IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-09-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:59:09 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
19:59:14 [Michael]
rrsagent, make logs world
19:59:20 [Zakim]
19:59:58 [Zakim]
20:00:12 [Michael]
zakim, ??P1 is Doyle_Burnett
20:00:12 [Zakim]
+Doyle_Burnett; got it
20:00:19 [Zakim]
20:00:23 [nabe]
nabe has joined #wai-wcag
20:00:34 [Becky]
Becky has joined #wai-wcag
20:00:54 [Zakim]
20:01:00 [Zakim]
20:01:26 [Zakim]
20:01:31 [Zakim]
20:01:54 [Zakim]
20:03:04 [Zakim]
20:03:14 [Zakim]
20:03:30 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, ??P9 is Tom
20:03:30 [Zakim]
+Tom; got it
20:03:38 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, I am Tom
20:03:38 [Zakim]
ok, sh1mmer, I now associate you with Tom
20:03:47 [Zakim]
20:03:53 [Zakim]
20:04:06 [Michael]
zakim, ??P7 is Bengt_Farre
20:04:06 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
20:04:13 [Zakim]
20:04:34 [Zakim]
20:04:36 [Michael]
zakim, ??P10 is Takayuki_Watanabi
20:04:36 [Zakim]
+Takayuki_Watanabi; got it
20:04:47 [Michael]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:04:47 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Doyle_Burnett, Michael_Cooper, Ben, John_Slatin, Alex_Li, Becky_Gibson, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Tom (muted), JasonWhite, Bengt_Farre,
20:04:50 [Zakim]
... Takayuki_Watanabi, Kerstin_Goldsmith
20:04:52 [nabe]
zakim, I am Takayuki
20:04:52 [Zakim]
ok, nabe, I now associate you with Takayuki_Watanabi
20:04:53 [sh1mmer]
2 secs
20:05:39 [Zakim]
20:05:40 [Zakim]
20:05:45 [rellero]
zakim, ??P12 is Roberto_Ellero
20:05:45 [Zakim]
+Roberto_Ellero; got it
20:05:52 [Andi]
Andi has joined #wai-wcag
20:05:56 [rellero]
zakim, mute me
20:05:56 [Zakim]
sorry, rellero, I do not see a party named 'rellero'
20:06:09 [rellero]
zakim, mute Roberto_Ellero
20:06:09 [Zakim]
Roberto_Ellero should now be muted
20:06:46 [nabe]
zakim, mute me
20:06:46 [Zakim]
Takayuki_Watanabi should now be muted
20:07:16 [Becky]
zakim, I am Becky_Gibson
20:07:16 [Zakim]
ok, Becky, I now associate you with Becky_Gibson
20:07:49 [Zakim]
20:07:49 [sh1mmer]
back now
20:08:00 [Zakim]
20:09:50 [sh1mmer]
4.2 and baseline technologies
20:10:34 [sh1mmer]
20:10:38 [sh1mmer]
20:10:41 [sh1mmer]
20:10:56 [Michael]
ack sh1m
20:10:56 [sh1mmer]
Do we have the basic abilities in our UA to do what we need? If there is UAAG should we point to that
20:11:20 [Michael]
ack jason
20:11:23 [sh1mmer]
what do we do if there is no UAs which meet UAAG?
20:11:31 [sh1mmer]
Jason: I sent a mail to the list
20:12:06 [sh1mmer]
what is the minimum technical accessibility requirments before something can be relied on
20:12:37 [Zakim]
20:12:47 [sh1mmer]
such that the content can be accessible because the UA supports the technology adequately
20:13:00 [sh1mmer]
UAAG is the only credible citation
20:13:01 [Zakim]
20:13:36 [sh1mmer]
There is no notion in my proposal about how much the UAAG are implemented, nor how good their implementation at a minimum level
20:14:05 [sh1mmer]
We can't make much progress without input from the UA group
20:14:06 [sh1mmer]
ack Tom
20:14:29 [Michael]
ack tom
20:14:30 [Michael]
q+ gregg
20:16:08 [Michael]
ack gregg
20:16:42 [sh1mmer]
Gregg: We should shouldn't write guidelines which 'patch' bad useragents
20:17:18 [sh1mmer]
Gregg: work seperately with the UA group abotu making UAs better
20:18:11 [sh1mmer]
So making a people make something which is conformant with a guideline for which nothing is implemented in UAs
20:18:24 [sh1mmer]
20:18:29 [sh1mmer]
ack Tom
20:19:06 [Michael]
tc we should support features possible
20:19:22 [Michael]
e.g., transforming gracefully important
20:19:55 [Michael]
some issues have gone away on newer technologies, but still people using older stuff, e.g., developing countries
20:20:10 [Michael]
ack john
20:20:28 [sh1mmer]
20:20:47 [Zakim]
20:21:01 [sh1mmer]
ack loretta
20:21:03 [Zakim]
20:21:21 [sh1mmer]
Loretta: Agree with Gregg. If there are no UAs which conform with UAAG
20:21:29 [Michael]
q+ john
20:21:40 [sh1mmer]
We would have a hard time standing up and saying "you shouldnt use HTML"
20:22:13 [sh1mmer]
I like Jason's idea of laying out the pieces
20:22:27 [Michael]
ack gregg
20:23:12 [sh1mmer]
We need to try and reconsile the ability to work with older user agents and the ability to make the best accessibilty guidelines
20:23:55 [Michael]
ack john
20:24:07 [Zakim]
20:24:08 [sh1mmer]
Gregg: We need to recognise that if we make a guidelines which only works with a UA that costs $1000 then its prohibative and stops the use of our guidelines
20:24:57 [sh1mmer]
John: I want to go back to something that Kerstin had raised previously. I seems to me that we are looking at things in certain contexts. In a corp. setting they can have a tight control on what you can use.
20:25:48 [sh1mmer]
So those people can focus on accessibility for a specific platform
20:26:04 [sh1mmer]
on the wider internet there a variety of contexts which could be used
20:26:11 [Michael]
ack jason
20:26:12 [sh1mmer]
which makes it a lot different
20:26:15 [sh1mmer]
20:26:55 [sh1mmer]
Jason: replying to John. the proposal from a few weeks ago, it leaves asside issue from availability and cost. it looks at the minimum requirements of accessibility
20:27:08 [sh1mmer]
Jason: thats the idea of a core compability requirement
20:27:26 [sh1mmer]
set out a technical requirement for accessiblity
20:27:43 [sh1mmer]
beyond that there are other issues such as operating system and so on
20:28:05 [sh1mmer]
if it is put at level 1 that seems like a good way to do it
20:28:22 [sh1mmer]
there are serious issues of undercutting UAAG by requiring a subset
20:29:04 [sh1mmer]
empahsise the importance of having a general solution because as new technologies the question will continually arise. thats what the guidelines have to provide
20:29:45 [Michael]
ack alex
20:30:01 [sh1mmer]
Alex: some of the situations are not that different to software that you buy
20:30:21 [sh1mmer]
if you look on the box, the hardware and software requirements and thats just how things work
20:30:38 [sh1mmer]
we can maybe see it like that and see the browser as a deployment platform
20:30:43 [Michael]
ack tom
20:31:41 [Michael]
tc like discussion of economic issues - is it acceptable to have inaccessible sites if economics in the way? -NO
20:32:16 [Michael]
if we allow people to say "UA is at fault" we undercut what should be legislative and market drivers
20:32:50 [Michael]
for UA improvement
20:33:07 [Michael]
don't want to pull the rug from under UAAG
20:33:36 [Michael]
need a constant platform with an onus for UA to comply
20:35:01 [Michael]
asn - arguing guidelines should only apply if there's a conforming UA?
20:35:18 [Michael]
sp asn/asw
20:36:30 [Michael]
tc - we're in danger of trying to fix things for UA, rather than have two guidelines (Content and UA) that work in harmony
20:37:35 [sh1mmer]
Gregg: one the principles is exactly that
20:37:40 [sh1mmer]
write what we think not cater
20:38:10 [sh1mmer]
when this is released if it can't be met noone will do it.
20:38:11 [Michael]
ack loretta
20:38:54 [sh1mmer]
Loretta: if i am trying to develop web content and my content no longer displays in internet explorer i dont think i would use them anymore
20:39:07 [Michael]
ack kerstin
20:39:11 [sh1mmer]
Loretta: maybe non level 1 guidelines to find some compromise
20:39:53 [sh1mmer]
Kerstin: I don't think that if we focus on the guidelines itself that going to get a big problem, i don't think there are anything which are going to wipe out the guidelines
20:40:16 [sh1mmer]
we are talking about a few bits and pieces at once
20:41:05 [Michael]
ack jason
20:41:17 [sh1mmer]
kerstin: there are far fewer UA developers who could make alot more difference than all the pressure on the web content developers
20:41:49 [sh1mmer]
JAson: user agents include assistive technology. don't want any confusions about what that means.
20:42:34 [sh1mmer]
if the UAAG people say there are no user agents which conform to their minimum what are the area which are currently not conformed to
20:42:59 [wendylate]
wendylate has joined #wai-wcag
20:43:25 [Zakim]
20:43:40 [sh1mmer]
there are no level one requirements here which say that anyone could use anything they like
20:43:44 [wendy]
hello, i'm on eric's phone.
20:43:57 [wendy]
zakim, I am ericP
20:43:57 [Zakim]
ok, wendy, I now associate you with EricP
20:44:22 [sh1mmer]
we have serious problems and we need alternative proposals. the only one we have is requiring some subset.
20:45:12 [sh1mmer]
if you take user agents with servers which transform content, that might eliminate these issues.
20:45:39 [Andi]
20:46:18 [sh1mmer]
ack gregg
20:46:23 [sh1mmer]
ack kerstin
20:46:43 [sh1mmer]
kerstin: agrees with gregg
20:46:51 [sh1mmer]
get volunteers and discuss this
20:47:03 [sh1mmer]
still a debate open about if AT falls under UA
20:47:30 [sh1mmer]
20:47:46 [sh1mmer]
andi: repsond to Gregg, why do UAs not meet uaag?
20:48:02 [Michael]
ack andi
20:48:03 [sh1mmer]
no pressure or regulation to require them to meet it
20:48:19 [sh1mmer]
still waiting for why HPR doesn't meet UAAG
20:48:26 [sh1mmer]
Gregg: want to know how they dont meet it.
20:50:24 [wendy]
20:50:38 [wendy]
UAAG 1.0 overview of reports
20:51:35 [sh1mmer]
Action: Andi, Loretta, Tom to investigate issue more
20:51:52 [DoyleB]
i am going to have to run...have another scheduled meeting at 1 pm my time.
20:52:12 [Zakim]
20:53:01 [wendy]
proposal at:
20:54:06 [wendy]
(that was issues)
20:54:08 [wendy]
proposal at:
20:54:41 [sh1mmer]
There is a long list of points posted to the list
20:55:28 [sh1mmer]
we have thoughts?!
20:55:38 [Zakim]
20:56:14 [sh1mmer]
ok. next issue.
20:56:28 [sh1mmer]
Any comments against combining to two?
20:57:45 [sh1mmer]
Action: Gregg to add to next internal draft
20:58:54 [Zakim]
20:59:12 [sh1mmer]
Gregg: wendy has proposed joining 1.2 and 1.1
20:59:34 [sh1mmer]
If we talk about 1.2 we can clean it up which will help to join
21:00:44 [sh1mmer]
Wendy: only Joe C has commented
21:01:30 [sh1mmer]
asked about the seperation of policy and content
21:01:38 [sh1mmer]
comes up in other items
21:02:04 [sh1mmer]
Joe is saying that when people approach the guidelines, some of those things need to be incorporated into the guidelines
21:02:15 [sh1mmer]
21:02:39 [sh1mmer]
if policy makers dont for example make phase in, noone will be able to claim accessbility
21:02:49 [sh1mmer]
at the f2f we talked about scoping
21:03:08 [sh1mmer]
we have scoping by url, critical path and date
21:04:11 [sh1mmer]
if there is a country if they aren't going to have any policy relating to captioning then WCAG is all they are going to have
21:05:25 [sh1mmer]
Gregg: if you took an over the air broadcast and broadcast it over the internet then it has to talk about it in a more general sense
21:05:43 [sh1mmer]
Wedny: more about how to apply these things to the web, particually web original content.
21:06:48 [sh1mmer]
Gregg: at the f2f we said phase in was policy rather than guidelines
21:08:07 [sh1mmer]
Wendy: that is the ideal situation but if there are no policies then should there be a WCAG default? what suggestions should we provide?
21:08:11 [sh1mmer]
ack tom
21:09:01 [wendy]
q+ to say, "another option is to respond by saying, 'it's policy. period.'"
21:09:47 [Michael]
tc - 3 categories: accessibility requirements, level requirement (e.g., 1, 2, 3), policy
21:10:40 [Michael]
we can't stop people from making bad policies, just can make good suggestions
21:11:25 [Michael]
wc - can we just say "for multimedia to be accessible it has to be captioned, period"?
21:11:31 [Andi]
21:11:59 [Michael]
ack eric
21:11:59 [Zakim]
EricP, you wanted to say, "another option is to respond by saying, 'it's policy. period.'"
21:12:04 [Michael]
q+ gregg
21:12:09 [sh1mmer]
ack tom
21:12:14 [Michael]
ack jason
21:12:14 [sh1mmer]
21:12:57 [sh1mmer]
Jason: if you want to talk about policy then fine, but i dont want to see if in the SC
21:13:53 [sh1mmer]
Jason: it interacts very badly with certain contries laws
21:14:20 [sh1mmer]
its a technical specification and it should remain such and seperate themselves from issues of hardship
21:15:05 [sh1mmer]
Wendy: there is a technical difference between realtime and recorded
21:15:34 [Michael]
ack andi
21:15:41 [sh1mmer]
wendy can you type those?
21:16:14 [sh1mmer]
Andi: there are cases where you can provide an equivelent which is not captioning
21:16:39 [wendy]
q+ to ask "consensus that a speech does not require captions? or at level 2?"
21:17:14 [Michael]
ack john
21:17:16 [sh1mmer]
it requires a plugin etc all those things otherwise have been in 4.1 and 4.2. I am oposed to phase in in the guidelines.
21:17:59 [Michael]
ack gregg
21:17:59 [sh1mmer]
John: agree with Wendy, policy in the guidelines is bad
21:19:51 [Michael]
ack tom
21:19:52 [sh1mmer]
Gregg: We shouldn't have it in the guidelines. Some things required for accessiblity are at lvl3. If something is not required such as a live caption for a talking head then we should talk about it.
21:19:54 [sh1mmer]
ack tom
21:21:58 [Michael]
ack alex
21:23:13 [Michael]
ack eric
21:23:13 [Zakim]
EricP, you wanted to ask "consensus that a speech does not require captions? or at level 2?"
21:23:26 [Zakim]
21:23:36 [sh1mmer]
Tom: make sure we have some guidance to do with conformance and policy even though it shoudln't be in the guidelines
21:23:37 [sh1mmer]
Alex: Phase in is a good idea, because the day that 2.0 becomes a standard you can't expect everything that was 1.0 to become 2.0, and we can't expect people who make decision to understnad.
21:23:39 [sh1mmer]
21:32:03 [Michael]
ack jason
21:32:21 [sh1mmer]
21:32:45 [sh1mmer]
Jason: somewhat concerned if hte captioning guidelines for 2.0 are less than those for 1.0
21:33:48 [sh1mmer]
multimedia is time syncronised audio and visual tracks
21:33:48 [Michael]
ack john
21:34:00 [sh1mmer]
John: I want to flip the captioning description around
21:34:28 [sh1mmer]
we have been talking about making spoken word accessible to people who can't hear
21:34:53 [sh1mmer]
i think we should look at how we would deal with a video as sign
21:35:42 [sh1mmer]
body gestures and so are important, a full rendering of these things in real form might be quite difficult
21:35:58 [sh1mmer]
that would also come under the heading of video content
21:38:00 [Zakim]
21:38:00 [rellero]
21:38:02 [Zakim]
21:38:03 [Zakim]
21:38:04 [Zakim]
21:38:04 [nabe]
21:38:04 [Zakim]
21:38:05 [Zakim]
21:38:05 [Zakim]
21:38:06 [Zakim]
21:38:07 [Zakim]
21:38:09 [Zakim]
21:38:09 [wendy]
RRSagent, make log world
21:38:11 [Zakim]
21:38:13 [Zakim]
21:38:16 [Zakim]
21:38:17 [Zakim]
21:38:19 [Zakim]
21:38:21 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
21:38:23 [Zakim]
Attendees were Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Michael_Cooper, Doyle_Burnett, Ben, John_Slatin, Alex_Li, Becky_Gibson, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Tom, JasonWhite, Bengt_Farre, Kerstin_Goldsmith,
21:38:26 [Zakim]
... Takayuki_Watanabi, [IBM], Roberto_Ellero, [Microsoft], EricP
21:38:47 [nabe]
nabe has left #wai-wcag
21:40:45 [Andi]
Andi has left #wai-wcag
21:44:11 [Michael]
rrsagent, bye
21:44:11 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items