IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-08-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

21:54:45 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
21:54:52 [wendy]
zakim, this will be Team1
21:54:52 [Zakim]
Team_(wai-wcag)22:00Z has been moved to #wai-wcag by wendy
21:54:53 [Zakim]
ok, wendy; I see Team_(wai-wcag)22:00Z scheduled to start in 6 minutes
21:55:27 [Gez]
Thanks Wendy :)
21:56:26 [Gez]
Before we start, are there any etiquette issues I should be aware of? Do I wait until I'm spoken to, or can I speak when I like?
22:00:39 [Zakim]
Team_(wai-wcag)22:00Z has now started
22:00:41 [Zakim]
+JasonWhite
22:02:37 [Zakim]
+[IBM]
22:03:47 [Zakim]
+Wendy
22:04:23 [wendy]
gez - do you plan to call in?
22:04:44 [wendy]
waiting for alex, michael, and kerstin
22:04:53 [wendy]
zakim, [IBM] is Andi
22:04:53 [Zakim]
+Andi; got it
22:04:59 [Gez]
By phone?
22:05:06 [wendy]
yes, by phone
22:05:15 [Gez]
no, not if I can avoid it
22:05:33 [Zakim]
+??P1
22:05:40 [wendy]
zakim, ??P1 is Kerstin
22:05:40 [Zakim]
+Kerstin; got it
22:06:48 [wendy]
ok. fyi: irc is not a substitute for participating via the phone. we don't caption the discussion, just take some notes in irc.
22:08:36 [Gez]
OK, thank you for clarifying that. I thought the discussion took place by IRC and telephone
22:09:00 [Zakim]
+Alex_Li
22:10:36 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
22:10:36 [Zakim]
On the phone I see JasonWhite, Andi, Wendy, Kerstin, Alex_Li
22:11:01 [wendy]
1. Jason's message from Saturday
22:11:13 [wendy]
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0490.html>
22:11:25 [wendy]
2. "baseline" as previously used in Guideline 4.2
22:11:31 [wendy]
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-WCAG20-20030624/#declare-technology>
22:11:40 [wendy]
3. "Questions related to device capabilities"
22:12:28 [wendy]
Issue 214. Closed. Reopen?
22:12:35 [wendy]
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=214>
22:12:40 [wendy]
4. 'ambiguity with "widely" available and use of "baseline"'
22:12:45 [wendy]
Issue 444. Closed. Reopen?
22:12:51 [wendy]
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=444>
22:13:14 [wendy]
5. 'Keyboard access for devices that have no AT'
22:13:16 [wendy]
Issue 244. Open.
22:13:17 [wendy]
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=244>
22:13:19 [wendy]
6. 'Divvying up responsibility for keyboard access'
22:13:20 [wendy]
Issue 561. Open.
22:13:22 [wendy]
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=561>
22:13:25 [wendy]
7. User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
22:13:27 [wendy]
Section 3.1 Conformance profiles
22:13:28 [wendy]
<http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/conformance.html#conformance-profiles>
22:13:30 [wendy]
8. Mobile SVG Profiles: SVG Tiny and SVG Basic
22:13:31 [wendy]
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-SVGMobile-20030114/>
22:13:33 [wendy]
discuss conformance in appendix:
22:13:34 [wendy]
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-SVGMobile-20030114/#sec-conformance>
22:13:36 [wendy]
9. XHTML Abstract Modules (modules - similar to profiles?)
22:13:38 [wendy]
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410/abstract_modules.html#s_xhtmlmodules>
22:14:12 [wendy]
concern about policy
22:14:39 [wendy]
diff between web site and web applications
22:15:08 [wendy]
confustion about applying all guidelines to web app vs web site/document
22:15:48 [wendy]
don't want conformance profiles to differentiate between different kinds of web sites, but guidelines don't always apply to web apps
22:17:19 [wendy]
acronyms (e.g.) people trained on web app should know. public web site, people might not know acronyms, no training required.
22:18:57 [wendy]
knowledge of the user vs devices/tools
22:19:03 [Zakim]
+ +44.194.270.aaaa
22:19:21 [wendy]
zakim, +44.194.270.aaaa is Gez
22:19:21 [Zakim]
+Gez; got it
22:19:29 [wendy]
also support
22:19:34 [wendy]
(IT dept to help)
22:19:53 [wendy]
primary diff web app vs web content
22:20:56 [wendy]
important not to categorize things, others will find something that has charateristics of 2 or more categories. instead, if content has certain characteristics...
22:23:29 [wendy]
diff sorts of user interfaces: none (document, no links), links, accept user input (form), characteristics that change depending on user input, might have non-text content, work on a page metaphor or not
22:25:59 [wendy]
no explicit statement about which guidelines are applicable to which types of interfaces
22:28:34 [Zakim]
-Alex_Li
22:29:20 [wendy]
Declaring things don't make them more accessible
22:29:28 [Zakim]
+Alex_Li
22:31:09 [wendy]
likely heading towards perhaps: level 1 if the tech meets basic compatibility requirements, then it can be relied on. level 2 and 3 more stringent requirements about backwards compatibility and availability.
22:31:30 [wendy]
the thing that everyone seems to agree on: if it has asst tech support and a UA, then is minimally accessible
22:31:45 [wendy]
define those basic requirements in the guidelines?
22:32:01 [wendy]
x-reference to UAAG at the moment, might need to fine-tune
22:33:41 [wendy]
want to conform to wcag w/web app and not make an exception
22:34:38 [wendy]
misconception that javascript automatically makes things unaccessible
22:34:45 [wendy]
however, content should be used w/out javascript
22:35:42 [wendy]
if works with AT and a user agent that implements, then author can use but not at 2 or 3
22:36:24 [wendy]
"until user agents" only solution, although in guideline 4, not anywhere else
22:37:31 [wendy]
standard should not outlaw a technology
22:37:35 [wendy]
should be forward looking
22:37:48 [wendy]
if had prohibited from using tables in wcag 1.0, ATs would never have supported tables
22:37:58 [wendy]
what is min criteria then?
22:38:22 [wendy]
a subset of UAAG1.0?
22:38:57 [wendy]
especially difficult w/javascript, since no standards. many ways to push the edge of the technology.
22:39:19 [wendy]
trying to define a standard (in other group in W3c)
22:40:29 [wendy]
how well the technology is supported - level 1 idea is don't change the presentation, provide semantics to make the content compatible w/AT.
22:41:00 [wendy]
if the tech support requirement is that there are AT/UAs that can support the semantics, then that's consistent w/level 1
22:43:27 [wendy]
e.g., "role" work going on in PFWG (roadmap) falls under level 1
22:43:36 [wendy]
what if only one language on one platform?
22:44:28 [wendy]
concern that would not be able to use javascript until roadmap implemented
22:44:51 [wendy]
activating a link to do backend processing, does not effect user interface
22:45:21 [wendy]
anything that doesn't effect user interace, are allowed
22:45:36 [wendy]
if using javscript to activate a link and it is disabled, how will that not effect the user interface?
22:45:52 [wendy]
the requirement would be that doesn't have to disable javascript.
22:46:23 [wendy]
what about partial page rendering? using javascript to update part of page, that does effect the UI?
22:46:33 [wendy]
that does effect the UI
22:46:53 [wendy]
our testing shows taht screen reader picks up on change of focus and reads where change begins
22:46:58 [wendy]
s/begins/happened
22:47:04 [wendy]
so many ways to do things
22:47:30 [wendy]
our tester prefers this method b/c it doesn't refresh the entire page so he doesn't have to find where he left off
22:48:03 [wendy]
would like us to try to describe what the end result is and specific ways to get that result and not ban technologies or specify uses of them.
22:48:39 [wendy]
"don't lose focus" everything needs to be keyboard navigable. changes are apparent to person using asst. tech.
22:48:45 [wendy]
(e.g. of desired results)
22:49:11 [wendy]
danger is that there is something we'll forget to enumerate or something new will come along.
22:50:53 [wendy]
a minimum of one platform that is used to achieve the end result. similar to 508 1194.31 has to be at least one known OS/browser/screen reader, etc.
22:51:05 [wendy]
if you have some control over what the users are using, then you can do that
22:51:19 [wendy]
says "support for AT is provided" doesn't say that the AT has to exist
22:54:30 [wendy]
possible reactions: developer, user, asst. tech developer
22:55:05 [wendy]
business case
22:55:21 [wendy]
users forced into using one UA/AT combo?
22:55:35 [wendy]
expect people to support standards and specifications
22:56:05 [wendy]
to the extent there is a standard/recommendation, that provides commonality that software should conform to.
22:56:16 [Zakim]
-Andi
22:57:43 [wendy]
getting back to conformance profiles: web app, web site, web documentation (e.g., user manuals, very little navigation (prev, next, search))
22:58:01 [wendy]
portal fits into web app? or another profile?
22:58:56 [wendy]
dividing along characteristics rather than categorizing content
22:59:18 [wendy]
that list is content list, rather than characteristic. what are the key differntiating features that make them different.
22:59:26 [wendy]
then design profiles along characteristics
23:00:50 [wendy]
another way: go through the guidelines and say what are the requirements for each of these to be applicable and what are we missing?
23:01:12 [wendy]
e.g., what kind of content assuming? what's missing (types of content)?
23:03:54 [wendy]
action: kerstin look at different examples of different types of content and think about how to apply wcag 2.0 to different sites
23:06:15 [Zakim]
-Kerstin
23:06:16 [Zakim]
-Gez
23:06:31 [Zakim]
-Wendy
23:06:34 [Zakim]
-Alex_Li
23:06:40 [Zakim]
-JasonWhite
23:06:41 [Zakim]
Team_(wai-wcag)22:00Z has ended
23:06:42 [Zakim]
Attendees were JasonWhite, Wendy, Andi, Kerstin, Alex_Li, Gez
23:06:43 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make log public
23:06:48 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make log world
23:07:36 [wendy]
RRSAgent, pointer?
23:07:36 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2004/08/30-wai-wcag-irc#T23-07-36