IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-09-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:52:52 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
19:53:12 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make log world
19:59:28 [Michael]
Michael has joined #wai-wcag
19:59:42 [Gez]
Gez has joined #wai-wcag
20:00:11 [MattSEA]
MattSEA has joined #wai-wcag
20:00:16 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started
20:00:18 [Zakim]
20:00:19 [bcaldwell]
bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
20:00:40 [Zakim]
20:00:40 [nabe]
nabe has joined #wai-wcag
20:01:10 [Zakim]
20:01:13 [Zakim]
20:01:16 [Zakim]
20:01:35 [Zakim]
20:01:47 [bcaldwell]
zakim, ??P2 is Gregg_and_Ben
20:01:47 [Zakim]
+Gregg_and_Ben; got it
20:01:51 [MattSEA]
zakim, who's making noise?
20:01:55 [Zakim]
+ +1.973.944.aaaa - is perhaps Bengt_Farre
20:02:02 [Zakim]
MattSEA, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Gez (30%), [Microsoft] (36%), Gregg_and_Ben (13%), Matt (4%)
20:02:11 [MattSEA]
zakim, mute [Microsoft] temporarily
20:02:11 [Zakim]
[Microsoft] should now be muted
20:02:26 [Zakim]
[Microsoft] should now be unmuted again
20:02:28 [MattSEA]
zakim, mute Gez temporarily
20:02:28 [Zakim]
Gez should now be muted
20:02:34 [Zakim]
20:02:36 [Michael]
zakim, I am Michael_Cooper
20:02:36 [Zakim]
ok, Michael, I now associate you with Michael_Cooper
20:02:37 [Zakim]
20:02:43 [Zakim]
Gez should now be unmuted again
20:02:49 [Zakim]
20:02:50 [MattSEA]
zakim, who's here?
20:02:50 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Shawn (muted), Matt, Gez, Wendy, [Microsoft], Gregg_and_Ben, Bengt_Farre, Michael_Cooper, Katie_Haritos-Shea, John_Slatin
20:02:50 [Zakim]
On IRC I see nabe, bcaldwell, MattSEA, Gez, Michael, RRSAgent, Zakim, shawn, bengt, wendy, ChrisR, sh1mmer
20:02:54 [bengt]
zakim, I am Bengt_Farre
20:02:54 [Zakim]
ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
20:03:09 [Zakim]
20:03:42 [wendy]
zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta
20:03:42 [Zakim]
+Mike_Barta; got it
20:04:10 [Zakim]
20:05:13 [Zakim]
20:05:36 [MattSEA]
zakim, who's making noise?
20:05:47 [Zakim]
MattSEA, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Gez (23%), Gregg_and_Ben (5%), John_Slatin (47%), Katie_Haritos-Shea (4%), ??P8 (28%)
20:05:57 [nabe]
zakim, ??P8 is Takayuki_Watanabe
20:05:57 [Zakim]
+Takayuki_Watanabe; got it
20:06:16 [nabe]
zakim, I am Takayuki_Watanabe
20:06:16 [Zakim]
ok, nabe, I now associate you with Takayuki_Watanabe
20:06:21 [Zakim]
20:06:22 [nabe]
zakim, mute me
20:06:22 [Zakim]
Takayuki_Watanabe should now be muted
20:06:46 [Zakim]
20:06:50 [gregg]
gregg has joined #wai-wcag
20:06:52 [Zakim]
20:07:13 [RylaDog]
RylaDog has joined #wai-wcag
20:07:26 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
20:07:29 [Zakim]
20:07:37 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Gez (63%), Mike_Barta (5%), Gregg_and_Ben (100%), Alex_Li (9%), Robert_Fentress (4%), JasonWhite (30%)
20:08:26 [Zakim]
20:08:31 [nabe]
zakim, ??P8 is Takayuki_Watanabe
20:08:31 [Zakim]
+Takayuki_Watanabe; got it
20:08:39 [nabe]
zakim, mute me
20:08:39 [Zakim]
sorry, nabe, I do not see a party named 'nabe'
20:08:44 [nabe]
zakim, I am Takayuki_Watanabe
20:08:44 [Zakim]
ok, nabe, I now associate you with Takayuki_Watanabe
20:08:47 [nabe]
zakim, mute me
20:08:47 [Zakim]
Takayuki_Watanabe should now be muted
20:10:15 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:10:15 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Shawn (muted), Matt, Gez, Wendy, Mike_Barta, Gregg_and_Ben, Bengt_Farre, Michael_Cooper, Katie_Haritos-Shea, John_Slatin, Avi, JasonWhite, Alex_Li,
20:10:18 [Zakim]
... Robert_Fentress, [IBM], Takayuki_Watanabe (muted)
20:10:24 [Andi]
Andi has joined #wai-wcag
20:10:41 [wendy]
zakim, [IBM] is Andi
20:10:41 [Zakim]
+Andi; got it
20:11:04 [Zakim]
20:11:50 [Zakim]
20:11:53 [nabe]
zakim, ??P8 is Takayuki_Watanabe
20:11:53 [Zakim]
+Takayuki_Watanabe; got it
20:11:56 [wendy]
20:11:56 [nabe]
zakim, I am Takayuki_Watanabe
20:11:56 [Zakim]
ok, nabe, I now associate you with Takayuki_Watanabe
20:12:00 [nabe]
zakim, mute me
20:12:00 [Zakim]
Takayuki_Watanabe should now be muted
20:12:10 [wendy]
zakim, who's muted?
20:12:10 [Zakim]
I see Shawn, Takayuki_Watanabe muted
20:12:17 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
20:12:29 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Gez (46%), John_Slatin (20%), Michael_Cooper (50%), Alex_Li (4%), Robert_Fentress (9%), Wendy (20%), JasonWhite
20:12:32 [Zakim]
... (30%)
20:12:36 [wendy]
zakim, mute Gez
20:12:36 [Zakim]
Gez should now be muted
20:12:48 [wendy]
zakim, mute Robert
20:12:48 [Zakim]
Robert_Fentress should now be muted
20:12:55 [wendy]
zakim, mute Jason
20:12:55 [Zakim]
JasonWhite should now be muted
20:13:02 [wendy]
zakim, unmute Gez
20:13:02 [Zakim]
Gez should no longer be muted
20:13:10 [wendy]
zakim, unmute Robert
20:13:10 [Zakim]
Robert_Fentress should no longer be muted
20:13:33 [wendy]
zakim, mute Gez
20:13:33 [Zakim]
Gez should now be muted
20:14:09 [Zakim]
20:14:10 [wendy]
Topic: TTF update
20:14:19 [wendy]
1. published drafts of gateway, html, css last friday
20:14:22 [wendy]
2. working on test suites
20:14:35 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
20:14:47 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Mike_Barta (9%), Robert_Fentress (4%)
20:15:09 [wendy]
Topic: javascript and alternatives
20:16:54 [wendy]
jw what might conformance profiles look like? not sure that we need them or that they will solve any problems.
20:17:23 [wendy]
jw i worked through the guidelines and identified assumptions that were made about the type of content involved.
20:17:55 [wendy]
jw that resulted in 8 properties that are assumed at various points in the guidelines.
20:18:18 [wendy]
jw user interaction, non-text content, multimedia, etc. (
20:18:30 [wendy]
jw gave examples of content using these characteristics.
20:18:54 [wendy]
jw could use this analysis to clarify the assumptions being made in certain criteria (i.e., when to apply the criteria)
20:19:07 [wendy]
jw might be useful to have slightly different tests based on the characteristics of the content.
20:19:49 [wendy]
examples based on these characteristics:
20:22:10 [wendy]
zakim, mute jason
20:22:10 [Zakim]
JasonWhite should now be muted
20:22:58 [wendy]
20:23:07 [wendy]
zakim, ??P12 is Kerstin
20:23:07 [Zakim]
+Kerstin; got it
20:23:12 [wendy]
ack ??P12
20:29:19 [wendy]
ack Andi
20:29:30 [wendy]
asw What does the example mean?
20:29:45 [wendy]
asw is javascript considered non-text?
20:30:24 [wendy]
jw it has graphics in it, so it has non-text
20:31:34 [wendy]
q+ to ask, "the cons of conformance profile"
20:31:54 [wendy]
jw think we could make success criteria clearer so wouldn't need conformance profiles.
20:32:14 [wendy]
zakim, mute jason
20:32:14 [Zakim]
JasonWhite was already muted, wendy
20:32:19 [wendy]
ack robert
20:33:04 [wendy]
rf it seems that some people are trying to apply this to flash as well (since only accessible on windows/pc). got me thinking about how to address this more globally.
20:33:58 [wendy]
rf perhaps a diminished status for conformance in addition to the 3 levels that are there. you could meet all of the criteria to meet AAA, but this one thing could prevent you from claiming AAA.
20:34:05 [wendy]
rf perhaps have A-
20:34:27 [wendy]
rf that would say that what you developed is accessible to users using certain user agents/assistive technologies
20:34:58 [wendy]
q+ to "summarize responses to A-"
20:35:02 [MattSEA]
20:35:25 [wendy]
ack wendy
20:35:25 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to ask, "the cons of conformance profile" and to "summarize responses to A-"
20:35:49 [Michael]
q+ to go back to separating digital divide re disabilities vs. digital divide re hardware/UA/AT
20:36:48 [wendy]
ack matt
20:36:53 [wendy]
ack alex
20:37:18 [wendy]
al in some instances, some criteria are not applicable.
20:37:38 [wendy]
al javascript is one example, acronyms is nother.
20:38:17 [wendy]
al today's guidelines are written with the assumption that the content is a public site to be used by anyone. for intranets/corporate networks, it is a very different culture and set of requirements.
20:39:05 [wendy]
al need to take into account business decisionws
20:39:49 [wendy]
ack michael
20:39:49 [Zakim]
Michael_Cooper, you wanted to go back to separating digital divide re disabilities vs. digital divide re hardware/UA/AT
20:41:02 [wendy]
mc in the past we deliberately confounded them b/c accessibility was related to lack of technology. less the case today, but still the case.
20:41:14 [MattSEA]
20:41:23 [wendy]
ack robert
20:41:47 [wendy]
rf there is a conflation between universal design and accessibility for people with disabilities. there is overlap, but there are two issues.
20:42:03 [wendy]
rf by not separating them, you discourage authors to try.
20:42:23 [wendy]
rf there are handhelds without javascript as well.
20:43:22 [wendy]
rf each level could have a minus and that would signify that while the resource is accessible w/disabilities if they have the right technology, it is not necessarily accessible using all technologies (all platforms or all user agents).
20:43:36 [wendy]
rf would be a blanket. people could make AAA claim
20:43:47 [wendy]
20:43:50 [wendy]
ack jason
20:44:24 [wendy]
jw confusion between the profile idea and the issues surrounding principle 4.
20:44:35 [wendy]
jw don't think that we have a proposal that connects the 2
20:45:41 [wendy]
jw at level 1 under 4.2, set minimum requirements for the support that has to exist for the author to rely on particular technologies.
20:45:45 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
20:45:58 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: Katie_Haritos-Shea (16%), Robert_Fentress (3%)
20:46:03 [wendy]
zakim, mute Katie
20:46:03 [Zakim]
Katie_Haritos-Shea should now be muted
20:46:30 [wendy]
jw issues: how refer to UAAG, how make level 1 criterion, etc.
20:46:54 [wendy]
jw level 1 would be what is technically necessary
20:47:09 [wendy]
ack matt
20:47:12 [wendy]
zakim, mute jason
20:47:12 [Zakim]
JasonWhite should now be muted
20:47:34 [wendy]
m3m re: "- level" - we need less conformance levels, not more.
20:48:14 [wendy]
m3m the point of what we are doing is to point out the requirements for accessibility.
20:48:46 [wendy]
q+ to say "summary, action item"
20:48:47 [PocketIRC]
PocketIRC has joined #wai-wcag
20:48:56 [wendy]
ack alex
20:49:09 [wendy]
al it has nothing to do with lowering the bar, but that the bar doesn't make sense in all cases.
20:50:17 [wendy]
20:50:28 [wendy]
ack wendy
20:50:28 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say "summary, action item"
20:50:33 [PocketIRC]
hi,I and scano are travelling by train
20:50:52 [wendy]
zakim, unmute jason
20:50:52 [Zakim]
JasonWhite should no longer be muted
20:52:38 [wendy]
action: jason rework proposal (in a couple weeks)
20:52:43 [wendy]
zakim, mute jason
20:52:43 [Zakim]
JasonWhite should now be muted
20:53:49 [wendy]
action: robert look at jason's proposals and if so inspired, propose another method to handle
20:53:57 [Zakim]
20:54:19 [PocketIRC]
/nick rellero
20:55:05 [PocketIRC]
/nick rellero
20:59:53 [bcaldwell]
21:00:12 [bcaldwell]
21:00:21 [wendy]
richard's response:
21:00:58 [wendy]
martin's response:
21:01:26 [wendy]
asw programmatic objects, such as scripts, applets, and plug-ins
21:02:14 [wendy]
wac's proposal:
21:02:25 [wendy]
asw people don't think PDF is a programmatic object, but it requires a plug-in
21:03:12 [wendy]
Topic: WCAG 2.0 Overview
21:03:29 [wendy]
21:06:11 [wendy]
slh gives summary about WAI site design and purpose of overview.
21:06:38 [wendy]
gv looks like overview should be separate document, but also might be good to have some version of it (or some part of it) in WCAG 2.0.
21:07:17 [wendy]
slh a challenging question. if we decide to keep them separate and have less in 2.0, could do more to make people aware of intro document.
21:07:56 [wendy]
slh advantages of separate document: it chunks things/helps with progressive disclosure
21:08:24 [wendy]
slh on the other hand, no matter how much effort we make to point people to the effort, some people will have wcag 2.0 and nothing else. there is a balance.
21:09:12 [wendy]
q+ to ask "diagram of relationships between chunks. general gateway issues/john's proposal/overview"
21:09:26 [wendy]
slh lean towards separate
21:09:44 [wendy]
gv gateway: we've talked about core techniques, general, etc. each suggests a different role.
21:09:54 [wendy]
gv what does it look like to you?
21:10:19 [wendy]
slh was involved in some of the ttf discussions with formatting of gateway
21:10:48 [wendy]
slh WCAG 1.0 had a gateway that did not have content. core had general techniques. if take the current path that combines them, important not to call that gateway.
21:11:00 [wendy]
slh someone who knows WCAG 1.0 thinks "gateway doesn't have content"
21:11:11 [wendy]
slh if change function, good to change terminology.
21:11:47 [wendy]
ack john
21:12:48 [wendy]
js suggestion about organization of overview: instead of begin about differences, begin w/more direct desription of 2.0 and follow with differences.
21:14:02 [wendy]
js wasn't aware that there was a WCAG 1.0 GAteway.
21:14:20 [wendy]
wac it was called "Techniques for WCAG 1.0" and provided gateway functionality but not called gateway.
21:14:40 [Zakim]
21:15:02 [wendy]
js message Proposal: purpose and approach for Gateway -
21:15:26 [wendy]
js perhaps need a document like the Core Techniques for WCAG 1.0 that is more along the lines of design strategies.
21:15:57 [wendy]
ack wendy
21:15:57 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to ask "diagram of relationships between chunks. general gateway issues/john's proposal/overview"
21:17:44 [RylaDog]
21:18:05 [wendy]
ack RylaDog
21:18:10 [wendy]
zakim, unmute Katie
21:18:10 [Zakim]
Katie_Haritos-Shea should no longer be muted
21:18:42 [wendy]
khs useful to have it organized like this, why doesn't it just say checklist and techniques? gateway seems confusing rather than clarifying.
21:19:28 [wendy]
khs having 2 gateway docs is confusing
21:19:43 [shawn]
21:20:06 [wendy]
gv can't be an HTML checklist because you can't have an individual technology checklist
21:20:19 [wendy]
ack shaw
21:20:39 [wendy]
slh recommends "general techniques" if it includes content and pointers
21:20:54 [wendy]
slh would be helpful to clarify that not going to have technology-specific checklists.
21:21:15 [wendy]
slh the diagram is partly made up to have something to talk about
21:21:35 [wendy]
gv HTML is never used alone (always use jpg and other formats)
21:21:38 [wendy]
gv can't use css on its own
21:22:25 [wendy]
gv because checklists are not normative, seeing them as being a checklist engine to specify which technologies are being used.
21:23:15 [wendy]
wac how do test suites fits into?
21:23:26 [wendy]
gv css test suite is a series of html pages.
21:25:49 [wendy]
discussion about test suites. chris' latest proposal.
21:25:54 [shawn]
q+ to ask about "General Techniques" and "Checklist Generator"... and what we'll have for Nov WG releases, e.g. anything for checklists?
21:26:50 [wendy]
gv that is not a test suite, that is an example
21:26:59 [wendy]
gv these are not used to test pages, they are used to test tools.
21:29:27 [wendy]
ack shawn
21:29:27 [Zakim]
shawn, you wanted to ask about "General Techniques" and "Checklist Generator"... and what we'll have for Nov WG releases, e.g. anything for checklists?
21:30:14 [gregg]
21:31:02 [wendy]
gv include all pieces in the diagram whether they exist or not.
21:31:57 [wendy]
gv the checklists into the test suites
21:32:13 [wendy]
gv if there is a checklist generator, it combines the four separate checklist "blocks" (from shawn's diagram)
21:33:01 [wendy]
gv test suites must include teh good and bad (to test both false negatives and positives)
21:33:30 [RylaDog]
Ciao.........I have a 5:30 telecon........I assuming we are not doing 1.2 for today
21:33:44 [Zakim]
21:33:48 [wendy]
mc the test suites are tied to the techniques and techniques are should be tied to checklist
21:34:00 [wendy]
gv checklists should suffice by self
21:34:07 [wendy]
slh checklists do not yet exist?
21:34:20 [wendy]
gv many of the checklist points exist in the techniques, but the checklists do not yet exist.
21:34:54 [wendy]
gv appreciate feedback about how to present all the information w/out totally overwhelming people. if dynamic, don't have to display all at once.
21:35:20 [wendy]
gv there are many options (techniques) that are possible to satisfy criteria
21:36:59 [wendy]
bc we'll have to look at the techniques and determine which are required at which levels and how to integrate. working on initial prototype for a checklist.
21:37:10 [wendy]
bc as it is, have a lot of techniques loosely related to success criteria.
21:37:21 [wendy]
gv also, a lot of advice that doesn't link direclty back to guidelines.
21:38:10 [wendy]
gv a disadvantage about the checklist generator is that there is a lot of techniques that people may miss (if it disappears as a user selects/deselects options for generating checklist)
21:41:10 [Zakim]
21:41:13 [Zakim]
21:41:14 [Zakim]
21:41:15 [Zakim]
21:41:16 [Zakim]
21:41:17 [Zakim]
21:41:18 [Zakim]
21:41:19 [Zakim]
21:41:20 [Zakim]
21:41:21 [Zakim]
21:41:22 [Zakim]
21:41:24 [Zakim]
21:41:26 [Zakim]
21:41:28 [Zakim]
21:41:31 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
21:41:32 [Zakim]
Attendees were Shawn, Matt, Wendy, Gez, Gregg_and_Ben, +1.973.944.aaaa, Michael_Cooper, Katie_Haritos-Shea, John_Slatin, Avi, Mike_Barta, JasonWhite, Takayuki_Watanabe, Alex_Li,
21:41:35 [Zakim]
... Robert_Fentress, Andi, Kerstin
21:41:36 [nabe]
good bye
21:41:42 [shawn]
shawn has left #wai-wcag
21:42:00 [nabe]
nabe has left #wai-wcag
21:42:19 [bengt]
zakim strange lists me as a number ..
21:42:55 [bengt]
bengt has left #wai-wcag
21:47:07 [wendy]
zakim, bye
21:47:07 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
21:47:11 [wendy]
RRSAgent, bye
21:47:11 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items:
21:47:11 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jason rework proposal (in a couple weeks) [1]
21:47:11 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:47:11 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: robert look at jason's proposals and if so inspired, propose another method to handle [2]
21:47:11 [RRSAgent]
recorded in