IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-10-28
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 19:34:17 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:34:23 [wendy]
- zakim, this will be wcag
- 19:34:23 [Zakim]
- ok, wendy; I see WAI_WCAG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 26 minutes
- 19:35:39 [JibberJim]
- This isn't techniques is it?
- 19:35:43 [JibberJim]
- you said wednesday
- 19:40:46 [bengt]
- it is thursday ?
- 19:56:05 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started
- 19:56:12 [Zakim]
- +Tom
- 19:56:22 [Makoto]
- Makoto has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:57:38 [Zakim]
- +[Microsoft]
- 19:57:58 [Zakim]
- +??P5
- 19:57:58 [sh1mmer]
- Zakim, I am Tom
- 19:57:59 [Zakim]
- ok, sh1mmer, I now associate you with Tom
- 20:00:52 [Zakim]
- +John_Slatin
- 20:00:52 [sh1mmer]
- Zakim, ??P5 is Makoto
- 20:00:53 [Zakim]
- +Makoto; got it
- 20:01:03 [bcaldwell]
- bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:01:19 [Zakim]
- +??P9
- 20:01:30 [bcaldwell]
- zakim, ??P9 is Gregg_and_Ben
- 20:01:30 [Zakim]
- +Gregg_and_Ben; got it
- 20:01:52 [Zakim]
- +Gez_Lemon
- 20:01:53 [Zakim]
- +??P10
- 20:02:04 [Zakim]
- +Loretta_Guarino_Reid
- 20:02:18 [Becky]
- Becky has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:02:21 [Zakim]
- +Becky_Gibson
- 20:02:24 [sh1mmer]
- Zakim, ??p10 is David
- 20:02:24 [Zakim]
- +David; got it
- 20:02:56 [Zakim]
- +[IBM]
- 20:03:03 [Zakim]
- +Wendy
- 20:03:04 [Zakim]
- +JasonWhite
- 20:03:12 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 20:03:12 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Tom, [Microsoft], Makoto, John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben, Gez_Lemon (muted), David, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Becky_Gibson, [IBM], Wendy, JasonWhite (muted)
- 20:03:21 [wendy]
- zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta
- 20:03:21 [Zakim]
- +Mike_Barta; got it
- 20:03:40 [wendy]
- zakim, [IBM] is Andi_Snow-Weaver
- 20:03:40 [Zakim]
- +Andi_Snow-Weaver; got it
- 20:04:00 [Zakim]
- +??P7
- 20:04:22 [bengt]
- zakim, ??P7 is Bengt_Farre
- 20:04:22 [Zakim]
- +Bengt_Farre; got it
- 20:04:35 [bengt]
- zakim, I am Bengt_Farre
- 20:04:35 [Zakim]
- ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
- 20:06:22 [sh1mmer]
- Zakim, who's making noise?
- 20:06:27 [bengt]
- zakim, who is making noise ?
- 20:06:34 [Zakim]
- sh1mmer, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: John_Slatin (17%), Gregg_and_Ben (45%), David (13%)
- 20:06:44 [Zakim]
- bengt, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: John_Slatin (45%), Gregg_and_Ben (39%)
- 20:06:58 [David_MacDonald]
- David_MacDonald has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:06:58 [bengt]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:06:58 [Zakim]
- Bengt_Farre should now be muted
- 20:07:13 [sh1mmer]
- bcaldwell actually your line is kinda quiet
- 20:07:44 [sh1mmer]
- ok
- 20:07:46 [sh1mmer]
- i got it
- 20:08:06 [Andi]
- Andi has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:08:11 [gregg]
- gregg has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:11:35 [wendy]
- JIS comments - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2004Sep/0008.html
- 20:11:37 [wendy]
- interdependent components - http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/components.html
- 20:11:38 [wendy]
- wcag 2.0 presentation proposal - http://www.w3.org/2004/10/wcag2-nav/wcag20cover.html
- 20:11:40 [wendy]
- 1.1/1.2 proposal - http://www.w3.org/2004/10/wcag-media-equiv2.html
- 20:12:24 [sh1mmer]
- wc: first two days techniques, next two wcag
- 20:12:35 [sh1mmer]
- wc: run in to problems having to write techniques
- 20:12:54 [sh1mmer]
- wc: talked about baselines, discussion about general techniques and split into groups to try and write techniques
- 20:13:04 [sh1mmer]
- wc: still came up with problems
- 20:14:31 [sh1mmer]
- wc: many techniques for level 1 sucess criteria may not be appropriate at level 1
- 20:14:44 [sh1mmer]
- wc: did some straw polls and looked at how they fit
- 20:15:05 [sh1mmer]
- wc: 5 categories, p1, p2, p3, optional, "kill" [technique]
- 20:15:17 [sh1mmer]
- wc: area of work from discussion needed to do
- 20:15:36 [sh1mmer]
- wc: attempt to do 1.3 general techniques as a group came back to baseline
- 20:16:07 [sh1mmer]
- wc: talkd about bottom up approach, write techniques as we want them and then adjust them to the criteria (or vice versa)
- 20:16:39 [sh1mmer]
- wc: went through the rest of the JIS comments, and gave a report about authored/deliervy/percived units after the meetings with DI
- 20:16:58 [sh1mmer]
- wc: looked at Shaun's prototype site
- 20:17:36 [sh1mmer]
- wc: looked at techniques specifics issues yesterday at TF teleconference
- 20:17:53 [sh1mmer]
- wc: summary probably tmw (20041029)
- 20:18:18 [wendy]
- brb
- 20:18:24 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: next part is baseline
- 20:19:08 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: big part of the guidelines, decided to go ahead and use UAAG user agents as a baseline.
- 20:19:55 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: only require wcag sites to work with UAAG 1.0 user agents
- 20:20:24 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: the model says there is a point which the user agents should meet and a point the content should meet and a point the AT should meet
- 20:20:57 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: the problem is that there is a shortfall between the UAs and ATs and UAAG
- 20:21:07 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: we have always produced guidelines which meet the shortfall
- 20:21:39 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: we have talked about repair techniques which authors can do to make up for the shortfalls in UA/ATs
- 20:21:58 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: and there are things ATs can do to make up for shortfalls in content and UAs
- 20:22:07 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: and there are things UAs can do to make up for shortfalls in content and ATs
- 20:23:15 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: the difference in this new proposal is that the repair techniques would be seperate from the repair techniques
- 20:23:27 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: we need to figure out how bad the shortfall would be
- 20:24:27 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: has to fit UAAG but also be portable and economic and available in various countries
- 20:24:59 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: there is a possible problem that we could create a guideline which would always fall short because the UAs never reach a point to make the guidelines work properly
- 20:25:35 [wendy]
- q+ to say, "adverse reaction by some wrt repair techniques"
- 20:25:46 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: Also need tools to author to that
- 20:26:17 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 20:26:17 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say, "adverse reaction by some wrt repair techniques"
- 20:26:35 [sh1mmer]
- wc: people worried about providing too much of the repair techniques
- 20:27:01 [sh1mmer]
- wc: "if you build a temporary bridge then people will never build a perminant bridge"
- 20:27:21 [sh1mmer]
- wc: people were also concerned about people seeing anything w3 branded as condoned and ok
- 20:27:54 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: wcag 1.0 was suggested as the bridge between the state of UAs and wcag 2.0
- 20:28:36 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: more screen readers comming out, non seem to be very UAAG compliant
- 20:29:17 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: good if industry were helping and not leaving the whole burden on IBM
- 20:29:25 [sh1mmer]
- ack jason
- 20:30:00 [sh1mmer]
- jw: serverside transformations can deal with this
- 20:30:01 [sh1mmer]
- q+
- 20:30:11 [sh1mmer]
- jw: not available in every environment
- 20:30:32 [Andi]
- I'll be glad to provide a bank account number for any industry partners who would like to help IBM. :)
- 20:31:13 [sh1mmer]
- jw: endorse the line being suggested, anything not the UAAG guideline would undercut it
- 20:32:06 [sh1mmer]
- jw: good to seperate the stable parts from the repair techniques as the only way to get a stable 2.0 which works over time
- 20:32:28 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: also talked about repair techniques for UA and AT
- 20:32:36 [sh1mmer]
- gvH: there will always be a shortful somewhere
- 20:32:42 [sh1mmer]
- ack Tom
- 20:33:52 [wendy]
- tc we're talking about having accomodation for people who requests content to be accessible. we should accomodate it solves some of the baseline issues. then people don't need a baseline, they get accessible content onr equest.
- 20:34:37 [wendy]
- zakim, who's making noise?
- 20:34:49 [Zakim]
- wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Makoto (31%), Gregg_and_Ben (51%)
- 20:34:57 [wendy]
- zakim, mute Makoto
- 20:34:57 [Zakim]
- Makoto should now be muted
- 20:35:11 [wendy]
- makoto - I muted you. There was noise coming from your line.
- 20:35:21 [Makoto]
- okay.
- 20:35:21 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: if the user picks the transcoder then its a user agent, if the author picks the transcoder then its deliverery content
- 20:35:23 [wendy]
- To unmute and talk, please type, "zakim, unmute me"
- 20:36:13 [sh1mmer]
- q+
- 20:36:19 [sh1mmer]
- ack Tom
- 20:36:56 [wendy]
- tc we've struggled to deal with learning difficulties, transcoding is possibly the only way to address those issues in a more general context.
- 20:40:19 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: people should try and think about it from the perspective of it makes a problem go away but we should consider where it goes and who it affects
- 20:40:54 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: should we make sure the authors always fix the shortcomming or take a hard stance and lean on AT
- 20:41:11 [sh1mmer]
- dmd: is there a list somewhere of the shortfall?
- 20:41:17 [wendy]
- http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/wai-eval/index.php?option=Evaluations
- 20:41:30 [sh1mmer]
- wc: that is covered by the evaluation reports for UAAG
- 20:42:13 [sh1mmer]
- wc: This url points the report where user agents' shortfalls from UAAG are looked at.
- 20:43:00 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: until user agents get to UAAG then we don't reccomend noone uses WCAG 2.0 by itself
- 20:43:17 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: it feels right although it feels scary
- 20:43:35 [wendy]
- this uri are the 6 evaluations for UAAG 1.0 including: IE6, Moz 1.6, safari 1.2, jaws, window eyes 4.5, opera 7.5
- 20:43:47 [sh1mmer]
- js: might be useful what alister said, about a timeline for adoption
- 20:44:16 [wendy]
- also: UAAG Implementation report for HTML 4.01 - http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/wai-eval/reports.php?report_id=4 summarizes support by UAAG 1.0 checkpoint
- 20:44:36 [sh1mmer]
- js: we aren't talking about WCAG 2.0 universly as it is released, we are talking about 2years before it is adopted. In those 2yrs where will UAs be?
- 20:44:46 [sh1mmer]
- ack Jon
- 20:44:49 [sh1mmer]
- ack John
- 20:45:03 [wendy]
- for more info look at UAWG current work: http://w3.org/WAI/UA/#current
- 20:45:41 [sh1mmer]
- dmd: critical issues are going to be something dropped between WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 1.0 which is a critical feature but now deemed the responsibility of the UA
- 20:46:02 [sh1mmer]
- Guideline 2.4 proposal from John Slatin
- 20:46:40 [wendy]
- Topic: rewording of 2.4
- 20:46:46 [wendy]
- proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004OctDec/0199.html
- 20:47:05 [wendy]
- issues: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004OctDec/0211.html
- 20:47:17 [wendy]
- differences: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004OctDec/0214.html
- 20:47:57 [sh1mmer]
- js: To sumarise the differences, one goal was to achieve better clear and plain language
- 20:48:29 [sh1mmer]
- js: The current wording has certain numbers 50k words of 50 percieved pages
- 20:48:38 [sh1mmer]
- js: bagged counting anything as a trigger
- 20:49:02 [sh1mmer]
- js: lvl2 has "long documents" and long is undefined
- 20:49:39 [sh1mmer]
- js: one of them had a series of cases if x then y and z, I tried to get rid of those
- 20:51:08 [sh1mmer]
- js: trying to get rid of facilitate and a comment about "what does it mean to 'move within content'?"
- 20:51:20 [sh1mmer]
- js: "find content and identify their location"
- 20:51:32 [gregg]
- q+
- 20:51:46 [sh1mmer]
- ack gregg
- 20:52:20 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: "to make it as easy as possible" assumes the author knows what is easy for users
- 20:52:33 [sh1mmer]
- js: would you accept "help" ?
- 20:52:46 [sh1mmer]
- ack mike
- 20:54:14 [sh1mmer]
- mb: "find content that they need" is subjective, can we focus more on "provide mechanism for users to identify their location in content"
- 20:54:28 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: something in the old guidelines was "orientation"
- 20:54:39 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: having some overview
- 20:56:26 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: we only seem to be capturing two of three, location, overview, movement
- 20:56:37 [sh1mmer]
- js: try a rewording
- 20:57:19 [sh1mmer]
- js: worried about the word 'orient'
- 20:57:32 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: does 'orient' translate well?
- 20:58:05 [wendy]
- makoto - does "orient" as in "to find where you are" translate easily?
- 20:58:11 [ben]
- q+ to say, "Provide mechanisms to help users navigate structure and identify their location in the content?"
- 20:58:36 [Makoto]
- wendy - no problem.
- 20:58:41 [sh1mmer]
- ack Ben
- 20:58:41 [wendy]
- ok
- 20:58:42 [Zakim]
- ben, you wanted to say, "Provide mechanisms to help users navigate structure and identify their location in the content?"
- 20:58:43 [wendy]
- thx
- 20:59:12 [bengt]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:59:12 [Zakim]
- Bengt_Farre should now be muted
- 21:00:11 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: good to have one which says "structure is programmatically determinable" at lvl 1
- 21:00:24 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: maybe useful to put it here
- 21:00:40 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: good way to allow AT to do this
- 21:00:51 [sh1mmer]
- AT: would give you the facility to navigate
- 21:00:52 [sh1mmer]
- q+
- 21:00:57 [sh1mmer]
- ack Tom
- 21:01:27 [wendy]
- tc movement and understanding hwere youa rei n content is not something AT can do without semantic understanding.
- 21:02:03 [wendy]
- tc you can arrange accesskey that they have meaning to the person using them. generic structural elements, while they help you skip a list of links, do not have the same impact as stuff made by the author for direct facilitation of movement.
- 21:02:25 [wendy]
- gv saying that level 2 and 3 better than level 1? true of all the guidlines?
- 21:02:36 [wendy]
- tc if you have properly sturctured pages, you'd have something sufficient to navigate by.
- 21:02:39 [wendy]
- tc it'snot quite that simple.
- 21:03:01 [wendy]
- gv suggesting adding this at level 1 not that we delete anything at level 2 or 3
- 21:04:03 [Andi]
- q+
- 21:04:40 [sh1mmer]
- gv: primary reason people who are blind want the structure
- 21:05:08 [wendy]
- i agree with jason. let's cross reference not duplicate.
- 21:05:22 [sh1mmer]
- jw: if something is required at lvl 1 but somewhere else lets cross reference it
- 21:05:39 [wendy]
- q+ to say, "john and i talked about that 1.3 is about providing sturcture, 2.4 is about making it easier to use. therefore, shouldn't have anything at level 1..."
- 21:05:53 [sh1mmer]
- jw: anyone objecting to it would be objecting to 1.3
- 21:06:03 [sh1mmer]
- ack Jason
- 21:06:12 [sh1mmer]
- ack gregg
- 21:06:41 [sh1mmer]
- Zakim, who's muted
- 21:06:41 [Zakim]
- sh1mmer, you need to end that query with '?'
- 21:06:44 [sh1mmer]
- Zakim, who's muted?
- 21:06:44 [Zakim]
- I see Tom, Makoto, Gez_Lemon, Bengt_Farre muted
- 21:06:54 [sh1mmer]
- Zakim, unmute all
- 21:06:54 [Zakim]
- sorry, sh1mmer, I do not see a party named 'all'
- 21:07:04 [sh1mmer]
- ack mike
- 21:07:31 [wendy]
- q-
- 21:07:35 [wendy]
- wend agrees with mike
- 21:07:49 [sh1mmer]
- mb: this is more about navigation structure of the content rather than that structure being accessible
- 21:08:26 [sh1mmer]
- mb: not necesarlly a single page
- 21:09:03 [sh1mmer]
- mb: one focuses on navigation one focuses on discovery of component parts
- 21:09:56 [sh1mmer]
- wc: in 1.3 you wouldbe providing the structure and in 2.4 you would be providing the metadata saying "this group in the nav bar"
- 21:10:53 [wendy]
- who was going to minute?
- 21:10:55 [wendy]
- me?
- 21:11:20 [wendy]
- asw i agree with the points that mike made. although, now i'm confused about the difference between the two.
- 21:11:22 [sh1mmer]
- asw: agrees with what mike says, now little confused with how they are distinct
- 21:11:52 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: two different sections
- 21:12:49 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: one about perception one about operable
- 21:13:31 [wendy]
- q+ to ask, "does john have enough feedback to go rework? have gone very deep"
- 21:13:36 [wendy]
- ack andi
- 21:13:37 [wendy]
- ack jason
- 21:13:55 [sh1mmer]
- jw: conformance claimed seperately for each of those units
- 21:14:07 [gregg]
- Q+
- 21:14:22 [wendy]
- agenda+ 2.3 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004OctDec/0215.html
- 21:14:23 [sh1mmer]
- jw: if it true for each of them, we need to be careful how we word it because of the way conformance is done
- 21:14:30 [sh1mmer]
- jw: can't have cross unit scope
- 21:14:37 [wendy]
- agenda+ 4.1 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004OctDec/0222.html
- 21:14:54 [sh1mmer]
- jw: the same structures relevent to 1.3 are to 2.4
- 21:15:19 [sh1mmer]
- jw: some way to work out the dependancy
- 21:15:28 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 21:15:28 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to ask, "does john have enough feedback to go rework? have gone very deep"
- 21:16:43 [sh1mmer]
- ack gregg
- 21:16:55 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: lvl 1 sc doesn't satify 1.3
- 21:17:02 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: what about lvl2 and lvl3?
- 21:17:07 [sh1mmer]
- ack mike
- 21:17:54 [sh1mmer]
- gvh: ~ "if documents were 50k words or 50 pages" changed
- 21:18:39 [wendy]
- gvh the new one says, "content has explicit structure"
- 21:18:43 [wendy]
- js goes into level 1
- 21:18:55 [wendy]
- gvh level 1 says "if structure is tehre can determine" not "add structure"
- 21:19:31 [wendy]
- #2 ednote - satisfy via UAAG
- 21:19:52 [wendy]
- js if we're going to take UAAG 1.0 as abseline, may not need this one b/c users can do this (9.3. and 10.4 in UAAG)
- 21:20:01 [wendy]
- js UAAG should be able to generate TOC if structure is there
- 21:20:30 [wendy]
- gv these are both priority 2 in UAAG
- 21:20:36 [wendy]
- gv is our baseline p1 or p2 UAAG
- 21:20:40 [wendy]
- ?
- 21:20:54 [wendy]
- js obviously if our baseline in p1, then that note is irrelevant
- 21:21:00 [wendy]
- js we need to think about
- 21:21:27 [wendy]
- #3
- 21:21:46 [wendy]
- #4
- 21:22:09 [wendy]
- #5
- 21:22:22 [wendy]
- gv what does that mean? zoom in? view by components?
- 21:22:24 [wendy]
- js zoom and pan etc
- 21:22:29 [wendy]
- js all user agent?
- 21:22:42 [wendy]
- bc replaces navigating struct of diagrams?
- 21:22:54 [wendy]
- js no, something at level 2 that can use html and scripting and level 3 svg
- 21:23:11 [wendy]
- js if zoom, that's a UAAG function, not author
- 21:24:50 [wendy]
- gv zoom is more about perception than navigation
- 21:25:14 [wendy]
- ack jason
- 21:25:43 [gregg]
- q+
- 21:25:53 [wendy]
- jw wrt discussion of search engines and site maps, if check delivery unit and claim conformance on each one, none happen to be site map/search, which delivery units should fail to conform when evaluate?
- 21:26:31 [wendy]
- jw only way to do, would be to say that certain material must be listed in the TOC/site map or accessible search facility, then that material fails to conform b/c those components don't exist.
- 21:26:45 [wendy]
- gv if there is a site map, is that an accessibility issueor usability issue?
- 21:27:07 [wendy]
- gv if you're asking for conformance at the delivery unit, don't deliver a site but parts of the site. therefore, site map falls out of the guidelines.
- 21:27:20 [wendy]
- js same if it is a long document split between delivery units.
- 21:27:24 [wendy]
- s/js/jw
- 21:27:43 [wendy]
- jw splitting for my mobile device is different from how split on my desktop
- 21:27:51 [wendy]
- js still a single perceivable unit?
- 21:30:06 [wendy]
- perhaps need idea of conceptual unit
- 21:30:47 [wendy]
- gv caption and movie can't come in separate http requests, can no longer be delivery unit
- 21:31:11 [wendy]
- gv you have to make several requests to assemble one page
- 21:33:40 [Andi]
- gotta go - bye
- 21:33:42 [Andi]
- Andi has left #wai-wcag
- 21:34:06 [wendy]
- "To process the image tag, the browser actually initiates a second HTTP request to retrieve the image. When the server returns the image, it includes a Content-type header indicating the format of the image (e.g., image/gif). From the declared content type, the browser knows what kind of image it will receive and can render it as required. The browser shouldn't guess the content type based...
- 21:34:08 [wendy]
- ...on the document path; it is up to the server to tell the client."
- 21:34:12 [wendy]
- http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/httppr/chapter/http_pkt.html
- 21:34:49 [Zakim]
- -Andi_Snow-Weaver
- 21:37:01 [wendy]
- wac some guidelines scope to delivery units others scope to site/application-wide
- 21:37:19 [wendy]
- wac doesn't make sense to provide a site map for a delivery unit
- 21:38:17 [Zakim]
- -Tom
- 21:38:25 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 21:38:25 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Mike_Barta (muted), Makoto (muted), John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben, Gez_Lemon (muted), David, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Becky_Gibson, Wendy, JasonWhite, Bengt_Farre
- 21:38:28 [Zakim]
- ... (muted)
- 21:38:34 [gregg]
- ack g
- 21:38:36 [gregg]
- ack j
- 21:38:39 [wendy]
- ack jason
- 21:39:21 [wendy]
- jw impose requirement on a single component. if delivery unit is a major section, it is linked to a site map/toc. therefore, the rquirement is on the delivery unit.
- 21:40:42 [wendy]
- agenda?
- 21:40:47 [wendy]
- zakim, take up item 1
- 21:40:47 [Zakim]
- agendum 1. "2.3 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004OctDec/0215.html" taken up [from wendy]
- 21:40:59 [wendy]
- gv move technical info out of the guideline
- 21:41:11 [wendy]
- gv instead of marked to detect say marked to avoid appearance
- 21:41:28 [wendy]
- q+ to ask, "why Move definitions of conformance to Test Tool Kit and not to glossary?"
- 21:43:48 [wendy]
- "international standards" - basically smoke and mirrors?
- 21:44:00 [ben]
- q+
- 21:44:51 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 21:44:51 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to ask, "why Move definitions of conformance to Test Tool Kit and not to glossary?"
- 21:45:05 [wendy]
- gv concern is that there is an internaional effort to create a standard.
- 21:46:36 [wendy]
- wac since this is a WD then say "international standard which is likely to look like xya and state that in an appendix or glossary"
- 21:46:44 [wendy]
- gv concern that the numbers are for tv and not for computers
- 21:49:43 [wendy]
- ack ben
- 21:49:51 [wendy]
- q?
- 21:49:53 [bengt]
- zakim, mute me
- 21:49:53 [Zakim]
- Bengt_Farre should now be muted
- 21:50:04 [wendy]
- bc move to general techniques?
- 21:51:03 [wendy]
- gv need to keep testable info in somewhere normative
- 21:53:29 [wendy]
- jw UAAG do cover this matter, it should come out in the analysis
- 21:54:11 [wendy]
- gv use the new wording w/international standard linking to glossary, glossary specify details?
- 21:54:34 [wendy]
- anyone want to speak against?
- 21:54:47 [wendy]
- action: gv post w/chnges to list
- 21:54:53 [wendy]
- action: js rework 2.4
- 21:54:57 [wendy]
- next week: 4.1
- 21:54:58 [Zakim]
- -JasonWhite
- 21:55:24 [wendy]
- please read 4.1 - there are 3 alternatives
- 21:55:28 [wendy]
- choose the one you like most
- 21:55:53 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 21:55:53 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Mike_Barta (muted), Makoto (muted), John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben, Gez_Lemon (muted), David, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Becky_Gibson, Wendy, Bengt_Farre (muted)
- 21:56:24 [Zakim]
- -Becky_Gibson
- 21:56:25 [Zakim]
- -John_Slatin
- 21:56:25 [Zakim]
- -Loretta_Guarino_Reid
- 21:56:25 [wendy]
- those who have action items, please finish ASAP so we can get on the agenda and close
- 21:56:26 [Zakim]
- -Gregg_and_Ben
- 21:56:27 [Zakim]
- -Bengt_Farre
- 21:56:28 [Zakim]
- -Mike_Barta
- 21:56:29 [Zakim]
- -Gez_Lemon
- 21:56:29 [Zakim]
- -Wendy
- 21:56:31 [Zakim]
- -David
- 21:56:42 [Zakim]
- -Makoto
- 21:56:43 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
- 21:56:44 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Tom, John_Slatin, Makoto, Gregg_and_Ben, Gez_Lemon, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Becky_Gibson, David, Wendy, JasonWhite, Mike_Barta, Andi_Snow-Weaver, Bengt_Farre
- 21:56:50 [wendy]
- zakim, bye
- 21:56:50 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #wai-wcag
- 21:56:53 [wendy]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 21:56:53 [RRSAgent]
- I see 2 open action items:
- 21:56:53 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: gv post w/chnges to list [1]
- 21:56:53 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/28-wai-wcag-irc#T21-54-47
- 21:56:53 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: js rework 2.4 [2]
- 21:56:53 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/28-wai-wcag-irc#T21-54-53