that we don't go back and forth on wording.
- 18:28:07 [wendy]
- or with legislators that want to oversimplify.
- 18:28:20 [wendy]
- suddenly guidelines become unenforceable.
- 18:28:42 [wendy]
- wendy: eowg has a suite about how to incorporate policy, etc.. we would want to work with them on this.
- 18:28:49 [wendy]
- gv: required reading for us?
- 18:29:02 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 18:29:02 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say, "policy examples ala EOWG suite"
- 18:29:09 [GVAN]
- ack lisa
- 18:29:13 [GVAN]
- q+ ben
- 18:29:39 [wendy]
- Lisa: scoping can be put with the policy profile things.
- 18:29:42 [wendy]
- ack lisa
- 18:29:52 [GVAN]
- ack katie
- 18:30:13 [wendy]
- katie: certainly a seperate document, but it should not be in EO.
- 18:30:18 [wendy]
- nobody goes to EO for info,.
- 18:30:32 [wendy]
- either we change that, or we make info part of our own stuff.
- 18:30:37 [GVAN]
- q+ andi
- 18:30:52 [GVAN]
- q+ wendy to say "eowg intro pp, wai site redesign"
- 18:30:55 [GVAN]
- ack wendy
- 18:30:55 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say "eowg intro pp, wai site redesign"
- 18:31:08 [wendy]
- wendy responds: with the wai site redesign, we expect that to change a lot.
- 18:31:15 [wendy]
- intro pages for each set of guidelines
- 18:31:17 [GVAN]
- q+ mike
- 18:31:42 [wendy]
- info pages will help all guidelines relate to each other, but should be THE STARTING POINT for many guidelines
- 18:31:47 [wendy]
- wendy continues:
- 18:32:02 [wendy]
- we can't change how wcag 2.0 guidelines are.
- 18:32:17 [wendy]
- eo wants people to start at the intro pages to move around the site better.
- 18:32:22 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "need to be clearer"
- 18:32:45 [wendy]
- yvette please repeat your statement? captioning needs to be clearer?
- 18:32:52 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 18:33:01 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- nope, our guidelines have to be clearer
- 18:33:04 [wendy]
- andi:
- 18:33:14 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- you're perfectly clear :-)
- 18:33:19 [wendy]
- wendy is watching the site redesign with shawn to make sure that
- 18:33:36 [wendy]
- it works with our work, and our plans to have link pages, etc.
- 18:33:45 [wendy]
- intro pages are being pushed for NOW
- 18:33:49 [wendy]
- so that we can link to them sooner.
- 18:34:12 [wendy]
- wendy says: we should be able to link to all documents right now.
- 18:34:39 [GVAN]
- ack andi
- 18:34:39 [GVAN]
- ack ben
- 18:34:54 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- Could you ask Ben to speak up please?
- 18:35:41 [wendy]
- ben: EOWG also asked us to create best practises models for conformance claims
- 18:35:52 [GVAN]
- if we do a musical, that means we would release wcag 2.0 on broadway?
- 18:36:10 [rscano]
- i will move with the hat for raise money :)
- 18:36:32 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- shouldn't that be an Opera? ;-)
- 18:36:33 [wendy]
- gv: at top of wcag doc there should be links to application material and doc material?
- 18:36:39 [GVAN]
- action: wendy double check that wcag 2.0 could link to intro pg from top of wcag 2.0 (speak w/shawn, ian, judy)
- 18:36:42 [wendy]
- opera for sure!
- 18:36:50 [wendy]
- links later, please, from the group
- 18:36:55 [wendy]
- mike:
- 18:36:56 [GVAN]
- ack mike
- 18:37:25 [wendy]
- policy recommendation will have conformance claim, yes?
- 18:37:45 [wendy]
- mike continues: we need a "policy makers go here" to a normative doc.
- 18:38:09 [wendy]
- mike: in doc, we have what we think conformance means, and links that go to "here is our recommended policy doc"
- 18:38:19 [wendy]
- gv: I need to think about that.
- 18:38:39 [wendy]
- gv: interesting - we would be writing guidelines about how law should be written.
- 18:39:02 [wendy]
- mike: we are writing a document that tells how we see policy to be.
- 18:39:21 [wendy]
- mike: I would like to see it made very, very clear that policy makers GO HERE.
- 18:39:27 [GVAN]
- eowg's "Developing Organizational Policies on Web Accessibility
- 18:39:27 [GVAN]
- "
- 18:39:33 [GVAN]
- at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/impl/pol.html
- 18:39:39 [GVAN]
- q?
- 18:39:40 [wendy]
- mike: anyone making policy knows that that is their starting point.
- 18:39:42 [GVAN]
- ack yvette
- 18:39:42 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "need to be clearer"
- 18:40:07 [wendy]
- Yvette?
- 18:40:18 [wendy]
- we will be breaking for lunch at noon.
- 18:40:23 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- ok
- 18:40:27 [GVAN]
- links from top of uaag 1.o: [next chapter] [contents] [summary] [checklist] [linear checklist]
- 18:40:29 [GVAN]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/
- 18:40:30 [wendy]
- gv: what else do we need to do before lunch.
- 18:41:01 [wendy]
- yvette: I am worried that we are thinking more about policy makers than developers.
- 18:41:05 [GVAN]
- uaag 1.0 example conformance claims: http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/conformance.html#conformance-claims
- 18:41:21 [wendy]
- yvette: my fiance validates that the guidelines are not clear for developers, he is one, too.
- 18:41:25 [GVAN]
- uaag 1.0 in other specs: http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/conformance.html#include-uaag-reqs
- 18:41:31 [GVAN]
- q+ lisa
- 18:41:33 [wendy]
- lisa:
- 18:41:34 [GVAN]
- ack lisa
- 18:42:02 [wendy]
- general frustration is that the amount of emphasis is on policy and adoption.
- 18:42:13 [wendy]
- rather than on how to make websites accessible.
- 18:42:16 [wendy]
- q+ kerstin
- 18:42:22 [wendy]
- gv:
- 18:42:39 [wendy]
- answer to last question, the only rules that will be followed, are those that are in policy.
- 18:42:59 [wendy]
- if we don't write this so that policy makers can make good policy, then they won't be followed.
- 18:43:33 [GVAN]
- q+ wendy to say, "primary audience authoring tool and eval tool devs? they push for policy makers to adopt?"
- 18:43:34 [wendy]
- gv: what we see is that people do only what is required of them in policy
- 18:43:49 [GVAN]
- ack kerstin
- 18:44:28 [GVAN]
- kg support lisa's and yvette's comments. agree that need to address the policy issue. however, the conversation is a tug between technical considerations and policy issues.
- 18:44:36 [GVAN]
- kg because we address so many things, is very confusing
- 18:44:40 [GVAN]
- q+ ben katie
- 18:44:43 [GVAN]
- q+ john
- 18:45:18 [GVAN]
- kg I hear that everyone is waiting for wcag 2.0 and they want to adopt. need to get it out. and need focus back on technical aspects.
- 18:45:21 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "developers are the key"
- 18:45:37 [GVAN]
- q+ lisa
- 18:46:34 [wendy]
- gv: clarify yvette, what your question was?
- 18:46:41 [wendy]
- yvette:
- 18:47:01 [wendy]
- in trying to steer away from HTML, that a real developer has no feeling for the guideline any more.
- 18:47:11 [wendy]
- because it's too general
- 18:47:25 [wendy]
- gv: checklist would solve that, right?
- 18:47:33 [wendy]
- yvette: yes, if developers can find that.
- 18:47:55 [wendy]
- wendy: usability study shows that people never find the checklist
- 18:48:04 [wendy]
- yvette: but it never made it into the dutch translation
- 18:48:19 [wendy]
- not into the barriers-away translation.
- 18:48:30 [GVAN]
- action: wendy to look at translations of wcag 1.0 and look for links to techniques. does dutch version not link to tecniques after every checklist? (drempelsweg)
- 18:48:46 [wendy]
- group says: good information!
- 18:48:57 [wendy]
- gv: needs to be fixed
- 18:49:00 [GVAN]
- ack wendy
- 18:49:00 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say, "primary audience authoring tool and eval tool devs? they push for policy makers to adopt?"
- 18:49:03 [wendy]
- wendy says:
- 18:49:13 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q-
- 18:49:16 [GVAN]
- q+ summary-and-lunch
- 18:49:30 [wendy]
- wendy: two audiences, adding a third?
- 18:49:50 [wendy]
- what if the primary audience was authoring tool and developing tool developers?
- 18:49:59 [wendy]
- evaluation tools, correction.
- 18:50:20 [wendy]
- we are saying, this is what needs to be the output.
- 18:50:46 [wendy]
- authoring tool developers on our side, they could help push policy makers?
- 18:50:55 [wendy]
- gv: are the tools becoming more human testable?
- 18:51:37 [wendy]
- mike responds to wendy: that only addresses small audience - most large corporations are using development environments.
- 18:52:12 [wendy]
- largest scope of impact is developers using their own in-house dev tools.
- 18:52:21 [wendy]
- wendy: anything that is generating content.
- 18:52:34 [wendy]
- mike: in today's world, you will miss a broad swathe.
- 18:52:41 [wendy]
- wendy: ATAG is misnamed.
- 18:52:52 [wendy]
- Mike: once ATAG takes hold.
- 18:53:14 [wendy]
- wendy: policy about how you generate our content - how it's being aggregated and generate.
- 18:53:17 [wendy]
- generated.
- 18:53:25 [GVAN]
- ack ben
- 18:53:33 [wendy]
- ben: back to audience question:
- 18:53:48 [wendy]
- it's totally appropriate might in fact be policy makers for the guidelines.
- 18:54:01 [GVAN]
- ack katie
- 18:54:25 [GVAN]
- michael cooper has entered the building
- 18:54:28 [GVAN]
- mc in the hoooooouse!
- 18:54:44 [wendy]
- different audiences for different guidelines, ATAG, WCAG, UAAG.
- 18:54:50 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- Hi Michael :-)
- 18:54:55 [rscano]
- Hi Michael
- 18:55:01 [rellero]
- Hi
- 18:55:22 [wendy]
- katie: kerstin, i was jumping to respond because I think a lot of progress has been made.
- 18:55:26 [GVAN]
- ack john
- 18:55:43 [wendy]
- john: this doc has muliple audiences.
- 18:56:22 [wendy]
- john: one audience not considered yet, WE are also the audience for these guidelines, so that we can write techniques for SVG< HTML<
- 18:56:28 [wendy]
- XML, etc. -
- 18:56:59 [wendy]
- we have to know what the intentions are, in order to get specific in the techniques and checklist (we breathe life into
- 18:57:03 [wendy]
- them in those docs).
- 18:57:05 [wendy]
- gv:
- 18:57:21 [wendy]
- we should be thinking about guidelines for
- 18:57:24 [wendy]
- laughter, laughter
- 18:57:28 [GVAN]
- ack lisa
- 18:57:28 [wendy]
- for writing checklists.
- 18:57:38 [wendy]
- lisa:
- 18:58:16 [wendy]
- what I was suggesting that we have a process, small groups, taskforces, that address what we need to get across, who it's important for, etc.
- 18:58:36 [wendy]
- and that gets passed on to the task forces for the different audiences
- 18:58:45 [wendy]
- so that it can be parsed out .....
- 18:58:58 [wendy]
- gv: we are into summary and lunch
- 18:59:01 [GVAN]
- ack sum
- 18:59:35 [wendy]
- wendy is wendy again
- 18:59:48 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- welcome back ;-)
- 18:59:54 [wendy]
- :)
- 19:00:14 [wendy]
- gv: talked about roles and issues, content types
- 19:00:41 [wendy]
- gv ability to fence off parts of content (archive, content generated by visitors, community contributed (could cover visitor content), realtime)
- 19:01:26 [wendy]
- gv also discussed, "prior to a date" (can't revise after published). aggregators.
- 19:01:34 [wendy]
- (was that rellero or rscano who left?)
- 19:01:39 [wendy]
- -lisa
- 19:01:40 [rscano]
- Ellero
- 19:01:43 [wendy]
- ok
- 19:01:45 [wendy]
- -rellero
- 19:02:03 [rellero]
- Tomorrow I and Scano wake up at 4 o clock for go to Rome for the Government Working Group for multimedia guidelines (Stanca Act)
- 19:02:14 [wendy]
- gv how do we allow scoping w/out creating a hole so big that someone could scope out entire web site?
- 19:03:32 [wendy]
- gv explains "gerry mander" - based on drawing lines for voting to get a specific result. "gerrymandering" is finding a convoluted way to create something so that it passes.
- 19:03:41 [wendy]
- (jerry mander?) not sure of spelling
- 19:04:10 [wendy]
- gv scoping has to be crystal clear in the guidelines.
- 19:04:26 [wendy]
- gv if a pg is accessible, it must mean that the path to the page is accessible.
- 19:05:09 [wendy]
- gv that's a summary of the issues. what resolutions?
- 19:05:33 [wendy]
- gv audience - have several. policy, developers. which is most important? if won't work for developers, it won't work for policy makers.
- 19:05:50 [wendy]
- gv one comment that had support: guidelines for policy makers and techniques/checklists for developers.
- 19:06:32 [wendy]
- khs the general guidelines for policy makers and are the overall guidance for the techniques.
- 19:06:52 [bengt]
- has the break started ?
- 19:07:15 [wendy]
- not yet. almost.
- 19:07:19 [wendy]
- still summarizing
- 19:08:57 [wendy]
- consensus: primary audience of guidelines is policy makers, and of techniques is developers. of policy makers cover company, country, etc. very broad sense of "policy"
- 19:09:31 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "where do website owners fit in?"
- 19:10:22 [wendy]
- guidelines that are turned into law? gets into normative checklist question.
- 19:10:57 [wendy]
- wac think that part of the confusion comes from guideliens being further along than checklist/techniques. part of the anxiety comes from not having those connections yet.
- 19:11:38 [wendy]
- mb guidelines prinicple audience is policy makers (even for dev team). if coding, looking at techniques unless look at policy in general sense (dev guidelines for what we are coding)
- 19:11:50 [wendy]
- gv policy makers live and operate in guideline level, devs live/operate in techs/checklists
- 19:11:56 [wendy]
- mb guideliens don't have primary audience?
- 19:12:06 [wendy]
- q+ john
- 19:12:15 [wendy]
- q+ lunch
- 19:12:18 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 19:12:18 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "where do website owners fit in?"
- 19:12:45 [wendy]
- yh are they policy makers?
- 19:12:52 [wendy]
- gv business decision makers (bdm)
- 19:13:21 [wendy]
- gv by policy maker, mean site, govnt, org policy/decision makers
- 19:13:41 [wendy]
- gv guideliens will be used more by site/co/govnt policy, techs/checks used more by devs and testers
- 19:14:01 [wendy]
- site/co/govnt/org
- 19:14:03 [wendy]
- ack john
- 19:14:48 [wendy]
- js not disagreeing that site/co/govnt/org is not primary aud, but one reason that devs should look at guidelines is to learn the rationale. techs will not be self-explanatory.
- 19:14:55 [wendy]
- gv however, have to look at techs to understand the guidelines
- 19:15:06 [wendy]
- mb talked about demonstrable policy doc
- 19:16:53 [wendy]
- mb proposal that wcag create a doc that gives a recommendation for policy. (an example of policy - use verbatim - "this is the policy for our site")
- 19:17:16 [wendy]
- mb more than one policy for diff types of orgs.
- 19:18:37 [wendy]
- eowg example policies: http://www.w3.org/WAI/impl/pol.html
- 19:19:24 [wendy]
- consensus: explore creation of a doc that gives an example(s) of policy (something that an org could use verbatim for a policy for site or govnt)
- 19:20:29 [wendy]
- al propose: that wrt conformance scope, archives/legacy to be p3 or ref to date to meet wcag 2.0. if p2, all content created prior to creation of wcag 1.0 meets the guideline. p1 all content created after date of 2.0 meets 2.0.
- 19:21:05 [wendy]
- gv this sounds like example of a policy profile (an example that could go into the new doc we're discussing)
- 19:21:53 [wendy]
- js heard that level 3 is that all content meets wcag 2.0 regardless of date. level 2 is everything published between 1 .0 and 2.0.
- 19:22:58 [wendy]
- mb if you have content that has gone on since '70's how make one claim?
- 19:23:13 [wendy]
- gv people want to say, "content is accessible" not "i've conformed to a level"
- 19:23:27 [wendy]
- al govnt may want to conform to level 3
- 19:23:57 [wendy]
- gv however, if have conformance profiles, may have a number of different times. perhaps a time-based profile. could have a functionality based profile (don't care when created, the home page has to be level 2)
- 19:24:31 [wendy]
- ack lunch
- 19:24:34 [rscano]
- --- LUNCH TIME ---
- 19:24:34 [wendy]
- hey all - we'
- 19:24:38 [rscano]
- ciao to all
- 19:24:41 [wendy]
- we're going to lunch. will sign off.
- 19:24:42 [rscano]
- have a good meeting!
- 19:24:42 [rellero]
- bye
- 19:24:47 [wendy]
- how many of you will be back after lunch?
- 19:24:48 [bengt]
- bengt has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:24:55 [rscano]
- I will go to bed :)
- 19:24:56 [wendy]
- bengt - we're going to lunch.
- 19:24:58 [rscano]
- and tomorrow to rome
- 19:25:03 [rellero]
- I too
- 19:25:05 [wendy]
- we'll have 45 minutes for lunch.
- 19:25:17 [bengt]
- ok I go find dinner too
- 19:25:22 [wendy]
- we will announce here when we will return.
- 19:25:24 [rscano]
- we will try tomorrow to follow by IRC
- 19:25:25 [rscano]
- in train
- 19:25:36 [rscano]
- by GPRS :)
- 19:25:40 [wendy]
- ok. good luck.
- 19:25:44 [rellero]
- :-)
- 19:25:49 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- good luck in Rome
- 19:25:50 [bengt]
- just say name and the noise will make me respond
- 19:25:57 [rscano]
- thank u :)
- 19:26:00 [rscano]
- bye
- 19:26:06 [rscano]
- rscano has left #wai-wcag
- 19:26:07 [wendy]
- ok. we're going to hang up for now.
- 19:26:08 [rellero]
- ciao
- 19:26:10 [wendy]
- will call back in in a while.
- 19:26:11 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- Gregg will say in IRC when they will start again
- 19:26:20 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- So you can wait until then to dial in again
- 19:58:20 [wendy]
- testing
- 20:01:50 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- loud and clear ;-)
- 20:13:14 [GVAN]
- we are on line now
- 20:13:17 [GVAN]
- re-convened
- 20:13:27 [bengt]
- focused ?
- 20:13:30 [wendy]
- :)
- 20:14:39 [wendy]
- 554425
- 20:14:45 [wendy]
- is the meeting id
- 20:14:51 [wendy]
- password is still 112233
- 20:15:04 [bengt]
- entering it very slowly
- 20:16:17 [wendy]
- gv: I was making a comment at lunch that I was quite discouraged.
- 20:16:25 [wendy]
- the reason being: scoping.
- 20:16:31 [wendy]
- we are in a knot
- 20:17:18 [wendy]
- if we cover absolutely everything, then we will always leave stuff off. either you make it apply to everything, or we leave it
- 20:17:29 [wendy]
- up to the developer to decide what applies, which is suicide.
- 20:17:48 [wendy]
- people can scope their way out of anything.
- 20:18:03 [wendy]
- wendy said we use a similar thing in 1.0.
- 20:18:08 [wendy]
- which made me stop and think.
- 20:19:01 [wendy]
- as soon as you tell someone that everything conforms, and you say yes, except for everything that is ridiculous, then
- 20:19:11 [wendy]
- we are back at the first point, which is that you don't really conform.
- 20:19:45 [wendy]
- newer technology is not covered, like captioning with webcams.
- 20:19:57 [wendy]
- so, we either have infinite loophole or infinite list.
- 20:20:01 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ john
- 20:20:03 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- ack john
- 20:20:34 [wendy]
- john: I would like to make a pitch for the time-based scoping that Alex presented before lunch.
- 20:20:41 [wendy]
- we have the undue burden clause.
- 20:21:08 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "undue burden is HHIR, perhaps general statement"
- 20:21:10 [wendy]
- there are provisions that say that whoever owns the site HAS to do these things unless an undue burden is created.
- 20:21:12 [DanWebb]
- DanWebb has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:21:26 [DanWebb]
- DanWebb has left #wai-wcag
- 20:21:38 [wendy]
- John continues: about webcam example ....
- 20:21:50 [wendy]
- q+ mike
- 20:22:23 [wendy]
- webcam with microphone
- 20:22:27 [GVAN]
- wendy is kerstin and gvan is wendy
- 20:22:44 [GVAN]
- lisa has arrived
- 20:23:32 [wendy]
- gv: we can say that we set the guidelines and let reason prevail, then who makes the decision about undue burden?
- 20:24:09 [wendy]
- john: undue burden is a legal term in US law, which means that people should not claim undue burden without consulting a lawyer first.
- 20:24:33 [wendy]
- gv: people come to ALex and ask WCAG 1, 2, or 3? He does not know if he has conformance or not.
- 20:24:37 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q-
- 20:24:47 [GVAN]
- q+ michael
- 20:24:48 [wendy]
- he therefore does not know if he can sell his product or not.
- 20:25:12 [wendy]
- Alex: if I scope out without checking first, I would be misleading customers, which I would never want to do.
- 20:25:29 [wendy]
- alex: if I tell them exceptions like, webcam, legacy, etc.. .....
- 20:25:58 [GVAN]
- ack mike
- 20:26:53 [wendy]
- question: who needs captioning out there?
- 20:27:16 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- it's hard to hear sometimes
- 20:27:21 [wendy]
- ah.
- 20:27:22 [GVAN]
- ack michael
- 20:27:28 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- like NOW
- 20:27:40 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- thx
- 20:27:54 [wendy]
- yes.
- 20:28:03 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- much better
- 20:28:27 [wendy]
- michael: customers take things seriously in our experience, even asking about nuances.
- 20:29:08 [wendy]
- my other feeling is that when we talk about guidance and undue burden, I think each country will apply their own definitions.
- 20:29:31 [wendy]
- we need to say "here is what an accessible site is, and if you are going to create policy, here is a framework for defining
- 20:29:37 [wendy]
- acceptable conformance."
- 20:29:55 [wendy]
- I just don't feel it's going to work to be as specific as possible.
- 20:29:57 [wendy]
- gv:
- 20:30:19 [wendy]
- in the guidelines we have scoping at different levels. we built scoping in in different places.
- 20:31:25 [wendy]
- when you were talking
- 20:31:47 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "Scope out <> conforms"
- 20:31:48 [wendy]
- q+ alex, ben
- 20:32:03 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q-
- 20:32:09 [GVAN]
- q+ andi
- 20:32:24 [GVAN]
- ack alex
- 20:32:28 [GVAN]
- q+ mike
- 20:32:32 [GVAN]
- q- andi
- 20:32:34 [GVAN]
- q+ andi
- 20:33:03 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- is someone piling dishes or something? it makes it hard to follow the conversation
- 20:33:07 [wendy]
- alex: customers want to see the box checked that says
- 20:33:12 [wendy]
- yes, sorry for the noise -
- 20:33:12 [GVAN]
- q+ gv
- 20:33:18 [wendy]
- cleaning up lunch around here.
- 20:33:34 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- ah, could you ask the people to speak up even more during the clean up?
- 20:33:42 [wendy]
- sure
- 20:34:37 [GVAN]
- ack ben
- 20:34:49 [wendy]
- alex: all organizations will have their own interpretation, this takes one thing out of the mix.
- 20:35:26 [wendy]
- ben: you can't make a conformance claim about part of a site unless it is scoped out specifically.
- 20:35:35 [GVAN]
- ack andi
- 20:35:39 [wendy]
- in other words, it defaults to everything.
- 20:35:59 [wendy]
- andi: if everything on your site does not conform, then you should scope things in.
- 20:36:05 [wendy]
- which is similar to what Ben was saying.
- 20:36:47 [wendy]
- gv: when there are exceptions, the terms might not be useable for people to understand the details of the scope.
- 20:37:43 [GVAN]
- ack mike
- 20:37:46 [GVAN]
- q+ katie
- 20:37:46 [wendy]
- but if a hotel is fully accessible but with no elevators, and the detail about the elevator is left out, people in wheelchairs are stuck.
- 20:38:16 [wendy]
- mike: the scope part is too complex in our current draft.
- 20:38:41 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "old content is just one example"
- 20:38:54 [wendy]
- mike: q+ kerstin
- 20:39:01 [wendy]
- q+ kerstin
- 20:39:18 [wendy]
- I don't even understand enough of what Mike is saying to take notes in IRC, sorry ....
- 20:39:38 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- :-)
- 20:39:52 [wendy]
- Yvette, if you understand it, can you type it in?
- 20:40:01 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- Sure
- 20:40:07 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- Problem: what's a site?
- 20:40:18 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- Office within Microsoft site can be considered a site
- 20:40:43 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- So if you say 'everything on website is accessible', it depends what you define as website
- 20:41:05 [GVAN]
- q+ andi
- 20:41:11 [GVAN]
- ack gv
- 20:41:47 [wendy]
- mike: this does not fix the realtime, or community created.
- 20:43:00 [wendy]
- AOL would just ignore it, since it's not something we could do.
- 20:43:06 [wendy]
- they are 90% aggregate.
- 20:43:33 [wendy]
- mike: we can solve the feeds from newsfeeds, if we say we can't make a claim until you conform and make a claim - like REUTERS
- 20:43:46 [wendy]
- gv: REUTERS was not the kind I was talking about
- 20:44:04 [wendy]
- gv: two things: there might be something to the date thing.
- 20:44:13 [wendy]
- date has a thing.
- 20:44:23 [wendy]
- and maybe we talk about it in policy section
- 20:44:28 [wendy]
- date alone will not work.
- 20:44:45 [wendy]
- but there is something interesting that I have noticed: we could allow pre-scoping and allow user-scoping.
- 20:45:23 [wendy]
- pre-scoping means that we allow firms to say, "I meet ..." - that we might find that where we already see things, we pre-scope.
- 20:45:34 [wendy]
- we make it easier for companies to do clean conformance.
- 20:46:36 [wendy]
- then we can allow in our scoping guidelines time-based, maybe even suggest for these kind of contnent we suggest by date or functionality, etc.
- 20:46:49 [wendy]
- mike:
- 20:46:56 [GVAN]
- q+ lisa
- 20:47:33 [wendy]
- katie: along the dating lines (ha ha ha), it makes it easier when and if other things come along.
- 20:47:41 [wendy]
- another quickie:
- 20:47:43 [wendy]
- ha ha ha ha
- 20:48:00 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- ack katie
- 20:48:06 [wendy]
- shopping cart thing: scoping out is better to do than scoping in.
- 20:48:29 [wendy]
- easier to say that something is NOT accessible than what IS accessible.
- 20:48:46 [wendy]
- gv tells joke ... laughter
- 20:48:53 [GVAN]
- ack yvette
- 20:48:53 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "old content is just one example"
- 20:49:26 [kerstin]
- ack yvette
- 20:50:08 [wendy]
- yh some content have to be scoped out if use a feed and never have contact w/source
- 20:50:11 [wendy]
- gv aggregator has a choice
- 20:50:26 [wendy]
- yh many clients are non-profits and may not have a choice
- 20:50:45 [wendy]
- ack kerstin
- 20:50:48 [wendy]
- q+ alex
- 20:51:16 [wendy]
- kg clarify alex's proposal
- 20:51:19 [wendy]
- mb goes to draw an image on the whiteboard
- 20:51:46 [bengt]
- copy paster it here ?
- 20:52:01 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- should get a webcam next time :-)
- 20:52:06 [wendy]
- scope of claim over time, level to which claiming conformance
- 20:52:37 [wendy]
- mb conformance claim in A-AAA (level claiming)
- 20:52:39 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- way too soft
- 20:52:40 [wendy]
- mb also scope at which claim site conforms
- 20:52:58 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- but Lisa isn't on IRC
- 20:53:04 [wendy]
- gv explains what mb draws
- 20:53:08 [wendy]
- 3x3 matrix
- 20:53:34 [wendy]
- level 1 - anything newer than wcag 2.0
- 20:54:11 [wendy]
- 1.0 has 3 levels, 2.0 has 3 levels
- 20:54:20 [wendy]
- content can claim A/AA/AAA at the time it was created
- 20:54:28 [wendy]
- scoping levels
- 20:54:47 [wendy]
- scope 1 A - any content newer than 2.0 at level A
- 20:55:09 [wendy]
- scope 1 AAA - newer that most recent wcag
- 20:55:18 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "if we need this much time to explain it to a group of experts, it's not a workable situation"
- 20:55:36 [wendy]
- this takes into consideration wcag 3.0 and wcag 4.0
- 20:56:00 [wendy]
- wac this is very confusing
- 20:56:36 [kerstin]
- q+ ben
- 20:56:44 [wendy]
- mb removes need for legacy content
- 20:56:59 [wendy]
- mb still has issue w/community provided content and realtime
- 20:57:05 [wendy]
- mb this gives you a way to clearly state what my site conforms to
- 20:57:27 [wendy]
- q+ to say "wcag 1.0 conformance profile instead of uilding into conformance scheme"
- 20:57:57 [wendy]
- scope 2 would mean the content conforms to whatever is te controlling document at the time.
- 20:58:06 [wendy]
- makes it easy for the current site that makes a valid claim to wcag 1.0
- 20:59:37 [wendy]
- ack andi
- 20:59:54 [kerstin]
- can you hear andi, folks on the phone?
- 21:00:02 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- just about yes
- 21:00:04 [wendy]
- asw concerned that this is complex, agree it removes some issues. have trouble understanidng how it would apply to web app.
- 21:00:30 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q-
- 21:00:32 [wendy]
- asw concerned about how solves issue related to determine if something meets which scope.
- 21:00:37 [kerstin]
- ack andi
- 21:00:45 [wendy]
- gv doesn't say anythin about accessibility of the site only about the diligence of the people.
- 21:00:59 [wendy]
- ack lisa
- 21:01:53 [wendy]
- ls interesting use of conformance scheme. if have content that was published a while ago but making accessible to wcag 2.0, can you claim conformance to old wcag? there are things in old wcag not avail in new wcag.
- 21:01:53 [wendy]
- q+ gv
- 21:01:58 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "date of English version or of translations?"
- 21:02:39 [wendy]
- ls you can do automatic accessibility conversions, quesion of having the right auth tool working with conversion algorithms
- 21:03:54 [kerstin]
- q+ mike
- 21:04:16 [wendy]
- ack alex
- 21:04:19 [kerstin]
- can everyone hear alex?
- 21:04:26 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- I can
- 21:04:30 [kerstin]
- great
- 21:04:32 [wendy]
- al all apps are realtime. concerned with release date of the product.
- 21:05:03 [wendy]
- al can quote the release date and version. it's that version that meets the deadline.
- 21:06:02 [wendy]
- al have 600K of transactions. some are only used by a very small community. date is essential to making a claim.
- 21:08:39 [kerstin]
- q+ john
- 21:09:15 [kerstin]
- q+ katie
- 21:09:19 [kerstin]
- ack ben
- 21:09:20 [wendy]
- ack ben
- 21:09:23 [wendy]
- q+ lisa
- 21:09:57 [wendy]
- bc re: date - why can't author choose to do it by date? why build into conformance scheme?
- 21:10:03 [wendy]
- bc why does it have to be at guideline level?
- 21:10:25 [wendy]
- gv goes into "why does person do it" - move it into policy document not into guidelines.
- 21:10:36 [wendy]
- bc why should we specify a way? if date makes sense for you, then use that.
- 21:10:50 [wendy]
- mb if conformance claim written as is, illegal.
- 21:10:59 [wendy]
- bc model assumes that standards are not backwards compatible.
- 21:11:15 [wendy]
- bc in transition doc, should say wcag 1.0 conformance claim is similiar to 2.0 claim of X
- 21:11:59 [wendy]
- bc the end user scenario - powerful to take a conformance claim, but will people do that? more likely, "i found a book on amazon and i couldn't buy" unless there is a machine way to read no expectation that users will read claim. will find out the hard way.
- 21:12:09 [wendy]
- mb if make conformance claims clear, the users won't read but the govnt will.
- 21:12:13 [wendy]
- q?
- 21:12:15 [kerstin]
- ack wendy
- 21:12:15 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say "wcag 1.0 conformance profile instead of uilding into conformance scheme"
- 21:12:29 [kerstin]
- wendy: now I am all confused.
- 21:12:47 [kerstin]
- I feel like the solution is not solving the issues that need to be addressed.
- 21:12:56 [kerstin]
- delta still exists.
- 21:13:21 [kerstin]
- the user will need to know what that delta is - why do we need to create a whole new scheme?
- 21:13:39 [kerstin]
- part of the idea about conformance profiles - there could be a WCAG 1.0 profile for 2.0.
- 21:14:00 [kerstin]
- profile of "I conform to wcag 1.0 which means this in 2.0"
- 21:14:07 [wendy]
- ack gv
- 21:14:16 [kerstin]
- ack gv
- 21:14:43 [wendy]
- gv people don't wcag to find accessible content.
- 21:14:57 [wendy]
- gv the purpose is to cause the sites to be accessible, not to search for accessible sites.
- 21:15:21 [wendy]
- gv equity issue around dating. someone creating new site is at higher standard for same information.
- 21:15:31 [wendy]
- gv if content is not dated, it is untestable. you don'' tknow if it conforms or not.
- 21:16:08 [wendy]
- al application is based on release date of app.
- 21:17:02 [kerstin]
- q+ alex
- 21:18:15 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 21:18:15 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "date of English version or of translations?"
- 21:19:05 [wendy]
- yh scoping by date and matrix system would be complex. is date related to translation? what do you count as the date? find it in the source code? for cms, item could be database could have been inserted at some unknown date.
- 21:19:14 [wendy]
- ack mike
- 21:19:44 [wendy]
- mb think we could explain so is easier to understand. i can claim scope to A,doesn't say if can use the site or not.
- 21:20:07 [wendy]
- mb if we elevate functionality (e.g., web app) against content claims...is that supported?
- 21:20:17 [wendy]
- mb conformance section as written, could not legally write a claim that would make sense.
- 21:20:45 [wendy]
- mb to make a claim to 2.0, would have to line item out wcag 1.0 content or content older than wcag 1.0.
- 21:21:11 [wendy]
- mb this claims how we claim to 2.0. for sites that claim to 1.0, no claim to 2.0.
- 21:21:14 [wendy]
- mb still have to make the assessment.
- 21:21:22 [wendy]
- mb our conformance claim would be 100s of MBs
- 21:21:52 [wendy]
- mb what does success look like?
- 21:22:17 [kerstin]
- q+ VOTE
- 21:22:29 [wendy]
- gv seems that there is a belief that we either need to adopt or take off the table.
- 21:22:56 [wendy]
- gv perhaps say, this is an approach. if put on the table as an approach. step back and ask what is it we are going to require?
- 21:23:10 [wendy]
- gv create a bunch of examples of things that should or not be required.
- 21:23:20 [wendy]
- gv if we take the different schemes, do we reach the appropriate conclusions.
- 21:23:37 [wendy]
- gv by making judgement about something if should be required or grandfathered.
- 21:23:43 [wendy]
- gv tat process should help us pick up on what the scoping should handle.
- 21:23:52 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- "grandfathered?"
- 21:24:01 [wendy]
- gv then we can take the diff scoping techs (included the timing one) and see if they cause things to be required or exempted. etc.
- 21:24:33 [wendy]
- grandfathered - when something gets "grandfathered in" it means that an old way of doing things will be adopted in a new way of doing things.
- 21:25:11 [wendy]
- e.g., all cars have to have a certain mileage, except those produced before X day. term used to exempt things that are old.
- 21:25:20 [wendy]
- ack john
- 21:26:00 [wendy]
- js return to audience question. at some points we talk about what users can know about what parts of a site are accessible. at other points, speak about legal claims.
- 21:26:17 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "conformance claims for UA"
- 21:26:28 [wendy]
- js conformance has implications for users.
- 21:26:28 [wendy]
- q+ gv
- 21:26:45 [wendy]
- js that might change if audience for conformance claims is machines.
- 21:26:53 [wendy]
- js jason said, "content negotiation"
- 21:27:09 [wendy]
- js in conjunction with issues of scoping and conformance claims.
- 21:27:32 [wendy]
- js content negotiation, in effect, becomes an avatar of the user.
- 21:28:13 [wendy]
- ack katie
- 21:28:41 [kerstin]
- katie: users are not going to use claim, just companies for checking off a box.
- 21:28:52 [kerstin]
- has nothing to do with user knwoing what they will find on a site.
- 21:29:25 [kerstin]
- this is just a box to check, which helps the seller.
- 21:29:40 [kerstin]
- this fits in the policy guidance as a way to develop conformance claims.
- 21:30:00 [kerstin]
- lisa:
- 21:30:21 [kerstin]
- you can add a semantic layer, putting the two together that is accessible to 1.0 or 2.0
- 21:30:47 [kerstin]
- old apps that cannot be changed can still be made to be accessible through semantic web technique.
- 21:30:54 [kerstin]
- I think that is crucial to this discussion
- 21:31:09 [kerstin]
- they CAN do it - but do we tell them they can call it accessible when it's not.
- 21:31:45 [kerstin]
- there are ways that people will go about making their sites accessible, but to me in does not make sense to allow people scope it out.
- 21:31:53 [wendy]
- q+ to say, "what i hear is..."
- 21:32:38 [kerstin]
- not that we give them a date, but we give them a formula to give people the ability to do that.
- 21:33:15 [kerstin]
- one of the main points of EARL was to run searches on sites to find which sites claim conformance ...
- 21:34:08 [wendy]
- ack lisa
- 21:35:22 [wendy]
- gv: companies will want to make a statement, this is not about KNOWING that a site is accessible when you get there, but
- 21:35:30 [wendy]
- about causing a site to be accessible before you get there.
- 21:35:48 [wendy]
- q- VOTE
- 21:35:54 [wendy]
- q- gv
- 21:35:58 [wendy]
- ack alex
- 21:36:17 [wendy]
- alex: testabilty versus useability
- 21:36:45 [wendy]
- only one person at that one site, the creator, can claim their conformance.
- 21:37:12 [wendy]
- if what I am creating is only a portion of a larger piece, I can only claim that what I create is accessible - therefore,
- 21:37:27 [wendy]
- testability should sit there, too.
- 21:37:44 [wendy]
- most efficient is to claim at the creator and testers seat.
- 21:38:05 [wendy]
- who answers the question: the end user? or the content provider? it's the content provider.
- 21:38:15 [wendy]
- re lisa's question:
- 21:38:49 [wendy]
- when we only create new stuff to meet 2.0, we do not imply that all our product is accessible. accessibility is not black
- 21:39:19 [wendy]
- and white - we update things according to customer requirements. ultimate goal is achieved - but if you are in the black
- 21:39:39 [wendy]
- because you don't meet claims from the outside world, then we will choose to stay in the black and who cares!
- 21:39:46 [wendy]
- market demand will drive that.
- 21:39:57 [wendy]
- q+ mike
- 21:40:02 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 21:40:02 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "conformance claims for UA"
- 21:40:21 [wendy]
- yvette: claims can be for user agents.
- 21:40:50 [wendy]
- user agents can derive from conformance claims that certain web pages, say, have glossaries, etc.. - then the ua can create
- 21:40:58 [wendy]
- tooltips, etc.
- 21:41:16 [wendy]
- if there is a machine-readable conformance claim, then ua can take advantage.
- 21:41:22 [wendy]
- gv: is this requirement?
- 21:41:27 [wendy]
- that claim be machine readable?
- 21:41:36 [wendy]
- yvette - no, just something you COULD do.
- 21:41:44 [wendy]
- gv: let's focus on what is required.
- 21:41:50 [wendy]
- otherwise, goes into techniques.
- 21:42:21 [wendy]
- gv: we want to keep the discussion to what we are requiring in the range of scope.
- 21:42:47 [wendy]
- q- mike
- 21:42:51 [wendy]
- q+ consolidation
- 21:42:53 [wendy]
- q+ mike
- 21:43:04 [wendy]
- wendy: too much info to make a claim, we need general way
- 21:43:33 [wendy]
- date is easy because release cycles, if date is incl. in scope, then claim is easy.
- 21:43:45 [wendy]
- mike: date is not easier, but it is the controlling factor.
- 21:43:56 [wendy]
- wendy: is it the ONLY controlling factor - date seems to be one.
- 21:44:27 [wendy]
- mb: if I have to re-write my claim every time a new set of guidelines....
- 21:44:37 [wendy]
- wendy: how many apps really still conform to 1.0?
- 21:44:44 [wendy]
- mb: none.
- 21:44:52 [wendy]
- wendy: then there is a hole there.
- 21:45:06 [wendy]
- mb: it makes the claim something that is consistent and singular.
- 21:45:28 [wendy]
- wendy: still the basis is a way to make a very broad claim.
- 21:45:37 [wendy]
- mb: the claim is exactly that.
- 21:45:55 [wendy]
- wendy: I want to summarize.
- 21:46:11 [wendy]
- andi: it's also a legally defensible claim - using date.
- 21:46:30 [wendy]
- wendy: are there other ways to make claims that are both broad and defensible.
- 21:47:53 [wendy]
- wendy: I want to think about how things work in a big org
- 21:47:58 [bengt]
- sounds are breaking up
- 21:48:01 [wendy]
- things need to NOT be black and white.
- 21:48:11 [wendy]
- can you hear now?
- 21:48:13 [wendy]
- bengt?
- 21:48:21 [bengt]
- its better
- 21:48:23 [wendy]
- ok
- 21:48:54 [wendy]
- how is it that a progressive claim is going to make a bigger impact on your entire app?
- 21:49:34 [wendy]
- alex: three components in product, abc - c is not used, a is very used, because of market demand people will be buying the newer version of
- 21:49:37 [wendy]
- a and b all the time.
- 21:49:55 [wendy]
- as an a product developer, I will be working all the time.
- 21:49:59 [wendy]
- c developer does not.
- 21:50:15 [wendy]
- a and b content is goign to gradually be updated all the time.
- 21:50:27 [wendy]
- c is the norwegian organic farmer user ....
- 21:50:39 [wendy]
- we keep c in the overall product, but it will not be updated.
- 21:50:43 [wendy]
- he is the only customer.
- 21:51:08 [wendy]
- new portion d would of course meet wcag 2.0, and so would c if it ever got updated.
- 21:51:34 [wendy]
- mb: what about windows.
- 21:51:59 [wendy]
- until we had to go to 32 bit, parts had not been touched in literally years!
- 21:52:43 [wendy]
- if enumeration at all levels of windows is required, it's too much work - we will go to court and claim undue burden
- 21:52:47 [wendy]
- q+ katie
- 21:53:21 [wendy]
- mb: every peice conforms to the dominant standard of the time.
- 21:54:09 [wendy]
- I need to write a document with all 16million pages in it .... for claiming.
- 21:54:53 [wendy]
- alex: not all things are structured in hierarchical fashion.
- 21:55:10 [wendy]
- only when we touch the actual code can we make a claim.
- 21:56:16 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 21:56:16 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say, "what i hear is..."
- 21:56:31 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "break later?"
- 21:57:06 [wendy]
- you want to break later, Y?
- 21:57:14 [wendy]
- can you say why, and maybe I can tell folks?
- 21:57:22 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- yes, otherwise last stint will be veeery long
- 21:57:39 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- sound silly to make last leg the longest, it's already midnight here
- 21:58:25 [bengt]
- it is only midnigth
- 21:58:42 [wendy]
- lisa: what are the issues after the break?
- 21:59:23 [wendy]
- gv: checklists after the break, wondering if it would be just as good to do some presentations around normative, non-normative checklists.
- 21:59:45 [wendy]
- since it's a big topic, we want to have some info to sleep on tonight.
- 21:59:53 [wendy]
- presentations immediately after break.
- 22:00:18 [wendy]
- 3:15 Pacific time return.
- 22:00:26 [bengt]
- disconnecting to save minutes
- 22:00:29 [wendy]
- BREAK
- 22:00:49 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- will you announce when the break's over again? That was very useful
- 22:00:59 [wendolyn]
- yes
- 22:01:51 [bengt]
- say our names I will a big beep then ...
- 22:02:01 [bengt]
- or write
- 22:19:35 [wendolyn]
- we are back on line]
- 22:20:01 [wendy]
- we are off break
- 22:20:15 [bengt]
- dialing
- 22:20:20 [wendy]
- ok
- 22:21:57 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- "that meeting password is not recognized"
- 22:22:54 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- anyone else having problems?
- 22:23:05 [bengt]
- ohyeah
- 22:23:07 [wendy]
- let's hang up and start over ... same problem as this morning.
- 22:23:10 [wendy]
- sorry.
- 22:23:18 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- ok
- 22:23:21 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- I hung up
- 22:23:35 [wendolyn]
- we just hung up
- 22:23:43 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- just say when
- 22:23:58 [bengt]
- heh, got "please hold"
- 22:25:32 [wendy]
- try again now
- 22:25:36 [wendy]
- 554425
- 22:25:42 [wendy]
- password 112233
- 22:26:54 [wendy]
- bengt has joined
- 22:27:13 [wendy]
- yvette is on the phone as well
- 22:27:20 [kerstin]
- lisa joined
- 22:28:30 [wendy]
- Topic: checklists
- 22:29:23 [wendy]
- bc took an action item to prototype the checklist. have taken 2 of 14 guidelines and listed all of the things that might be part of the checklist.
- 22:29:29 [wendy]
- bc sent something last tuesday.
- 22:29:32 [wendy]
- bc 1.1 and 1.3
- 22:30:16 [wendy]
- bc at the top level, t/f statement for the guideline.
- 22:30:30 [wendy]
- bc from there, t/f for each criteria
- 22:30:33 [wendy]
- bc about 10 items (for guidelines)
- 22:30:47 [wendy]
- bc looking at 10 SC, found about 40 things in techniques. some are optional, some conditional.
- 22:31:12 [wendy]
- bc if certain type, may be couple of techniques (e.g., longdesc, alt - sometimes needs both, sometimes one)
- 22:31:37 [wendy]
- bc other info from test work (automated tools), category of what not to do (alt should not be a file name)
- 22:31:52 [wendy]
- bc there are several axes that a checklist may change.
- 22:32:11 [wendy]
- bc e.g. if answer a top-level t/f question (i don't havce any multimedia), then could throw out all 1.2 items.
- 22:32:13 [wendy]
- bc e.g., only conforming to level 1
- 22:32:32 [wendy]
- bc e.g, browsers or user agents - deprecated techniques for older UAs
- 22:32:38 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "checklist only for developers i.e. should be technology-specific"
- 22:32:41 [wendy]
- ben's notes: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/07/checklist-notes.html
- 22:32:54 [wendy]
- e.g., scope of conformance claim - diff techs if single pg vs entire site.
- 22:33:26 [wendy]
- bc how to techs map to existng SC. how to sort into sufficient and optional.
- 22:33:36 [wendy]
- bc relationships between techniques (work to do at TTF mtg later this week)
- 22:34:11 [wendy]
- bc issues about length of checklists. have one massive one that includes everything (guidelines, gateway, html, etc.)? feels like a tax form.
- 22:34:41 [wendy]
- bc useful just to have checklist just for html? have series of checklists to go through?
- 22:34:42 [wendy]
- khs pull together on the fly?
- 22:35:01 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- We can't hear the female voice who just spoke
- 22:35:08 [wendy]
- bc it's an option. the "pie in the sky" checklist is a series of interview questions (describe content, technologies used) and generate a set of appropriate checklsit items.
- 22:35:23 [wendy]
- bc we don't have those and/or relationships mapped. can't generate it right now.
- 22:35:29 [wendy]
- bc if could generate on the fly, could also help an author make a conformance claim.
- 22:35:36 [wendy]
- bc do we have the resources to develop an app like that?
- 22:35:42 [wendy]
- khs is the whole equal to its parts?
- 22:35:56 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- Very hard to hear this
- 22:36:07 [wendy]
- khs if we did have normative checklists for xhtml, js, svg, and brought them together dynamically. if that thing normative?
- 22:36:08 [wendy]
- khs 3 diff normative ting brought together?
- 22:36:09 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- s/very hard/impossible
- 22:36:19 [wendy]
- gv things brought together isn't normative, but 3 brought together are.
- 22:36:33 [wendy]
- yvette - can you hear gregg?
- 22:36:36 [wendy]
- gv what is the checklist for css?
- 22:36:42 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- yes, it's katie that is the problem
- 22:36:48 [wendy]
- sorry - was typing in front of the phone.
- 22:37:39 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- I would recognize Sharky ;-)
- 22:38:17 [wendy]
- :)
- 22:38:39 [wendy]
- gv if have series of checks that would collapse or not, would be an app not a doc.
- 22:38:43 [wendy]
- gv don't know of any normative apps
- 22:39:44 [wendy]
- gv if have large doc w/everything, be very large and complex. however, that could be the normative form but the one everyone uses is the app.
- 22:39:48 [wendy]
- q+ to say, "isn't that what the eval tools are for?"
- 22:39:57 [wendy]
- ack consolidations
- 22:40:00 [wendy]
- ack consolidation
- 22:40:23 [wendy]
- gv have to be very careful, b/c if ask a question and it disappears, someone could miss something that they need.
- 22:40:28 [wendy]
- gv looks like it has to be that way.
- 22:40:50 [wendy]
- gv instead of html+css, html+png, etc. have one big one.
- 22:40:59 [wendy]
- gv those things that you don't have would fall out.
- 22:41:43 [wendy]
- gv if going to be normative, the normative state would need to be the long list.
- 22:42:07 [wendy]
- ack mike
- 22:42:07 [wendy]
- ack katie
- 22:42:09 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 22:42:09 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "break later?" and to say "checklist only for developers i.e. should be technology-specific"
- 22:43:34 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 22:43:34 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say, "isn't that what the eval tools are for?"
- 22:43:39 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- can I talk?
- 22:43:53 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+
- 22:44:03 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- I didn't hear myself being ackd
- 22:45:18 [wendy]
- wac if have a normative document and test suite, then the tools (bobby, dreamweaver, etc.) would allow people to determine conformance.
- 22:45:41 [wendy]
- yvette - i was acking you for getting into q before the break. i didn't see you get into q for this topic. sorry.
- 22:45:45 [wendy]
- you are now in q for this topic.
- 22:45:56 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- ok
- 22:46:07 [wendy]
- gv checklist would be an application b/c so many if/and/buts
- 22:46:40 [wendy]
- asw people need checklist to determine what need to do.
- 22:47:27 [wendy]
- wac if primary purpose is what need to do, look different than if evaluating a site.
- 22:47:57 [wendy]
- bg it jumps you to techniques. i.e., this is what i need to do, then links to techniques w/examples.
- 22:48:18 [wendy]
- gv you can ask for a chatty or abbreviated form
- 22:49:38 [wendy]
- wac don't have resources to do both. need barebones first. can't even agree on that.
- 22:49:46 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 22:49:50 [wendy]
- q+ john
- 22:50:00 [wendy]
- yh in 1.0 had "yes, no, and n/a"
- 22:50:20 [wendy]
- yh like that b/c use in 2 phases - 1st decide in development if applicable or not. then in eval determine yes or no.
- 22:50:44 [wendy]
- yh applicability of specific checkpoint is an important thing to think about.
- 22:51:09 [wendy]
- bc the problem with that is that b/c have minimum level for each guideline, the only way can scope out a guideline is if you don't have that type of content.
- 22:51:50 [wendy]
- yh have to think about "do i have no multimedia" will be 100% y/n question in the end, but have to think about entire site and if use multimedia anywhere.
- 22:52:13 [wendy]
- yh the checklist used for entire web site and not for every page.
- 22:52:40 [wendy]
- gv yes, have to answer questions correctly or you will never address them.
- 22:52:53 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- Hard to hear again
- 22:53:12 [wendy]
- we're talking about katie using dillon (the dog) to warm her feet. :)
- 22:53:12 [wendy]
- turning up the heat.
- 22:53:29 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- You've got a dog there? Cool
- 22:53:36 [wendy]
- js for whom are the checklists intended? developers or for people who develop eval tools?
- 22:53:38 [wendy]
- john's guide dog
- 22:53:44 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- Figured as much, yes
- 22:54:03 [wendy]
- js in wcag 1.0, the checklist assumes that it is possible to go through and check things off.
- 22:54:04 [bengt]
- it is a very nice dog I met it in Linz
- 22:54:16 [wendy]
- js implicit in 1.0 is the assumption that most resources are developed by single authors, and single pages.
- 22:54:19 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- :-)
- 22:54:45 [wendy]
- js part of goal for 2.0 is to drop that assumption and that collective or corporate or aggregate production model exists. much of which happens w/out human intervention..
- 22:55:06 [wendy]
- js do we want to say that it must be possible for a person to evaluate conformance to 2.0?
- 22:55:12 [wendy]
- js are tehre circumstances where that would not be possible?
- 22:55:47 [wendy]
- gv there are parts of the gudielines where a tool is needed to determine conformance (e.g., color contrast).
- 22:55:56 [wendy]
- gv however, the checklist should facilitate someone creating methods to evaluate.
- 22:56:17 [wendy]
- gv we won't be creating an automatic tool, someone else can create that. they replicate the algorithmic part of the list.
- 22:56:39 [wendy]
- js want to hear more about test suites. what is the relation to checklists?
- 22:57:59 [wendy]
- mc could be 2 types of things that could be meant by test suites.
- 22:58:03 [wendy]
- mc we've been focusing on one of them.
- 22:58:36 [wendy]
- mc 1. sample implementations of the techniques in a code for a particular technology. an eval tool could read, analyze, and produce result.
- 22:58:37 [wendy]
- mc chris ridpath is focusing on this kind.
- 22:58:42 [wendy]
- mc we see creating this for techniques.
- 22:58:57 [wendy]
- mc 2. model files that show wcag principles in operation.
- 22:59:16 [wendy]
- mc in many cases, same thing that tests eval, user agent, and authoring tools.
- 22:59:31 [wendy]
- (do UAs render the content appropriately, do auth tools generate appropriate content)
- 22:59:46 [wendy]
- mc in some cases may need to create test files that do not have the granularity for tool consumption.
- 22:59:49 [wendy]
- mc have talked about creating model sites.
- 22:59:56 [kerstin]
- q+ mike
- 22:59:57 [wendy]
- q+ mike
- 23:00:26 [wendy]
- gv test suites don't use to determine if content evalutes to guidelines.
- 23:00:41 [wendy]
- mc for a given test file, the result should come up with same result on a test file as web site.
- 23:00:56 [wendy]
- ack john
- 23:00:56 [wendy]
- ack mike
- 23:01:20 [wendy]
- mb if we have 500 or so tests, if we wrote each case down as a test case matrix.
- 23:01:22 [bengt]
- can you increase his volume ?
- 23:02:07 [wendy]
- mb then with that test case matrix, wouldn't we be done?
- 23:02:29 [wendy]
- mb can we take what caused us to write each test file, then say "these are the things to run against your site" to determine conformance.
- 23:02:30 [wendy]
- gv how run a test file against site?
- 23:02:35 [wendy]
- mb create a checklist.
- 23:02:40 [wendy]
- q+ michael
- 23:02:59 [wendy]
- mb it is a way to generate the checklist
- 23:03:16 [wendy]
- gv they may have many files, but may only need to do one.
- 23:03:24 [wendy]
- gv you don't have to do all five of them.
- 23:04:05 [wendy]
- ack michael
- 23:04:39 [wendy]
- mc related to issue of granularity. up until now, the overal structure: principles, guidelines, techniques...increasing levels of details.
- 23:04:46 [wendy]
- mc w/each technique, several test files.
- 23:05:07 [wendy]
- mc envisioning that checklists for human consumption be at same level as techniques.
- 23:05:16 [wendy]
- mc mb's proposal puts checklists at level of test files.
- 23:05:43 [wendy]
- mc if that makes sense, ok. we hadn't really considered yet.
- 23:06:14 [wendy]
- gv if you have a test case, what are you testing? you are testing something important. the sum of all the test cases may not yet test all of the success criteria...
- 23:06:38 [wendy]
- gv however, if have a variety of tests for alt-text, each of them is an element in the checklist.
- 23:07:07 [wendy]
- gv in addition to taking top-down approach (what is sufficient ot pass this), would be useful to do bottom up to determine what you are testing.
- 23:07:33 [wendy]
- q+ to say "end-to-end process. fidning many inconsistencies"
- 23:07:50 [wendy]
- mc think we are dealing w/human consumption rather than machien. "is the alt-text appropriate?"
- 23:08:06 [wendy]
- mc probably to be disruptive to say "the alt-text is not 'image' is not '*.gif' etc."
- 23:08:09 [wendy]
- mc that is for the machine to do
- 23:08:23 [wendy]
- mc who is the consumer of the checklist?
- 23:09:02 [wendy]
- gv (opinion) believes the checklist should either say "there is alt-text" or "there is alt-text and it is not a filename or a label of the type of content"
- 23:09:08 [wendy]
- gv it should not ever say "there is alt-text and it is appropriate"
- 23:09:26 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "we should say there is alt-text and it is appropriate"
- 23:09:31 [wendy]
- gv if we say the filename, etc. and there are 5 other things people could do wrong, but they ar enot in the checklist, then they are wrong.
- 23:09:39 [wendy]
- s/wrong/ok
- 23:09:46 [wendy]
- q+ katie
- 23:10:01 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 23:10:01 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say "end-to-end process. fidning many inconsistencies"
- 23:10:48 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 23:10:48 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "we should say there is alt-text and it is appropriate"
- 23:11:24 [wendy]
- yvette??
- 23:11:36 [wendy]
- q+ gv
- 23:11:44 [wendy]
- yv think we should say "there is alt-text and it is appropriate"
- 23:11:55 [wendy]
- yv the document is already lacking "to the pointness" - it is vague.
- 23:12:04 [wendy]
- yv checklists should be clear. we should say what we mean.
- 23:12:49 [wendy]
- yv then people can look at alt-text and see if appropriate or not. if have filename, then have a computer do the testing. we should not ask developer to do.
- 23:13:16 [wendy]
- gv "alt-text should be appropriate" is not clear or testable. what are criteria for "appropriate"?
- 23:13:34 [wendy]
- yv saying "alt-text should describe the image" is clear, but developers want to know what to put in the alt-text.
- 23:13:39 [wendy]
- yv doesn't tell them if it is good alt-text.
- 23:13:44 [wendy]
- yv checklist is a tool.
- 23:13:51 [wendy]
- q?
- 23:14:03 [wendy]
- s/yv/yh
- 23:14:07 [wendy]
- ack katie
- 23:14:24 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- hard to hear
- 23:14:25 [wendy]
- khs would like another example of detail not needed for human.
- 23:14:27 [wendy]
- bc h2 must follow h1
- 23:14:53 [wendy]
- bc headings are marked sequentially, but at the test level there are: h2s only follow h1s, etc.
- 23:15:29 [wendy]
- katie: that stuff is not so far off, so bizarre.
- 23:15:53 [wendy]
- gv: if you say, it must meet spec,just list all specs - how far down you want to go?
- 23:16:11 [wendy]
- one of the nice things about having things collapsed, is that you can run automated tools, and computer can fill that in in advance.
- 23:16:18 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- that other man is IMPOSSIBLE to hear
- 23:16:22 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- i only hear Gregg
- 23:16:55 [wendy]
- ok -p tried to address it.
- 23:16:58 [wendy]
- q?
- 23:17:00 [wendy]
- ack gv
- 23:17:16 [wendy]
- gv: mc, you had tried to make something that fit.
- 23:17:26 [wendy]
- we decided it was not important enough, but was still good advice.
- 23:17:38 [wendy]
- I turned to Ben, and said hey we need a level 4.
- 23:17:40 [wendy]
- JOKE
- 23:17:44 [wendy]
- * JOKE*
- 23:18:13 [wendy]
- if we don't have anything in 1, 2, or 3, then these good ideas just disappear.
- 23:18:39 [wendy]
- maybe we don't put level 4 in the guidelines, but maybe it's in CORE, maybe additional things in CORE that tie back to guidelines, but
- 23:18:45 [wendy]
- are not tied back to a specific SC.
- 23:19:02 [wendy]
- we need to figure out how to handle some of them.
- 23:19:10 [wendy]
- q+ mc
- 23:19:14 [wendy]
- ack mc
- 23:19:44 [wendy]
- mc: no objection to tying ideas back to guideline, not sc.
- 23:19:56 [wendy]
- mc: in techniques level, we are saying, this really IS important.
- 23:20:11 [wendy]
- we need to think through each of these, case by case.
- 23:20:54 [wendy]
- wendy: I went to the bathroom and come back, and everything changed
- 23:20:57 [wendy]
- * laughter
- 23:22:05 [wendy]
- wendy: for html specifically, in techniques, there are things that map to level one in sc, but are really level 2 in HTML
- 23:22:50 [wendy]
- SVG hierarchy, for example, only ties to level one, but we don't want to force everyone to have to do that.
- 23:23:48 [wendolyn]
- q+
- 23:23:48 [wendolyn]
- q+ ben
- 23:23:48 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "technology-specific guidelines... yikes"
- 23:24:05 [wendolyn]
- bc this relates to level 1 but is optional
- 23:24:19 [wendy]
- ben: maybe in the checklist we make them optional
- 23:24:42 [wendy]
- wendy: how about no conformance at guidelines, only at checklist.
- 23:27:26 [wendy]
- how would a technology vendor prioritize their own created checklist if the guidelines have no conformance, and assuming that the guidelines are
- 23:27:35 [wendy]
- for technologies to be able to write checklists.
- 23:27:52 [wendy]
- gv: we will need to write a normative doc for writing checklists.
- 23:28:11 [wendy]
- gv: then people can go write all the checklist they want as long as they conform to the checklist writing doc.
- 23:31:13 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- can everyone speak up again? The lack of stamina is showing in our voices :-)
- 23:31:19 [wendolyn]
- :)
- 23:31:33 [wendy]
- I will ask again
- 23:33:09 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- and could you please remember Gregg there's a queue? It's pretty to be in the queue for a long time after you've had a bright idea ;-)
- 23:33:15 [wendy]
- q?
- 23:33:21 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- s/pretty/pretty frustrating
- 23:33:39 [wendolyn]
- ack wendolyn
- 23:33:42 [wendy]
- will remind him
- 23:34:12 [wendy]
- q- ben
- 23:35:02 [wendy]
- yvette: I don't see how checklists will help - but I wanted to suggest that we need some version of doc which will help developers
- 23:35:10 [wendy]
- see what the guidelines are with regard to techniques
- 23:35:13 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 23:35:13 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "technology-specific guidelines... yikes"
- 23:39:04 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "checklists should not be normative, want to change regularly"
- 23:40:42 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- Gregg(?) sounds muffled
- 23:41:03 [wendolyn]
- wac - what about technology-specific conformance profiles
- 23:41:08 [wendolyn]
- that's mike
- 23:41:13 [wendolyn]
- can you hear him?
- 23:41:21 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- yes, I had problems with Gregg
- 23:41:26 [wendolyn]
- ok
- 23:41:27 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- he sounds muted
- 23:41:33 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- not so bad now
- 23:42:21 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q?
- 23:43:17 [wendy]
- bg there is nothing about alt-text in the guideline.
- 23:43:35 [kerstin]
- bg I don't understand what Mike is trying to argue.
- 23:44:19 [wendy]
- mb if we write a set of checklists, and they are normative, then they are the standard. if so, there are enourmous amount of bugs possible this late in the ship schedule.
- 23:44:58 [wendy]
- mb who writes the checklists? what about changes in techs? then they will never be complete. if that is the controlling standard....changing too much.
- 23:45:31 [wendy]
- mb example docs will show how to do and if go to court could lose (if misinterpretation occurs at the guideline level)
- 23:45:42 [wendy]
- q+ alex
- 23:46:29 [wendy]
- gv any vaguaries in the guidelines can be cured by an informative document that discusses intent. the informative document would have enough weight that it could act as a gold standard which still allowing it to be tuned.
- 23:47:11 [wendy]
- gv the argument against it, that "yes, but you keep changing defn of conformance" is only a problem if a. you have someone who will argue anything b. if the guideliens are so vague that the checklists really do write new law.
- 23:47:55 [wendy]
- gv even though technically, guidelines are untestable w/out checklists and technically checklists need to be normative, in practice/reality can we get by with them being non-normative and work as if they are.
- 23:48:05 [wendy]
- mb even w/vaguness taht exists, people will make similar assumptions about what is required.
- 23:48:21 [wendy]
- mb as cases come up where cases are incorrect, law and others will correct.
- 23:48:27 [wendy]
- gv skeptical, but interested to walk the idea.
- 23:48:48 [wendy]
- gv lots of legislative history that says "if not explicitly required, people will talk their way around."
- 23:49:13 [wendy]
- gv some will argue, "i only have to conform to guideliens, and i will do what is required based on my interpretation."
- 23:49:13 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 23:49:13 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "checklists should not be normative, want to change regularly"
- 23:49:28 [wendy]
- yh checklists should not be normative, b/c we want to adapt them
- 23:49:38 [wendy]
- yh think about freedom of speech of the developer. don't want to force how to implement.
- 23:49:55 [wendy]
- yh e.g., skip link - don't want to say anchor in html, if find another way to do, then fine.
- 23:50:01 [wendy]
- yh let them find another technique
- 23:50:03 [wendy]
- ack alex
- 23:50:38 [wendy]
- al if can not complete all technology requirements and can't accomodate all technologies, better to be vague.
- 23:50:44 [wendy]
- al gives freedom for developers to move along.
- 23:51:18 [wendy]
- al if you will have holes in the checklists, then don't have them. let us interpret it. within our company, we don't force techniques. we say "end goal to achieve"
- 23:51:23 [wendy]
- al common sense and law will prevail
- 23:51:37 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "want to encourage developers to develop new techniques, not limit them"
- 23:52:03 [wendy]
- gv "we don't want them to be normative so that we can change them"
- 23:52:38 [wendy]
- gv many level 1 items are for assistive technologies. others are done to the page in a visible way.
- 23:52:57 [wendy]
- gv if you think of a new technique (that does not depend on AT), can do immediately.
- 23:53:16 [wendy]
- gv other techniques, that rely on ATs, have to get new implementations of ATs before can change technique.
- 23:53:36 [wendy]
- gv eventually, checklists would be udpated. they have to be anyway.
- 23:53:41 [wendy]
- al such a mix of technologies used at any time.
- 23:53:55 [wendy]
- gv AT can't implement to a moving target.
- 23:54:07 [wendy]
- gv unless AT catches up, takes taht new content and makes it inaccessible.
- 23:54:10 [wendy]
- it is 5 to 5 p.m.
- 23:54:30 [wendy]
- mb people would do strict minimum? probably more of a 1.0 issue than 2.0.
- 23:54:47 [wendy]
- mb by saying, "text equivs must be explic. assoc" doesn't say how.
- 23:54:57 [wendy]
- mb will see per country, legally, what means to do.
- 23:54:59 [kerstin]
- q+ john
- 23:55:07 [wendy]
- mb state what accomplish not how
- 23:55:08 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q-
- 23:55:19 [wendy]
- gv case in point - multimillion $ system goes in. it is inaccessible.
- 23:55:25 [wendy]
- gv the accessible form competed and lost.
- 23:56:26 [wendy]
- gv the law said, site has to be accessible to people who are deaf. the inaccessible site said, "the site is available in braille"
- 23:56:46 [wendy]
- gv the judge said, I can't judge if it meets the criteria. they tell me it does.
- 23:57:02 [wendy]
- gv w/1.0 i know what i have to do. with 2.0 i have no idea.
- 23:57:45 [wendy]
- gv the checklists will tell you what we mean. can the checklists be "functionally normative"
- 23:57:49 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- sounds like Gregg's been talking to my fiance :-)
- 23:58:08 [wendy]
- gv for every law there is a report. the committee report explains what the law means.
- 23:58:55 [wendy]
- q?
- 23:59:18 [wendy]
- ack john
- 23:59:44 [wendy]
- js favor this approach. distinguish between vague and abstract. aiming for abstracct.