IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-11-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:58:05 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
15:00:10 [Becky]
Becky has joined #wai-wcag
15:00:32 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has now started
15:00:38 [Zakim]
15:00:52 [Zakim]
15:00:55 [Zakim]
15:00:56 [Zakim]
15:01:29 [bcaldwell]
bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:36 [Zakim]
15:01:56 [Zakim]
15:02:34 [Zakim]
15:02:40 [bcaldwell]
zakim, ??P5 is Ben
15:02:40 [Zakim]
+Ben; got it
15:02:41 [Zakim]
15:02:51 [ben]
zakim, I am Ben
15:02:51 [Zakim]
ok, ben, I now associate you with Ben
15:03:54 [Zakim]
15:04:07 [Zakim]
15:04:19 [ken]
ken has joined #wai-wcag
15:04:37 [wendy]
wendy has joined #wai-wcag
15:04:45 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make long world
15:04:45 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make long world', wendy. Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:04:54 [Zakim]
15:05:02 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make log world
15:05:05 [Michael]
zakim, I am Michael_Cooper
15:05:05 [Zakim]
ok, Michael, I now associate you with Michael_Cooper
15:05:31 [Zakim]
15:06:28 [wendy]
zakim, ??P3 may be David
15:06:28 [Zakim]
+David?; got it
15:06:33 [wendy]
zakim, ??P2 may be Alistair
15:06:33 [Zakim]
+Alistair?; got it
15:06:39 [wendy]
zakim, ??P6 may be Chris
15:06:39 [Zakim]
+Chris?; got it
15:06:44 [Zakim]
15:06:54 [DonFEvans]
DonFEvans has joined #wai-wcag
15:07:00 [Michael]
zakim, ??P9 is Lisa_Seeman
15:07:00 [Zakim]
+Lisa_Seeman; got it
15:07:01 [wendy]
zakim, ??P9 is Lisa_Seeman
15:07:01 [Zakim]
I already had ??P9 as Lisa_Seeman, wendy
15:07:19 [AliG]
AliG has joined #wai-wcag
15:07:51 [Becky]
agenda: review techs drafts
15:08:05 [Becky]
review test files and add bugzilla entries
15:09:14 [Becky]
script techs - big issue is impact of baseline discussion
15:09:46 [Becky]
added some baseline info at beginning but waiting for baseline editorial note (which arrived last night)
15:09:56 [Zakim]
15:10:08 [Michael]
zakim, ??P11 is Alex_Li
15:10:08 [Zakim]
+Alex_Li; got it
15:10:45 [Becky]
still some todos - 2.1 javascript uris - has an ed note that still being discussed in WG
15:10:50 [wendy]
15:11:13 [Becky]
link to javascript todos
15:11:33 [wendy]
With this in mind, it is important to remember that certain common scripting practices are inaccessible, or less accessible than others. For example, UAAG 1.0 specifies programmatic access to the Document Object Model (DOM), including notification of updates. Therefore, the Javascript document.write() method would not be any more accessible, since it doesn't interact with the DOM; the...
15:11:34 [wendy]
WCAG 2.0 depends on the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [UAAG10] to determine the standard for browsers and media players in terms of their direct accessibility and the formats that they support. Since UAAG 1.0 provides guidance on browser integration of scripting languages, we can ensure that script can be built in a manner that is accessible using conforming browsers.
15:11:36 [wendy]
...createElement method, and other DOM-related elements, are a more accessible solution.
15:13:40 [Becky]
wc Jim lay reviewing JS, Gez Lemon reviewing CSS, Loretta G -reviewing HTML for typos and to make sure links work
15:14:00 [Becky]
bc to post uri for baseline editorial notes
15:14:03 [ben]
baseline ednote -
15:15:00 [Becky]
ls against creating new content via script; what happens to xpaths when add a new element?
15:15:37 [Becky]
wc tech actually says to avoid document.write
15:16:21 [Becky]
ls but example shows modifying the DOM tree - will this mess up any serverside transformations or technology cuz they don't know about those client side changes
15:17:22 [Becky]
ls messes up checkers that test for simple language
15:18:05 [Becky]
wc suggest we add an editorial comment for now because doesn't think we can ban this technique
15:18:37 [Zakim]
15:18:41 [Becky]
ls rdf file is going to try and follow xpath but won't work if xpath is changed
15:19:08 [Becky]
mc will add ed note and bugzilla entry - will that be ok for now?
15:19:15 [Zakim]
15:19:46 [Michael]
zakim, ??P9 is Lisa_Seeman
15:19:46 [Zakim]
+Lisa_Seeman; got it
15:19:48 [David]
David has joined #wai-wcag
15:20:17 [David]
test am I in the Martix
15:20:17 [Becky]
ls concerned that xpointers will be affected by this
15:20:38 [Becky]
wc added ed note
15:21:02 [wendy]
added ednote: Two issues have been raised with this example what happens to XSL on server-side and how does this effect XPointers (and RDF-based accessibility).
15:21:18 [Becky]
mc any other script techs issues?
15:21:39 [Becky]
silence - implies no issues
15:23:34 [Becky]
group is reviewing baseline ed note
15:24:31 [Becky]
wc - thought the example was going to be changed from toggling scripts on an off
15:24:45 [Becky]
bc have gotten mixed feedback so was going to leave it
15:25:29 [Becky]
wc do people feel this addresses the issues (esp those discussed at Face 2 Face)?
15:25:51 [Becky]
ag thinks it is good
15:25:54 [Becky]
mc looks good
15:26:11 [Becky]
wc interested in getting feedback to can build off of this for intro in scripting techs
15:26:34 [Becky]
wc talk about implications and how it relates to scripts
15:26:37 [ben]
alternative example: For example, WCAG 2.0 would assume that user agents and assistive technologies can effectively interact with scripted content.
15:27:26 [Zakim]
15:27:54 [Becky]
bg prefers most recent example
15:28:11 [Becky]
bc UUAG does specifically refer to toggling
15:28:43 [Becky]
wc concerned that this ex. keeps us in the WCAG 1.0 mind frame rather than moving forward
15:29:44 [Becky]
wc want to make it clear why we are pub. scripting now even tho it isn't complete but want to show we are going to include
15:30:00 [Becky]
in long term - more than just css and html
15:30:36 [Becky]
mc we are good on scripting techs and this baseline note
15:30:52 [Becky]
mc let's look at css
15:30:57 [wendy]
15:31:25 [Becky]
wc closed some issues and postponed some (see link above)
15:32:15 [Becky]
wc issue #1200 what does user mean about terminating properties?
15:32:48 [Becky]
mc suspect all properties must end with semicolon
15:32:59 [Becky]
wc is that really an compatibility issue?
15:33:08 [Becky]
bc might have to go back as far as IE 3
15:33:44 [Becky]
wc was action item to provide links back to css spec for all techs; would like to make this a low priority
15:33:52 [Becky]
group agrees we can live without cross link
15:34:12 [Becky]
wc some don't link back to GL - would like that lo priority, too
15:34:24 [Becky]
mc is this because they don't map or we just haven't done it
15:34:27 [Becky]
wc a bit of both
15:34:57 [Becky]
mc might be useful to put in an ed note mentioning that some are hard to map
15:35:24 [Becky]
wc is there someone on the call that could review the doc to find these mappings?
15:35:39 [Becky]
dm volunteers (YEAH)
15:36:12 [Becky]
action: look at techs that don't map and propose mapping or indicate no mapping
15:37:32 [Becky]
action 1 = David M to look at css techs and find techs that don't map to GL; propose mapping or indicate no mapping
15:37:47 [Becky]
wc some techs have screen shots
15:38:19 [Becky]
because of DTD the desc of images appear before the images themselves
15:38:41 [Becky]
wc see absolute positioning tech in doc
15:38:44 [wendy]
15:39:54 [Becky]
jc title seems odd - if I was looking to tech about absolute positioning wouldn't look under graceful degradation
15:40:40 [Becky]
wc tech is about when structure markup is not used and abs pos is used - if css turned off you get junk
15:41:12 [Becky]
js suggests, "absolute positioning based on structural markup"
15:41:40 [Becky]
wc a bit funky because have description, code, then image - is that a problem?
15:41:53 [Becky]
js would this be a problem for screen magnifiers?
15:42:16 [Becky]
js probably not an issue for this draft - just watch for feedback
15:42:30 [Becky]
al do we need to alert the reader?
15:42:49 [Becky]
bc can we title it with perhaps "screen shots" before the images
15:43:04 [Becky]
bc but can live with it for this draft, concurred by mc and js
15:43:42 [Becky]
mc closing css techs
15:43:57 [Becky]
bc no major changes to general techs
15:44:25 [Becky]
js 2.4 changes won't get in?
15:44:32 [Becky]
bc have they been sent to list?
15:44:45 [Becky]
js no, didn't think we sent techs to the list
15:45:16 [Becky]
mc generally do want to post to list since this is a public draft we don't want to bend that rule
15:45:30 [Becky]
mc close gen techs move on to HTML
15:45:46 [Becky]
mc Wendy has been doing most of work on HTML
15:45:50 [wendy]
15:46:43 [Becky]
wc at last weeks meeting decided to create an appendix to include wcag 1.0 that we don't want to continue recommending
15:47:06 [Becky]
wc should layout tables be moved to appendix? left it in techs doc but with an ed note
15:47:30 [Becky]
wc did move techs that had an ed note stating these were specifically from wcag 1.0
15:47:37 [Becky]
wc so moved about 5 techs
15:49:01 [Becky]
dm tech says layout tables cause access. problems described below - is it the whole section?
15:49:11 [Becky]
wc where is this?
15:49:22 [Becky]
dm 8.0
15:50:02 [Becky]
dm does "below" refer to all subsections of section 8?
15:50:37 [Becky]
mc yes, does apply to whole section
15:51:02 [Becky]
dm suggest clarification
15:51:35 [Becky]
dm key access. groups are still designing with layout tables
15:51:49 [Becky]
mc needs future discussion but decided to leave layout tables in main body
15:52:19 [Becky]
bc repair techs are to deal with user agent issues and layout tables don't really fall in that category since most UAs deal with them
15:53:40 [Becky]
ag will the priority for layout tables be at the same level as validating the code?
15:54:07 [Becky]
ag if code validation is a P2 and layout tables is a P3 there wouldn't be this conflict
15:54:44 [Becky]
ag in wcag 1.0 there are 2 chkpoints : 1 about validating code and another about layout tables - both are at same priority
15:55:07 [Becky]
ag which is a conflict becuz if you validate the code you shouldn't be using layout tables
15:55:47 [Becky]
ag all layout table techs are valid until the code is validated
15:56:02 [Becky]
wc what do we need to do in this draft to address this issue?
15:56:52 [Becky]
ag using tables for layout is not using markup according to spec
15:57:11 [Becky]
ag issue relates to guidelines, not baseline
15:57:32 [Becky]
mc do we need an additional ed note?
15:58:34 [Becky]
wc propose ed note after description para that tables for layout are not part of HTML spec
15:59:01 [Becky]
mc provide a cross ref to tech about doctype
15:59:10 [Becky]
mc that speaks to the validation issus
15:59:44 [Becky]
ls proposes an ed note to raise issue of using tags creatively
16:00:10 [Becky]
ls for example using abbr tag with a title to describe an emoticon
16:00:34 [Becky]
mc section 5 speaks about a number of instances of tags that are misused
16:00:35 [Zakim]
16:01:25 [Becky]
ls refering to example that talks about ascii art and smiley face
16:01:33 [Becky]
ag should use span rather than abbr in that example
16:01:42 [Becky]
mc can we just change the example?
16:01:56 [Becky]
mc and thus not require an ed note?
16:02:22 [Becky]
mc we can change this example and then Lisa can review public draft for similar issues and submit
16:02:41 [Becky]
mc any objections to changing that example from abbr to span?
16:02:51 [Becky]
no objections from group
16:03:24 [Becky]
ag no tech that covers the page should be usable when scripts are disabled
16:03:46 [Becky]
mc not sure if that falls into JS techs and is affected by baseline issue
16:04:22 [Becky]
ag we don't say insure that pages are usable when images are disabled
16:04:41 [Becky]
mc this is implied by requiring alt text but maybe we should be more blunt
16:04:44 [Zakim]
16:04:48 [Becky]
js maybe this is a general tech
16:05:11 [Becky]
ag make sure every tech can work in isolation by itself; for example if JS is disabled the HTML should still be usable
16:05:44 [Becky]
mc this seems contrary to current attitude we have taken about baseline
16:06:02 [Becky]
js this is part of ongoing disc. of baseline and the implications
16:06:34 [Becky]
mc is there something we need to do in this draft or is this issue part of the ongoing discuss. of baseline
16:07:11 [Becky]
wc Alistair has many good comments - perhaps best way to address is to submit commits so we can create issues
16:08:42 [Becky]
mc Alistair will provide public feedback based on work he has done preparing his documents
16:09:07 [Becky]
mc will put review of Alistair's docs on a futuer meeting agenda
16:09:33 [Becky]
mc review of techs docs completed
16:09:47 [Becky]
mc so they can be published as public drafts
16:10:56 [Becky]
mc need to be strict on agenda when trying to get drafts out the door; don't mean to shut anyone down; just make sure we get the issues recorded to re visit in future
16:11:12 [Becky]
5 minute break
16:11:14 [ChrisR]
initial tests:
16:11:23 [Zakim]
16:11:24 [Zakim]
16:15:34 [Zakim]
16:15:48 [Michael]
zakim, ??P3 is David_MacDonald
16:15:48 [Zakim]
+David_MacDonald; got it
16:17:14 [Becky]
mc disussed list of tests posted to list on 9/12/04
16:17:37 [Becky]
mc discuss test - if there are issues will create bugzilla entry rather than discussing today
16:18:15 [Becky]
cr first test: img elem must have an alt attrib
16:19:03 [Becky]
cr any disagreements?
16:19:38 [ben]
16:19:46 [Becky]
cr no disagreements test accepted
16:19:48 [Zakim]
16:20:22 [Becky]
cr decorative images should have empty alt text and important images should not have empty alt text
16:20:25 [Becky]
ag is that null?
16:20:37 [Becky]
cr could be whitespace
16:20:45 [Becky]
ag what is the reason for using space?
16:20:54 [Becky]
cr could be empty or space?
16:21:17 [Becky]
ag can we just say null
16:21:22 [Becky]
cr meaning ""?
16:21:48 [Michael]
ack ben
16:21:50 [Becky]
mc sounds like a bugzilla entry
16:21:58 [Becky]
bc want to review what we are agreeing on
16:22:22 [Becky]
cr two steps: accepting a test then deciding what level
16:22:42 [Becky]
bc need to clarify what we are accepting/reject
16:22:51 [Becky]
js propose accept and reject
16:23:03 [Becky]
js then if accept - required or optional
16:23:38 [Becky]
cr idea of optional is new; assumed that all were required
16:24:04 [Becky]
bc example alt text must be short - would not want to accept that as required
16:24:45 [Becky]
cr if alt text is over a certain lenght - you must look at it and determine that it is as short as possible
16:25:09 [Becky]
ag length issues are difficult with some European languages
16:25:25 [Becky]
cr tests are English specific and will need to be modified for other lang.
16:25:45 [Becky]
cr I think we have agreed that alt text should be short
16:25:57 [Becky]
mc yes have agreed but can't agree on what is short
16:26:05 [Becky]
cr can we agree that there should be a test for short?
16:26:30 [Becky]
ag describe in single sentence
16:26:46 [Becky]
js but sentence is not always most appropriate structure - don't always want a complete sentence
16:27:29 [Becky]
ls suggest - should not be more than 10 word greater than the text in the image
16:27:35 [Becky]
js but not all languages count words
16:27:58 [Becky]
mc suggest creating a bugzilla entry
16:28:21 [Becky]
ls doesn't agree that it should be short in all cases - must be long enough to capture the description
16:28:27 [Becky]
dm isn't that long desc?
16:29:23 [Becky]
mc getting back to ben's issue on priorities - how can we address that
16:30:00 [Becky]
js propose just accept or reject
16:30:12 [Becky]
cr each test maps to a SC
16:30:44 [Becky]
ag all of the tests should support a test; running the test should tell you that the task has been completed or not
16:31:02 [Becky]
cr purpose of test suite is to test that your content conforms to the GLs
16:31:36 [Becky]
js each task shous you how to comply
16:31:59 [Becky]
ag test tells you if you have implemented the techs properly and thus pass
16:32:43 [Becky]
ag write more solid conditional statemeents next to a task
16:33:38 [Becky]
ag problem where writing techs and tests at the same time
16:33:50 [Becky]
ag need to break down tasks into testable statements
16:34:03 [Becky]
ag before go into depth of writing tests
16:34:53 [Becky]
bg but isn't that what Chris has done
16:34:58 [Becky]
cr yes that is the intent
16:35:24 [Becky]
ag but there are still gaps
16:36:05 [Becky]
ac ability to link tests back to tasks is a bit flaky there are still gaps (expected since this is a work in progress)
16:36:37 [Becky]
ac some tests require running other tests first
16:36:45 [Becky]
cr yes some tests have pre-requisites
16:37:07 [Becky]
ag some tests seem to be written before the task is finalize - this can be a problem
16:38:14 [Becky]
ag bottom up approach of writing tests before task are completed has issues - if change task will have to go back an update test
16:38:28 [Becky]
mc this is an approach issue rather than a test suite one
16:38:56 [Becky]
mc this relates back to disc. at F2F about relating the techs to a specific GL
16:39:10 [Becky]
mc and that we may need to re-evalute
16:39:34 [Becky]
mc test files are more concrete - they hold us to our word
16:40:17 [Becky]
wc HTML tech does say short text alternatives
16:40:26 [Becky]
wc there is no def. of shor there
16:40:47 [Becky]
wc if look back at GL it doesn't talk about length but talks about the properties of the alt text
16:41:20 [Becky]
js gen. techs does try to address the issue of what is approp. for alt text vs long desc.
16:42:02 [Becky]
wc make sure test files not only reflect HTML but also reflects general techs
16:43:08 [Becky]
wc looking at test files from testers point of view will help us to clarify the GL and tasks
16:43:45 [Becky]
ag suggest stopping at the higher level tests rather than drilling into details
16:44:00 [Becky]
ag test for presence of alt text - defer until later the nuances of alt text
16:44:27 [Becky]
wc current tests helps to clarify the transition for WCAG 1 to 2
16:44:52 [Becky]
cr we know in the real world that short alt text is better dealt with by assistive techs
16:45:05 [Becky]
cr if GL don't deal with that then are we missing something?
16:45:28 [Becky]
js this alt text length issuescame up at July F2F
16:46:12 [Becky]
kk Oracle's standard is based on internationalization
16:46:31 [Becky]
kk checkers that are out there now do check for the length of alt text and give a warning
16:46:56 [Becky]
kk so length has been determined as something that is usefule and imp. (at least by checker manufacturers)
16:47:40 [Becky]
mc has entered bugs what is short, is "short" appropriate in the technique;
16:48:00 [Becky]
wc need to look at relationship between gen. and HTML techs
16:48:31 [Becky]
wc title of tech is "short text alternatives" but tech doesn't talk at all about short
16:48:50 [Becky]
wc assumed reliance on gen. techs but that reliance isn't called out
16:49:42 [Zakim]
16:50:29 [Becky]
cr test suite is really basic access. stuff that we should lock down
16:50:59 [Becky]
cr we should be able to provide clear guidance on many of these things - how to mark up my form, how to describe my images
16:51:34 [Becky]
wc can we leave test in and add an ed note? this is why we put out the working drafts - so we can get feedback
16:52:01 [Becky]
wc ultimately we are dev. for community so lets ask community what they think
16:52:20 [Becky]
cr we really need to start getting out clear msg about what to do to make site accessible
16:52:51 [Becky]
wc we are providing LOTS of info we just need to clearly link the info together
16:53:19 [Becky]
js trying to have at least one gen. tech for each SC in GL
16:53:34 [Becky]
bc we should think about writing a req. doc for test suites
16:53:53 [Becky]
wc have to update requirements docs before going to candidate rec.
16:54:14 [Becky]
wc currnt req. docs are out of date
16:54:51 [Becky]
mc should checklist/test be a separate req. doc
16:55:04 [Becky]
wc (and others ) agree it should be integrated in existing docs
16:56:28 [Becky]
wc thinking abt plan for next couple of months
16:56:44 [Becky]
wc publish docs and next week put out req. for review
16:57:02 [Becky]
wc take Dec to work on requirements
16:57:10 [Becky]
wc publish next drafts in Jan
16:57:28 [Becky]
mc propose skipping next Wed meeting?
16:57:46 [Becky]
wc test suite should be included in next set of drafts
16:58:07 [Becky]
wc next week brainstorm
16:59:32 [Becky]
bc need to get agreement what we want to rec. at tech level
16:59:48 [Becky]
bc before we move forward with test suite discussion
17:00:33 [Becky]
bc need to dig deeper into what tech specific tasks are actually recommending
17:00:59 [Becky]
js reviewing test files have helped us get to this level of detail
17:01:31 [Becky]
mc next week will talk about test suites in more generic way
17:01:56 [Becky]
wc assign people to look at existing requirements documents and provide feedback and suggestions
17:02:19 [wendy]
17:02:24 [wendy]
17:03:02 [Becky]
action group to review requirements docs before next week's meeting
17:03:16 [Becky]
action: group to review requirements docs before next week's meeting
17:03:29 [Zakim]
17:03:31 [Zakim]
17:03:33 [Zakim]
17:03:37 [Zakim]
17:03:39 [Zakim]
17:03:43 [Zakim]
17:03:45 [Zakim]
17:03:47 [Zakim]
17:03:49 [Zakim]
17:03:53 [Zakim]
17:03:55 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has ended
17:03:57 [Zakim]
Attendees were Becky_Gibson, Don_Evans, Tim_Boland, Ben, Wendy, Michael_Cooper, Ken_Kipnes, David?, Alistair?, Chris?, Lisa_Seeman, Alex_Li, John_Slatin, David_MacDonald
17:04:00 [AliG]
AliG has left #wai-wcag
17:04:11 [Michael]
rrsagent, bye
17:04:11 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items:
17:04:11 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: David M to look at css techs and find techs that don't map to GL; propose mapping or indicate no mapping [1]
17:04:11 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:04:11 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: group to review requirements docs before next week's meeting [2]
17:04:11 [RRSAgent]
recorded in