IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-11-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:46:57 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
21:01:12 [Zakim]
21:01:16 [Zakim]
21:01:17 [Zakim]
21:01:39 [Zakim]
21:01:43 [Zakim]
21:01:45 [Zakim]
21:01:58 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
21:01:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Michael_Cooper, Avi, Yvette_Hoitink, JasonWhite, Wendy
21:03:08 [Zakim]
21:03:11 [bcaldwell]
zakim, ??P3 is Ben
21:03:11 [Zakim]
+Ben; got it
21:04:13 [Zakim]
21:04:42 [Andi]
Andi has joined #wai-wcag
21:04:55 [Zakim]
21:05:01 [Zakim]
21:05:14 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
21:05:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Michael_Cooper, Avi, Yvette_Hoitink, JasonWhite, Wendy, Ben, [IBM], Becky_Gibson, ??P7
21:05:17 [Becky]
Becky has joined #wai-wcag
21:05:19 [wendy]
zakim, mute ??P7
21:05:19 [Zakim]
??P7 should now be muted
21:05:19 [bengt]
zakim, ??P7 is bengt_Farre
21:05:20 [Zakim]
+bengt_Farre; got it
21:05:38 [bengt]
ok it was muted in this end
21:05:41 [Zakim]
21:05:52 [wendy]
zakim, [IBM] is Andi
21:05:52 [Zakim]
+Andi; got it
21:05:54 [bcaldwell]
zakim, Ben is Ben_and_Gregg
21:05:54 [Zakim]
+Ben_and_Gregg; got it
21:06:03 [wendy]
zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike
21:06:03 [Zakim]
+Mike; got it
21:06:18 [Zakim]
21:06:53 [Andi]
Techniques Task Force Summary by Michael
21:06:59 [wendy]
21:07:13 [Andi]
mc> getting ready to publish new WD's of HTML, CSS, and script techniques next week
21:07:26 [wendy]
agenda+ conformance -
21:07:27 [Andi]
mc> test files raising questions about techniques
21:07:30 [gregg]
gregg has joined #wai-wcag
21:07:38 [wendy]
agenda+ 2.4 -
21:07:49 [wendy]
agenda+ 2.5 -
21:08:00 [wendy]
agenda+ 1.4 -
21:08:13 [wendy]
agenda+ 1.1/1.2 -
21:08:33 [Andi]
mc> the vote on techniques from the Face to Face meeting was useful in highlighting problem areas
21:08:40 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 1
21:08:40 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "conformance -" taken up [from wendy]
21:08:46 [Andi]
mc> plan to use that approach in the future
21:10:11 [Andi]
gv> conformance issues proposals
21:10:11 [bcaldwell]
21:10:30 [Andi]
gv> Gregg will post final version to list
21:11:33 [Andi]
gv> proposes creating a document that describes our rationale for everything we did
21:11:46 [Andi]
gv> references back to bugs
21:13:41 [wendy]
q+ to say, "top level URI"
21:13:54 [wendy]
or base
21:14:12 [Andi]
gv> what is the term to describe* ?
21:14:18 [gregg]
21:14:20 [Zakim]
21:14:20 [Andi]
wc> top level URI?
21:14:28 [Andi]
yh> it's a folder
21:14:41 [bengt]
parital path
21:14:46 [bengt]
21:14:53 [Andi]
wc> base, relative URIs
21:14:57 [Michael]
q+ to say I'm looking in XPointer spec...
21:15:18 [wendy]
21:15:26 [David_MacDonald]
David_MacDonald has joined #wai-wcag
21:15:33 [David_MacDonald]
Thats me
21:15:33 [Andi]
wc> can't use top level because that refers to only the very top level and can't be used for branchess that start in a sub-directory
21:15:41 [David_MacDonald]
on the phone new person
21:15:46 [Michael]
21:15:54 [wendy]
zakim, ?? is DAvid
21:15:54 [Zakim]
+DAvid; got it
21:16:02 [Yvette]
zakim, who's making noise?
21:16:12 [Andi]
bc> suggests changing "provisions" to "criteria"
21:16:15 [Zakim]
Yvette, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ben_and_Gregg (50%), Andi (15%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (4%)
21:16:19 [Andi]
no objections
21:16:37 [David_MacDonald]
zakim, mute me
21:16:37 [Zakim]
sorry, David_MacDonald, I do not see a party named 'David_MacDonald'
21:16:41 [Andi]
bc> consistent use of delivery unit, not delivered unit
21:16:49 [Andi]
bc> need definition of delivery unit
21:16:59 [Andi]
wc> will use the one from the device independent WB
21:17:03 [David_MacDonald]
zakim DAvid is David_MacDonald
21:17:06 [Andi]
WB should be WG
21:17:19 [David_MacDonald]
zakim, DAvid is David_MacDonald
21:17:19 [Zakim]
+David_MacDonald; got it
21:17:21 [gregg]
21:17:29 [gregg]
ack b
21:17:31 [wendy]
21:17:32 [David_MacDonald]
zakim, mute me
21:17:32 [Zakim]
David_MacDonald should now be muted
21:17:38 [gregg]
ack j
21:17:43 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
21:17:43 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:17:59 [Andi]
jw> agrees that we need a document that describes rationale for all decisions
21:18:28 [Andi]
jw> regarding URIs, clarifies proposals with regard to URIs
21:18:41 [Andi]
should reference W3C specification
21:20:20 [Andi]
gv and jw> specific wording "URI or set of URIs defined by a regular expression"
21:21:36 [Andi]
gv> continues "according to XML ... document"
21:21:58 [Andi]
Jason to provide specific proposal
21:24:21 [Andi]
lg> sent memo to Oliver Thereaux asking what he meant by "adding a conformance disclaimer"
21:24:22 [bcaldwell]
21:24:32 [Andi]
lg> response posted to bug 476
21:27:53 [bcaldwell]
21:28:49 [bcaldwell]
21:28:53 [Andi]
gv> do we want to rethink our decision that techniques are not normative in light of our baseline decision
21:28:55 [Andi]
21:30:05 [Andi]
no consensus to normative techniques at this time
21:31:58 [wendy]
q+ to say "metadat"
21:32:14 [wendy]
ack b
21:32:17 [wendy]
ack w
21:32:17 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say "metadat"
21:32:17 [David_MacDonald]
21:32:31 [Andi]
gv> with regard to machine readable conformance claims, we think they are a good idea but we don't think we can require them
21:33:06 [Andi]
wc> will have proposal soon on the type of metadata that is useful to provide but it will not be a level 1 requirement.
21:34:03 [wendy]
s/will/may not - not sure what liddy and jutta are thinking re: level for a proposed criterion related to providing metadata for content adaptation
21:34:07 [wendy]
ack d
21:34:51 [Andi]
dm> back to site map, reason may be to make site navigable - provides easy access to all links
21:35:26 [David_MacDonald]
zakim, mute me
21:35:26 [Zakim]
David_MacDonald should now be muted
21:35:33 [Yvette]
q+ to ask "why a-aa-aaa when we already have lvl 1, 2,3"
21:36:04 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
21:36:04 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
21:36:21 [Andi]
gv> should we use AAA or Triple-A
21:37:01 [Andi]
yh> why do we have Level 1, 2, and 3 and then use something different (A, AA, and AAA) for conformance claim
21:37:24 [wendy]
ack y
21:37:24 [Zakim]
Yvette, you wanted to ask "why a-aa-aaa when we already have lvl 1, 2,3"
21:37:31 [wendy]
ack j
21:38:01 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
21:38:01 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:38:44 [Zakim]
21:39:06 [Andi]
gv> proposes using Triple-A for now to be consistent with other guidelines
21:39:12 [Andi]
group agrees
21:40:46 [Zakim]
21:43:07 [Andi]
mb> disagrees with proposed resolution of 1076
21:43:24 [gregg]
21:43:31 [gregg]
ack m
21:43:31 [Andi]
agreement to add paragraph in 1076 recommendation # 1
21:43:49 [bcaldwell]
ack Mike
21:43:50 [gregg]
ack j
21:44:17 [Andi]
jw> what about messages or user interface that an application might generate that would not have a URI?
21:46:18 [gregg]
ack j
21:46:39 [Andi]
jw> not different from case where you have multiple versions of content that are retrieved from a URI
21:47:20 [Yvette]
q+ to say "content negotiation"
21:47:25 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
21:47:25 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
21:47:54 [Yvette]
21:48:37 [Andi]
gv> create a bug - what about content that is not tied to a specific URI?
21:49:09 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
21:49:09 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:50:12 [gregg]
ack j
21:51:09 [Andi]
jw> both Level 1 and the first part of Level 2 are for user agent support
21:51:32 [Andi]
gv> create a bug - explain clear delineation for when something goes in Level 1 or 2 for user agent support
21:52:48 [Yvette]
21:52:59 [bcaldwell]
q+ to say, "what is significant?"
21:53:02 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
21:53:02 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
21:53:44 [Andi]
yh> what should conform to which level of WCAG should be for policy makers and should not be in the guidelines themselves
21:53:49 [Andi]
andi agrees with yh
21:55:28 [Andi]
gv> WCAG 2.0 is a standard of accessibility. It is up to others to determine when to implement.
21:55:48 [David_MacDonald]
zakim, unmute me
21:55:48 [Zakim]
David_MacDonald should no longer be muted
21:55:53 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
21:55:53 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:55:55 [bcaldwell]
21:56:29 [David_MacDonald]
21:56:33 [David_MacDonald]
21:57:39 [Andi]
bc> should we use priority to be consistent with other guidelines?
21:58:17 [Andi]
gv> agree to consider
21:58:23 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
21:58:23 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
21:58:23 [wendy]
ack y
21:58:35 [wendy]
ack d
21:58:42 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
21:58:44 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:59:15 [Andi]
dm> will some people thing that WCAG 1.0 are "beginner" guidelines and WCAG 2.0 are "advanced"?
21:59:32 [gregg]
ack d
21:59:40 [Andi]
gv> with other specifications such as HTML, version number means the latest version of the spec
21:59:53 [Andi]
wc> recommends covering in transitional documents and education
22:00:30 [Andi]
proposed edits on conformance will go into the next draft
22:00:50 [wendy]
ack j
22:01:09 [Andi]
jw> in addition to considering "priority" as terminology, also consider using "provision" instead of "success criteria" to align with UAAG terminology
22:01:37 [Andi]
Guideline 2.4 summary
22:01:58 [Zakim]
22:02:40 [Andi]
22:02:51 [wendy]
zakim, close item 1
22:02:51 [Zakim]
agendum 1 closed
22:02:52 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
22:02:53 [Zakim]
2. 2.4 - [from wendy]
22:02:58 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 2
22:02:58 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "2.4 -" taken up [from wendy]
22:03:20 [wendy]
q+ to ask about "perceivable unit in level 3 #4"
22:04:06 [wendy]
ack a
22:04:25 [wendy]
asw doesn't like word, "tools" better to use "mechanisms" as with other guidelines
22:04:37 [wendy]
asw don't like the level 1 criterion that is the same as another one. what is the purpose?
22:04:53 [wendy]
gv purpose: if you don't have a level 1 criterion, the entire guideline disappears from a list of level 1 criteria
22:05:17 [wendy]
gv this is a 2nd good reason for doing the level 1 criterion (i.e., multiple reasons for doing this task)
22:05:45 [Yvette]
q+ to say "agree with andy"
22:05:52 [wendy]
ack w
22:05:52 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to ask about "perceivable unit in level 3 #4"
22:06:11 [Andi]
wc> agree with Andi about use of "mechanisms" instead of "tools"
22:06:21 [Andi]
22:06:47 [Andi]
wc> L3 SC 4 uses term "perceivable unit". should be "delivery unit"
22:07:00 [Andi]
bc> also in L2
22:07:02 [Zakim]
22:07:21 [wendy]
ack j
22:07:55 [Andi]
jw> should remove editorial notes before publication
22:08:22 [Andi]
jw> rest of my comments posted to list do not have to be resolved prior to next draft
22:10:07 [Andi]
wc> should highlight that L1 SC is the same as GL 1.3 and ask for feedback on whether or not this is confusing
22:10:16 [Andi]
jw> recommends shortening
22:10:32 [Andi]
gv> editors will shorten editorial notes and ask reflective questions
22:10:49 [Yvette]
ack y
22:10:50 [wendy]
ack y
22:10:50 [Zakim]
Yvette, you wanted to say "agree with andy"
22:11:09 [Andi]
yh> supposed to do issue summary for 2.4 and 1.3
22:11:27 [Andi]
yh> plans to make proposal to integrate the two
22:11:43 [Andi]
yh> seems like 1.3 is a technique or success criteria for 2.4
22:12:34 [Andi]
yh> symptom of underlying problem that perhaps these two guidelines should not be two guidelines
22:13:04 [Andi]
22:13:24 [Andi]
22:14:10 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
22:14:10 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
22:14:23 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
22:14:23 [Zakim]
agendum 2 closed
22:14:24 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
22:14:25 [Zakim]
3. 2.5 - [from wendy]
22:14:31 [wendy]
zakim, take up next item
22:14:31 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "2.5 -" taken up [from wendy]
22:15:02 [wendy]
asw sent proposal just before mtg.
22:15:18 [wendy]
22:15:41 [wendy]
2. If a user error is detected, and suggestions for correction are known
22:15:42 [wendy]
and can be provided without jeopardizing security or purpose, the error is
22:15:44 [wendy]
identified and the suggestions are provided in an accessible form that
22:15:45 [wendy]
meets WCAG 2.0 at Level A.
22:16:13 [wendy]
asw dont think need the clarification, it should be assumed.
22:16:25 [wendy]
gv is the error msg available through the uri
22:16:45 [wendy]
jw if not stated explicitly, and adding it, people iwll try to interpret it as it not needing to conform.
22:17:08 [wendy]
asw then do we need that to every guideline that adds contentt?
22:17:12 [Yvette]
q+ to say "confusing"
22:17:28 [wendy]
gv that is a good question
22:17:50 [Becky]
sorry, I need to leave early today
22:17:55 [Zakim]
22:18:10 [wendy]
wac good place for ednote? feedback about if needed or how interpreted?
22:18:15 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
22:18:15 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
22:18:33 [wendy]
gv it's a reminder. anyone speak pro or con?
22:18:43 [wendy]
yh agree that it is confusing.
22:18:53 [wendy]
bc leave it as "provided in accessible form"
22:19:07 [wendy]
gv more vague - means, accessible at level 1 or 2?
22:20:56 [wendy]
wac only place we use this is in Guideline 4.2 and talks about conformance to UAAG (not conformance to WCAG)
22:21:36 [wendy]
resolved: remove that phrase
22:21:44 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
22:21:44 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
22:22:21 [wendy]
2. If possible for the natural language of the text, an option is provided
22:22:23 [wendy]
to check text entries for misspelled words with suggestions for correct
22:22:24 [wendy]
22:22:56 [wendy]
jw there are invalid strings of characters
22:23:21 [Zakim]
22:24:07 [wendy]
jw a more general way to say "spelling"?
22:24:20 [wendy]
asw go into general techniqus?
22:24:22 [Zakim]
22:26:01 [David_MacDonald]
zakim, unmute me
22:26:01 [Zakim]
David_MacDonald was not muted, David_MacDonald
22:26:33 [wendy]
gv "misformed" words instead of "misspelled?
22:26:35 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
22:26:35 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink was already muted, Yvette
22:26:44 [wendy]
ack y
22:26:45 [Zakim]
Yvette, you wanted to say "confusing"
22:26:51 [wendy]
ack m
22:27:34 [wendy]
mb validation could mean spelling as well as other errors
22:27:47 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
22:27:47 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
22:27:53 [Zakim]
22:28:19 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
22:28:19 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
22:28:35 [wendy]
action: add mike's proposal to the issues list
22:28:47 [wendy]
action: add andi to future agenda to discuss other issues with 2.5
22:29:58 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
22:29:58 [Zakim]
agendum 3 closed
22:29:59 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
22:30:00 [Zakim]
4. 1.4 - [from wendy]
22:30:04 [wendy]
zakim, take up next item
22:30:04 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "1.4 -" taken up [from wendy]
22:30:10 [Andi]
wendy, am I scribing again?
22:30:20 [wendy]
if you would, that would be great.
22:31:12 [Andi]
dm> still need algorithm for color contrast
22:31:23 [Andi]
22:31:59 [wendy]
ack a
22:32:03 [Yvette]
q+ to say "where user input is required for which there is a known set of valid choices, present these choices to the user."
22:32:14 [wendy]
asw there are tools that check color contrast. won't they tell us the algorithm?
22:32:37 [wendy]
gv the values in the formula are the ones most of the tools are using. these are taken from ansi standards.
22:32:51 [Yvette]
22:33:04 [wendy]
gv they deal with measurements from the screen not in the content
22:33:59 [bcaldwell]
22:35:10 [Andi]
dm> one bug deals with enlargeable text size, not appropriate to this guideline
22:35:36 [Andi]
gv> should go in user agent repair category. UA should be able to zoom text even if author has used fixed text size
22:35:52 [Andi]
22:36:18 [Andi]
wc> recommends adding something about a minimum default size
22:36:43 [Andi]
gv> but if the UA allows you to make it larger, you can just zoom it in
22:37:04 [Andi]
wc> some people use images for certain fonts because the fonts they want to use are not free
22:37:54 [Andi]
gv> add Wendy's comments to this bug (1025), change bug to a different category
22:38:25 [Andi]
22:38:31 [bcaldwell]
22:42:59 [bcaldwell]
david's wording reccs:
22:44:13 [bcaldwell]
add a definition of audio contrast and include signal to noise info at end of Davi'd proposal?
22:44:25 [bcaldwell]
resolved: accept david's proposed revisions
22:44:54 [Andi]
jw> would like my documented issues to be take up in the next draft
22:45:43 [Andi]
jw> another issue I didn't raise, there's a not about transcripts for multimedia at level 1
22:47:45 [Andi]
wd and jw will work out which of jw's issues will be picked up and which will wait until later
22:47:54 [Andi]
bc> have we removed multimedia from 1.1?
22:48:05 [Andi]
wc> no. we still use "non-text content"
22:48:39 [Andi]
gv> monomedia with interaction is missing
22:48:56 [Andi]
wc> thought we decided at f-2-f this was part of 4.2
22:49:17 [Andi]
gv> interaction only is part of 4.2. Presentation is part of 1.1 or 1.2
22:50:12 [Andi]
gregg to write an editorial note for 1.2
22:50:47 [bcaldwell]
22:52:07 [Andi]
add to 1.1, if there is any time-based interaction with audio or video presentation, alternatives have to be synchronized.
22:52:25 [Zakim]
22:53:04 [Andi]
wc> proposed editorial note for 1.2 that we still have to address monomedia that needs synchronized equivalents
22:54:37 [Andi]
wc> if have multimedia application, captions may not be the way to make it accessible
22:54:54 [Andi]
may be more appropriate to cover under 4.2
22:55:15 [Andi]
bc> left out the need for labeling multimedia.
22:55:19 [Andi]
wc> still in 1.1
22:55:34 [Andi]
wc> definition of non-text content includes multi-media
22:57:07 [Yvette]
22:57:30 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
22:57:30 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink was not muted, Yvette
22:58:39 [Andi]
wc> include note on 1.1 to clarify that it means a label is required for multimedia
22:58:44 [bcaldwell]
ack Jason
22:58:47 [bcaldwell]
ack b
22:59:05 [Andi]
gv> add note on 1.2 that single media with interaction is considered multimedia
23:00:03 [Andi]
gv> example of video where you have to click at a certain time to go to another page
23:00:59 [Zakim]
23:02:20 [Andi]
yh> concern that 1.1 L1 SC 1 is now applied to multimedia - not all multimedia is functional
23:02:40 [Andi]
wc> note has to be clear that "for multimedia that is functional, ...."
23:03:31 [Andi]
yh> okay under #2.
23:11:30 [Andi]
draft available for editorial review on Wednesday
23:11:49 [Andi]
Yvette, David, Andi, Loretta to help proof the draft
23:12:27 [Andi]
hoping Becky can do the script techniques
23:12:35 [Andi]
Andi has a resource that can help with that if Becky can't
23:12:39 [Zakim]
23:12:40 [Zakim]
23:12:41 [Zakim]
23:12:42 [Zakim]
23:12:46 [Andi]
Andi has left #wai-wcag
23:14:12 [Zakim]
23:14:13 [Zakim]
23:14:14 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
23:14:15 [Zakim]
Attendees were Michael_Cooper, Avi, JasonWhite, Yvette_Hoitink, Wendy, Becky_Gibson, bengt_Farre, Andi, Ben_and_Gregg, Mike, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, David_MacDonald, Mike_Barta
23:16:16 [Yvette]
Yvette has left #wai-wcag
23:22:36 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make log world
23:29:36 [bcaldwell]
zakim, bye
23:29:36 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
23:29:41 [bcaldwell]
RRSAgent, bye
23:29:41 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items:
23:29:41 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: add mike's proposal to the issues list [1]
23:29:41 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:29:41 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: add andi to future agenda to discuss other issues with 2.5 [2]
23:29:41 [RRSAgent]
recorded in