IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-12-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

21:04:45 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
21:04:52 [Ben]
RRSAgent, make log world
21:06:21 [Zakim]
21:07:23 [David]
David has joined #wai-wcag
21:07:46 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make log world
21:08:39 [Zakim]
21:08:42 [Ben]
techniques task force report
21:08:52 [Ben]
worked through 5 tests in the test suite
21:09:31 [Ben]
issue: does the language of the test need to be the same as success criteria? (ex. when SC text is long, can we say something shorter and define in text -- "decorative")
21:09:36 [ChrisR]
test for decorative:
21:09:42 [Ben]
17 more tests for next week
21:10:44 [Zakim]
21:10:59 [wendy]
zakim, ??P13 is doyle
21:10:59 [Zakim]
+doyle; got it
21:11:30 [wendy]
issue 317
21:11:37 [wendy]
last week discussed, posted results of wordsmithing
21:11:47 [wendy]
received no feedback
21:11:49 [wendy]
bc accept the wording?
21:11:50 [wendy]
js 2 small edits:
21:11:52 [wendy]
ack john
21:12:31 [wendy]
js "must also be"
21:12:41 [wendy]
js change to "is" so it is not an instruction
21:13:02 [wendy]
js insert comma after "color presentation"
21:13:52 [Zakim]
21:14:06 [wendy]
zakim, +[Microsoft] is Mike
21:14:06 [Zakim]
sorry, wendy, I do not recognize a party named '+[Microsoft]'
21:14:13 [wendy]
zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike
21:14:13 [Zakim]
+Mike; got it
21:14:34 [gregg]
gregg has joined #wai-wcag
21:14:56 [wendy]
gv anyone speak to john's amendment?
21:15:02 [wendy]
gv anything from the list?
21:15:17 [wendy]
resolved: adopted changes in 317
21:15:20 [wendy]
can close
21:15:58 [Ben]
21:16:04 [wendy]
21:16:07 [wendy]
21:17:47 [gregg]
ack lo
21:17:51 [wendy]
lgr difficult b/c have normative guideliens and non-normative guidelines
21:17:57 [wendy]
lgr certainly true of non-norm techs
21:18:08 [wendy]
gv will be overcomplete - some techs don't have to do
21:18:12 [wendy]
lgr or techs that aren't in there that are ok
21:18:23 [wendy]
lgr this kind of statement in techs makes sense
21:18:29 [wendy]
gv olivier was talking about test suites
21:18:43 [wendy]
gv maybe premature if looking at our initial test suites
21:18:47 [wendy]
lgr the test suites will be complete
21:19:38 [wendy]
gv part of the question is, are we talking about guidelines document (it can't make specific reference to the test suite if non-normative)
21:19:43 [wendy]
ack john
21:19:56 [wendy]
js since the checklist is non-normative, a disclaimer ala olivier may be relevant
21:20:11 [wendy]
gv we use his exactly, b/c his refers to tests
21:21:25 [gregg]
ack da
21:21:49 [wendy]
dmd in each SC, we say "learn how to do this" could we link to tests?
21:21:51 [wendy]
gv that seems to be ok, it's "for more info"
21:22:02 [wendy]
gv worry that those are in the normative section and in a normative color
21:22:19 [wendy]
gv not sure how to pu non-normative info in the normative section.
21:23:03 [Ben]
21:23:22 [wendy]
q+ to say "other groups use of test suites and disclaimers"
21:23:45 [wendy]
ack ben
21:24:00 [wendy]
bc issue of explicitly identifying comments of what's normative or not, QA has advice on how to do
21:24:09 [wendy]
bc jenae added an issue. we have a separate issue related to.
21:24:11 [wendy]
ack wendy
21:24:11 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say "other groups use of test suites and disclaimers"
21:25:25 [wendy]
action: wendy check with svg, css, and dom documents to look for references to test suites within the specs.
21:25:30 [wendy]
ack jason
21:25:56 [wendy]
jw would rather not do it, it is potentially confusing. however, a warning about automated testing could be made somewhere, but not sure where.
21:26:25 [Zakim]
21:26:25 [wendy]
gv we're discussing both automated and human testing
21:27:14 [wendy]
21:27:22 [wendy]
gv recommendation to reject this issue.
21:28:07 [wendy]
21:28:19 [wendy]
should benefits only be about pwd or mention how benefits all users?
21:28:36 [wendy]
gv other people have suggested that we add more info about benefits to mass market
21:28:41 [Andi]
21:28:43 [wendy]
gv it would help promote use of the guidelines
21:29:27 [wendy]
gv if there is good but non-obvious issue, seems good to add. but to add after every guideline how benefits everyone, it if is obvious, will unneccessarily increase length
21:29:50 [wendy]
gv perhaps reject this one (more obvious), but don't create blanket policy to reject all benefits to mass market
21:29:52 [wendy]
ack andi
21:30:09 [wendy]
asw helping to promote adoption of the guidelines is a good idea, but doesn't belong in guidelines themselves (belongs in EOWG)
21:30:13 [Zakim]
21:31:42 [wendy]
gv anyone want to speak for adding this comment?
21:32:34 [wendy]
resolved: don't incorproate suggested text in issue 851. close issue.
21:32:58 [wendy]
refering to eowg
21:33:00 [wendy]
21:34:03 [wendy]
asw it's not in the SC anymore. OBE
21:34:34 [wendy]
ben? are you updating bugzilla as we move forward?
21:34:42 [wendy]
21:34:55 [wendy]
949 resolved: OBE and GV's comment
21:36:07 [wendy]
21:37:30 [Andi]
21:37:32 [gregg]
ack wendy
21:38:59 [wendy]
gv we have # of guidelines that say programmatically determinable that means an AT could do what it wants (present in sign language). at level 2, often say "programmatically" say should be done by default. no where do we say provide in sign language on the page.
21:39:35 [wendy]
ack lor
21:39:50 [wendy]
lgr we're getting into user agent responsibilities. how much is ua how much author.
21:39:57 [wendy]
lgr feels like it's going towards ua side
21:40:17 [wendy]
q+ alex
21:40:19 [Zakim]
21:40:42 [wendy]
zakim, ??P2 is Kerstin
21:40:42 [Zakim]
+Kerstin; got it
21:40:46 [wendy]
ack andi
21:41:09 [wendy]
asw agreeing w/loretta, going to UA side. signing avatar - could it use accessible content?
21:41:15 [wendy]
gv not today, but soon.
21:42:08 [wendy]
asw don't think we should put success criteria that say provide in sign language. don't have anything about poviding error msg in audio, assume someone has screen reader.
21:42:25 [wendy]
asw however, good to put in the examples to help people understand how people who are deaf can use.
21:42:27 [wendy]
ack alex
21:42:48 [Kesh]
Kesh has joined #wai-wcag
21:43:39 [wendy]
gv have in 1.1, if auditory in text
21:44:10 [wendy]
sometimes, people who are deaf have poor reading skills. a written language is their second language
21:44:16 [wendy]
ack john
21:44:47 [wendy]
js my understanding, in order to enable signing avatar, it's something that the developer has to do to enable signing avatars. there is a user agent compoentne and something on the server.
21:44:55 [wendy]
gv that is proprietary signing avatars.
21:45:08 [wendy]
gv it's like braille, you can hide braille code in content for a braille printer
21:46:16 [wendy]
jw if required, we woiuld be requiring people to provide interpretation of content (or similar to requiring translation into another language)
21:47:37 [Kesh]
providing a signing avatar on each is beyond what we would be requiring
21:47:54 [Kesh]
it would be good, however, would be to include an example .... gv.
21:48:05 [wendy]
gv resolution something like: requirement for text for any audio already included (1.1), providing a signing avatar on each page is beyond what we could require. it would be good to include an example someplace (although we don't have a guideline to provide an example for)
21:48:07 [Kesh]
wendy, want me to take notes from here?
21:48:10 [Andi]
21:48:14 [wendy]
sure. thx kerstin
21:48:18 [wendy]
ack jason
21:48:22 [Kesh]
keeps me focused ... :-)
21:48:25 [wendy]
21:48:54 [Kesh]
gv: making sure the information is there so that AT can provide a signing avatar IS within the guidelines and we should provide an example of that.
21:49:00 [Kesh]
text being presented as sign-language
21:49:06 [wendy]
q+ to say "recommend invite RNID to call and discuss"
21:49:08 [Kesh]
gv: does that sound like a good resolution?
21:49:09 [wendy]
ack andi
21:49:17 [Kesh]
andi: does not have to be an example, but could be a benefit
21:49:33 [Kesh]
andi: 1.1 would be best place, benefit for blind and deaf with examples of how
21:50:08 [Kesh]
wendy: fine for this issue - but larger picture, might be good to include people from RNID to ensure we are addressing their concern -- more dialog with them as a group
21:50:31 [Kesh]
gv: good for us to stack these up and walk through the whole thing
21:50:39 [Kesh]
gv: excellent suggestion, Wendy
21:50:45 [gregg]
ack wendy
21:50:45 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say "recommend invite RNID to call and discuss"
21:50:55 [wendy]
action: wendy in response to RNID, suggest telecon w/them
21:50:56 [Kesh]
wendy: assigning an action item to follow up and get con-call with RNID.
21:51:13 [Kesh]
action: andi write the example for 1.1
21:51:29 [wendy]
action 3 = andi write example to address issue 988
21:51:39 [Kesh]
thanks, Wendy
21:51:47 [wendy]
21:52:11 [Kesh]
gv: proposed resolution in issue summary: david recommends we close because this is clear in example #1.
21:52:41 [Kesh]
gv: suggestion is that the example is not clear
21:52:45 [Kesh]
gv: david says it is
21:53:26 [Kesh]
gv: guideline 1.4, example 1: <reads example>
21:54:51 [Kesh]
js: he is talking about the example cover a lot of different bases.
21:55:01 [Kesh]
gv: "why leave implicit?"
21:55:12 [Kesh]
gv: means "make it explicit."
21:55:20 [Kesh]
confusion .....
21:55:51 [Kesh]
wendy: this is from old example,
21:56:00 [Kesh]
david: I mention that in the next comment
21:56:11 [Kesh]
andi: says it's against the Jul 30th draft
21:56:49 [Kesh]
wendy: his comments are on the old draft.
21:57:00 [Kesh]
gv: example in the nov draft is the same as july draft.
21:57:05 [Kesh]
andi sees the same
21:57:52 [Kesh]
gv: this is example is light on dark, so why not have another example of dark on light
21:58:05 [Kesh]
gv: the answer is that this is an example, and we don't need to have one of everything
21:58:24 [Kesh]
wendy: this is a totally different example .... reads guideline 1.1 ...
21:58:27 [Kesh]
gv: we are on 1.4
21:58:37 [Kesh]
gv: contrast
21:59:03 [Kesh]
no worries ...
21:59:26 [Kesh]
gv: is our guideline clear that either way works, and just the example is one way or the other ....
21:59:31 [Kesh]
queue =kesh
21:59:36 [Kesh]
q+ kesh
22:00:45 [Kesh]
gv: we don't say anywhere that it doesn't really matter whether the background or text is the lighter or darker.
22:00:56 [wendy]
22:01:06 [Kesh]
gv: someplace in the guidelines we add a parenthetical comment about how either can be the lighter or darker
22:01:16 [Kesh]
gv: for sound, it is specific
22:01:29 [Ben]
gv's proposal - 1.4, level 2, item 1 would read:
22:01:30 [Kesh]
gv: in that case, the quieter thing should be background, but for text, it can be either
22:01:31 [Ben]
Text and diagrams that are presented over a background image, color, or text have a contrast greater than X1 where the whiter element (foreground or background) is at least Y1 as measured by _____. [V]
22:01:44 [Kesh]
thanks, Ben.
22:02:01 [Kesh]
q- kesh
22:02:15 [wendy]
ack wendy
22:02:28 [Kesh]
wendy: concerned that we are not addressing his issue --
22:03:07 [Kesh]
wendy: I propose that if you want to propose that we change the guideline that you post it to the list.
22:03:33 [Kesh]
gv: his problem is that we are only addressing dark on light, and that there is an implication that light on dark is allowed.
22:03:52 [Kesh]
wendy: but why not just add further examples to illustrate this, as opposed to changing the SC.
22:04:40 [Kesh]
wendy: but why not just further examples
22:05:01 [Kesh]
becky: I don't think the sc needs to be changed, because I assume it could be either.
22:05:08 [Kesh]
gv: why not just make it clear in the sc, thena/
22:05:29 [Kesh]
gv: I would hate to see adding a whole other example that is exactly the same as this but upside down
22:05:41 [Kesh]
gv: anyone want the action item?
22:05:51 [Kesh]
action: david can come up with a way to add to the example
22:06:21 [wendy]
action 4 = david either propose new example or modify existing example for guideline 1.4 to address issue 1038
22:06:44 [Kesh]
wendy, you're so good at that! ;-)
22:07:06 [wendy]
the image could similarly light letters on a dark background
22:07:13 [Kesh]
js: the image could similarly be light letters on a dark background
22:07:45 [Kesh]
david: image is not the right word
22:08:02 [Kesh]
d: this example could also apply to light letters on a dark background
22:08:25 [Kesh]
wendy: we're good on this one
22:08:29 [wendy]
22:08:30 [Kesh]
gv: closing and moving on
22:08:30 [wendy]
ack david
22:08:41 [wendy]
ack jason
22:08:42 [Kesh]
q- D
22:14:06 [wendy]
22:16:13 [wendy]
A section of code that responds to an action taken by the user (or user agent). On Web pages, events are usually user actions such as moving the mouse, typing, etc. An event handler determines the response to that action. A technology specific event handler only responds to an action by one kind of input device. An abstract event handler is one which can be activated by a variety of...
22:16:14 [wendy]
event handler
22:16:16 [wendy]
...input devices.
22:18:42 [wendy]
resolved: close issue 1091 because SC links to defn of "event handler" which describes abstract event
22:19:13 [wendy]
22:19:14 [wendy]
guideline 2.5
22:19:16 [wendy]
22:19:26 [wendy]
kerstin? did you step away? want me to take over minuting?
22:19:39 [wendy]
am i still here?
22:19:54 [Kesh]
please -- sorry
22:20:12 [Kesh]
took a phone call
22:20:19 [wendy]
22:21:04 [wendy]
ben? are you adding andi's comments to the issues as we go? if not, i will
22:21:15 [Zakim]
22:21:21 [wendy]
gv suggest we ask drc for specific recommendations
22:22:29 [wendy]
action: wendy check if more info in DRC report, if not ask for specific examples.
22:23:01 [wendy]
22:23:51 [Zakim]
22:23:52 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has left #wai-wcag
22:24:40 [wendy]
gv ask them, "there are no specific requirements under level 1 for this guideline, however for individuals who want more accessible sites, there are measurable things that could be done. they are included here to allow...
22:25:25 [wendy]
...those who want to create sites that are more accessible to ppl who make misatkes due to physical or cognitive disabilities"
22:27:29 [wendy]
22:27:50 [wendy]
asw we don't say what to do if more than 75
22:28:55 [wendy]
gv if it says to conform at level 3 you have to have if 75, if more can still do it, but don't have to in order to conform.
22:29:30 [wendy]
gv b/c it is level 3 (or it is level 3 b/c makes more accessible for ppl), but it is not a high priority item
22:29:49 [wendy]
gv remove so that not required at any level?
22:30:47 [wendy]
q+ to say "concern about level 4 when haven't defined it yet"
22:31:49 [wendy]
asw if have pulldown, should also have text entry field
22:31:51 [wendy]
gv what is problem w/way written?
22:32:00 [wendy]
asw there is # 75, people want to know justification for that #
22:32:19 [wendy]
gv arbitrary in sense that ramps are 1:12
22:32:40 [wendy]
gv picked based upon talking w/people who said there wer elists that lon gnad whished had been able to pick
22:32:48 [Ben]
22:33:02 [wendy]
ack wendy
22:33:02 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say "concern about level 4 when haven't defined it yet"
22:33:06 [Andi]
22:33:28 [wendy]
ack jason
22:33:53 [wendy]
jw we don't have level 4. also in other parts of guidelines there are #s that could be criticzed on the same grounds.
22:34:26 [wendy]
ack ben
22:34:35 [wendy]
bc move to genera
22:34:45 [wendy]
bc as an optional general technique
22:36:00 [wendy]
bc precedent for moving items from guidelines into general techniques
22:36:04 [wendy]
bc what is an example of this?
22:36:20 [wendy]
gv state: could type "wi" or could pick "wi" from list
22:36:24 [wendy]
bc then text entry is optional
22:37:20 [wendy]
action: gv and bc to figure out word "required" in level 3 criterion of 2.5
22:37:30 [wendy]
ack andi
22:37:36 [wendy]
asw don't want a 4th level in guidelines
22:37:48 [wendy]
gv there is no level 4, it is shorthand for things that don't appear in guidelines
22:38:14 [wendy]
gv but that shouldn't totaly disappaer
22:38:50 [wendy]
asw the current wording does not address issue: if have long selection lists need text entry for alt way
22:39:05 [wendy]
asw we say if less than 75, in fact want more than 75
22:40:06 [wendy]
asw only required when more than 75
22:40:19 [wendy]
gv separate could be, "any greater than x should have text entry field"
22:40:35 [wendy]
action: asw propose SC along lines of "any greater than x should have text entry field"
22:40:39 [wendy]
ack alex
22:40:54 [wendy]
al may be other input methods other than text entry
22:41:50 [wendy]
action 7 = asw propose SC along lines of "any greater than x should have text entry field" or broaden for "alternative entry"
22:42:07 [wendy]
22:43:57 [Zakim]
22:44:04 [wendy]
some agreement that could be level 1, but it doesn't satisfy our level 1 definition.
22:47:33 [Zakim]
22:47:34 [Zakim]
22:47:34 [Zakim]
22:47:35 [Zakim]
22:47:36 [Zakim]
22:47:37 [Zakim]
22:47:38 [Zakim]
22:47:39 [Zakim]
22:47:40 [Zakim]
22:47:42 [Zakim]
22:47:44 [Zakim]
22:47:46 [Zakim]
22:48:37 [Zakim]
22:48:38 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
22:48:39 [Zakim]
Attendees were Chris, Michael_Cooper, Bengt_Farre, Andi, Wendy, David_MacDonald, Matt, John_Slatin, JasonWhite, Becky_Gibson, Gregg_and_Ben, Avi, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, doyle, Mike,
22:48:41 [Zakim]
... Alex_Li, Kerstin
22:50:16 [Kesh]
22:50:18 [Kesh]
Kesh has left #wai-wcag
22:50:29 [wendy]
zakim, bye
22:50:29 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
22:50:32 [wendy]
RRSAgent, bye
22:50:32 [RRSAgent]
I see 7 open action items:
22:50:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wendy check with svg, css, and dom documents to look for references to test suites within the specs. [1]
22:50:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:50:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wendy in response to RNID, suggest telecon w/them [2]
22:50:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:50:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: andi write example to address issue 988 [3]
22:50:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:50:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: david either propose new example or modify existing example for guideline 1.4 to address issue 1038 [4]
22:50:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:50:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wendy check if more info in DRC report, if not ask for specific examples. [5]
22:50:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:50:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: gv and bc to figure out word "required" in level 3 criterion of 2.5 [6]
22:50:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:50:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: asw propose SC along lines of "any greater than x should have text entry field" or broaden for "alternative entry" [7]
22:50:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in