IRC log of wai-wcag on 2005-01-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:42:23 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
20:42:23 [RRSAgent]
is logging to
20:42:48 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make log world
20:43:16 [wendy]
scribe: wendy
20:43:21 [wendy]
meeting: WCAG WG weekly telecon
20:43:23 [wendy]
Chair: Gregg
20:43:28 [wendy]
20:43:35 [wendy]
agenda+ TTF update
20:44:23 [wendy]
agenda+ mapping and
20:44:34 [wendy]
agenda+ baseline
20:44:48 [wendy]
agenda+ defn of structure
20:45:05 [wendy]
agenda+ Issue 848: accept Loretta's proposal to reword?
20:45:21 [wendy]
agenda+ Issue 887: accept Ben's explanation and close this bug?
20:45:38 [wendy]
agenda+ Issue 499: covered in guideline 1.1?
20:46:34 [wendy]
Regrets: Takayuki Watanabe, Doyle Burnett, Roberto Scano, Becky Gibson
20:46:49 [wendy]
Date: 27 January 2005
20:51:00 [wendy]
regrets+ Alan Chuter
20:51:52 [Yvette_Hoitink]
Yvette_Hoitink has joined #wai-wcag
20:51:58 [Yvette_Hoitink]
Hi Wendy & Michael
20:52:09 [Yvette_Hoitink]
Michael, I have a funny picture of you in Dublin
20:52:17 [Yvette_Hoitink]
it involves you and a chair ;-)
20:53:01 [rellero]
rellero has joined #wai-wcag
20:53:17 [rellero]
20:53:54 [Yvette_Hoitink]
Hi Roberto
20:57:44 [rcastaldo]
rcastaldo has joined #wai-wcag
20:57:47 [Yvette_Hoitink]
Hi Roberto
20:57:53 [rcastaldo]
Hi Yvette :-)
20:58:04 [rcastaldo]
Hi folks
20:58:20 [rellero]
20:58:20 [bengt]
bengt has joined #wai-wcag
20:58:27 [Yvette_Hoitink]
Hi Bengt
20:58:33 [Yvette_Hoitink]
Michael, shall I e-mail you the pic?
20:58:52 [Yvette_Hoitink]
Actually, there's two: I've also got one of you and Wendy in the hotel bar
20:58:56 [bengt]
20:59:07 [Yvette_Hoitink]
Wendy, would you like that one?
20:59:12 [ben_]
ben_ has joined #wai-wcag
20:59:20 [wendy]
yes, pls
21:00:09 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started
21:00:15 [Zakim]
21:00:23 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has joined #wai-wcag
21:00:39 [Zakim]
+ +1.866.803.aaaa
21:00:46 [bengt]
21:00:57 [Zakim]
21:01:14 [bengt]
zakim, +1.866.803.aaaa is Bengt
21:01:14 [Zakim]
sorry, bengt, I do not recognize a party named '+1.866.803.aaaa'
21:01:16 [Zakim]
21:01:24 [ben_]
zakim, ??P4 is Trace
21:01:24 [Zakim]
+Trace; got it
21:01:59 [Zakim]
21:02:04 [Andi]
Andi has joined #wai-wcag
21:02:27 [Zakim]
21:02:59 [Zakim]
21:03:12 [Zakim]
21:03:14 [Zakim]
21:03:16 [gregg]
gregg has joined #wai-wcag
21:03:27 [MattSEA]
MattSEA has joined #wai-wcag
21:03:35 [Zakim]
21:03:43 [Zakim]
21:03:52 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
21:03:52 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Michael_Cooper, Bengt_Farre, [Microsoft], Trace, Andi_Snow-Weaver, John_Slatin, JasonWhite, Yvette_Hoitink, Matt, Wendy, Loretta_Guarino_Reid
21:03:59 [Zakim]
21:04:07 [wendy]
zakim, microsoft is Mike_Barta
21:04:07 [Zakim]
+Mike_Barta; got it
21:04:07 [bengt]
21:04:25 [Zakim]
21:04:29 [Zakim]
21:04:44 [wendy]
zakim, Bengt is 866
21:04:44 [Zakim]
+866; got it
21:04:51 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
21:04:51 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Michael_Cooper, 866, Mike_Barta, Trace, Andi_Snow-Weaver, John_Slatin, JasonWhite, Yvette_Hoitink, Matt, Wendy, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Chris_Ridpath
21:04:56 [bengt]
21:05:02 [Zakim]
21:05:05 [Zakim]
21:05:06 [rcastaldo]
I'm trying to connect with dialpad
21:05:12 [rellero]
zakim, ??P11 is rellero
21:05:12 [Zakim]
+rellero; got it
21:05:15 [wendy]
Bengt - someone called before you and michael said it was you. did you just rejoin?
21:05:18 [rellero]
zakim, mute me
21:05:18 [Zakim]
rellero should now be muted
21:05:21 [bengt]
zakim, 866 is Bengt
21:05:21 [Zakim]
+Bengt; got it
21:05:27 [wendy]
ahhh ok.
21:05:31 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
21:05:31 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Michael_Cooper, Bengt, Mike_Barta, Trace, Andi_Snow-Weaver, John_Slatin, JasonWhite, Yvette_Hoitink, Matt, Wendy, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Chris_Ridpath, ??P12,
21:05:34 [Zakim]
... rellero (muted)
21:05:53 [bengt]
there was a .a at the end as it sometimes is when using dialpad
21:06:02 [wendy]
21:06:14 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, mute me
21:06:14 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:07:23 [wendy]
zakim, ??P12 is David
21:07:23 [Zakim]
+David; got it
21:07:38 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
21:07:38 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Michael_Cooper, Bengt, Mike_Barta, Trace, Andi_Snow-Weaver, John_Slatin, JasonWhite, Yvette_Hoitink (muted), Matt, Wendy, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Chris_Ridpath,
21:07:42 [Zakim]
... David, rellero (muted)
21:09:14 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 1
21:09:14 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "TTF update" taken up [from wendy]
21:09:24 [wendy]
mc: requirements for general techniques and test files
21:09:51 [wendy]
agenda+ CFPs and rejoin procedures
21:10:28 [wendy]
mc: talked about applicability conditions - addition to a technique. adding a piece of metadata that indicates when a tech is applicable.
21:10:51 [wendy]
mc: important piece for checklists. agreed to add applicability conditions to the techniques.
21:11:13 [wendy]
mc: finished yesterday talking about test files.
21:11:28 [wendy]
mc: we have a kazillion test files and only 10 have been formally accepted.
21:11:47 [wendy]
mc: we've been discussiong how to speed up that process.
21:11:57 [wendy]
mc: we're assigning batches of test files to people to review.
21:12:05 [wendy]
mc: trying to identify landmines
21:12:15 [wendy]
mc: those that don't have issues, think we might get through review process more quickly.
21:12:56 [wendy]
mc: believe we will put forth the entire suite of test files, but clearly indicate which are accepted or not.
21:13:09 [wendy]
gv: the way to do that would be to have 2 documents rather than one with flags.
21:13:12 [wendy]
21:13:52 [wendy]
gv: people will be most interested in the tests that they have to live with.
21:13:58 [wendy]
21:15:03 [wendy]
wac: propose that we have ednotes at top of each test case.
21:15:12 [wendy]
gv: why would we put up something that we hadn't agreed on?
21:15:38 [ChrisR]
21:15:48 [Michael]
21:15:54 [wendy]
gv: there have been places where we weren't sure how to move forward with something, where we used ednotes. we've never published something publicly that has been submitted to us but has not been cooked.
21:16:20 [wendy]
gv: if it's, "we need to get something out..." then we ought to do something. what is served by putting out tests that we never have any intention of using.
21:19:06 [wendy]
wac: we are doing a review of the tests before we publish them. some of them may or may not have consensus on them. it is a "hives" review. looking for contentious issues.
21:19:20 [wendy]
gv: the way michael described it sounded like "sorting"
21:19:21 [ben_]
21:19:22 [wendy]
ack ch
21:19:38 [wendy]
cr: all of the tests are based upon techniques. they are already published as techniques. they have already seen them.
21:19:53 [wendy]
cr: if you say, don't publish tests until accepted, do we remove the associated techniques as well?
21:20:06 [wendy]
gv: we have always had techniques that are not required.
21:20:33 [wendy]
gv: the techs were never viewed as things you had to do. tests, however, are different.
21:20:50 [wendy]
gv: tests will either be independent of the checklists...
21:21:12 [wendy]
gv: useful to have tests for whether something is done or not. checklist is then what people are interested in.
21:21:30 [wendy]
gv: the checklist is what people are waiting to see, they aren't itnerested in the tests.
21:21:39 [wendy]
gv: they want to know what you have to do for each SC.
21:22:08 [wendy]
gv: didn't think we'd have complete pieces this time around, but a complete set so that people can see what they look like.
21:22:17 [wendy]
gv: are we going to have tests for things that are not on the checklist?
21:22:19 [wendy]
ack m
21:22:45 [wendy]
mc: a further reason to publish the tests that are not fully discussed is to help demonstrate the scope of the project.
21:22:57 [wendy]
mc: there are a lot of test files and that in itself is worth people having to see.
21:23:18 [wendy]
mc: some of the tests that have not been fully reviewed, there are reasons they have been proposed. but erasons that they may also be contentious.
21:23:23 [wendy]
mc: it is worth getting outside input.
21:23:43 [wendy]
mc: not saying that we absolutely must go ahead that way, but think there are many good reasons to do so, although also hear reasons not to.
21:23:55 [wendy]
gv: u said, useful for people to see how many tests there are.
21:24:04 [wendy]
gv: to show ppl we have a lot of work to do?
21:24:27 [wendy]
mc: someone who is going to imp the guidelines, will either imp an eval tool that utilizes those tests or a checklist.
21:24:45 [wendy]
mc: that level of detail has to exist...useful to see how much detail there is
21:24:54 [wendy]
gv: what if there are 200 tests but only 50 have to be complied with.
21:25:13 [wendy]
gv: would people worry about the bulk of them if in fact there won't be that many.
21:25:25 [ChrisR]
21:26:05 [wendy]
gv: we would generate a lot of comments - ppl saying, "you can't require tihs."
21:26:15 [wendy]
gv: fear we would generate a lot of heat and not much light.
21:26:22 [wendy]
gv: then, we'd have to go through each of those bugs.
21:26:59 [wendy]
gv: fear that would slow us down
21:27:04 [wendy]
ack ch
21:27:17 [wendy]
cr: i'm concerned about the slowness, too. so far we've accepted 10 and rejected 2.
21:27:30 [wendy]
cr: feel that we are likely to have higher acceptance rates and less rejections.
21:27:46 [wendy]
cr: good to get them out there and for people to comment. better to get comments sooner than later. good for people to see what coming.
21:28:00 [wendy]
gv: i've seen more than 2 that have no basis in the guidelines.
21:28:21 [wendy]
gv: we need to be careful that the guidelines require you to do things but not that you have to do them well.
21:29:19 [Zakim]
21:29:59 [ChrisR]
21:30:26 [Yvette_Hoitink]
21:30:49 [wendy]
gv: 200 isn't that many. get through in one 2 or 3 hour call?
21:31:32 [wendy]
ack c
21:32:18 [wendy]
gv: some of the tests would be either level 3 or level 4
21:32:32 [wendy]
gv: there are ways to do level 1 stuff better.
21:32:40 [Zakim]
21:32:51 [wendy]
gv: we don't require it, but if you want to do level 1 really well...therefore that would be level3-like.
21:33:18 [Zakim]
21:33:35 [Zakim]
21:35:06 [wendy]
gv: until we have a place to require them, they can't be WCAG 2.0 tests. they could be WCAG 2.0 advisories, but that's not the way people will read them if we say they are WCAG 2.0 tests.
21:37:00 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
21:37:13 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Kerstin_Goldsmith (44%), Trace (39%)
21:37:18 [wendy]
zakim, mute Kerstin
21:37:18 [Zakim]
Kerstin_Goldsmith should now be muted
21:38:57 [wendy]
gv: perhaps when you do the review, ask people to pick out those that are definitely required by WCAG 2.0 and the SC that require them.
21:40:17 [Zakim]
21:40:25 [wendy]
zakim, ??P13 is Gian
21:40:25 [Zakim]
+Gian; got it
21:40:34 [wendy]
zakim, ??P14 is Roberto_Castaldo
21:40:34 [Zakim]
+Roberto_Castaldo; got it
21:40:58 [wendy]
gv: let's see if we can't sort tests by their opnions...
21:41:26 [wendy]
gv: could avoid discussing wording, focus on if they are required, good but not required, trying to decide if required or not.
21:41:43 [wendy]
gv: that could cut down on the comments that we get.
21:43:21 [wendy]
gv: we need to reserve the public comments for those things that we have cleaned up and feel confident about.
21:43:37 [wendy]
gv: look at the number of bugs we have on the guidelines that we think are getting stable.
21:44:04 [wendy]
ack j
21:44:36 [Zakim]
21:44:39 [wendy]
jw: suggest that everyone should take the list of test cases and raise any of those that are objected to before publicaiton. it's just a matter of everyone reading through them and listing those that they object to.
21:44:48 [wendy]
jw: improving is one thing, objecting to is another thing.
21:45:26 [Zakim]
21:45:36 [bengt]
zakim, ??P1 is Bengt
21:45:36 [Zakim]
+Bengt; got it
21:45:38 [ChrisR]
21:45:46 [wendy]
gv: required, don't think required, don't know, needs wordsmithing - could do a poll that way
21:47:47 [wendy]
q+ to say, "talking about closing about we work on this as editors?"
21:47:55 [Zakim]
21:48:20 [Zakim]
21:48:55 [wendy]
gv: how long would it take someone to read through the 200 tests?
21:49:13 [wendy]
bc: better part of a day - have to read techniques, guidelines, etc.
21:50:09 [David]
David has joined #wai-wcag
21:50:53 [David]
21:51:42 [ben_]
21:52:04 [wendy]
21:52:26 [wendy]
mc: would like to move forward with the proposal to break up into groups for ppl to review
21:52:29 [wendy]
ack c
21:52:58 [wendy]
cr: about the straw polls - you can say which level, if want to be optional or kill. that seemed to be confusing. think a simpler poll is easier: accept or reject.
21:53:08 [wendy]
cr: before the poll, we discuss so taht people understand the tests.
21:53:22 [wendy]
cr: not sure how valuable to have a general poll until we have some discussion.
21:54:33 [wendy]
gv: thought using the poll to determine which ones to discuss?
21:58:33 [wendy]
ack b
21:58:48 [wendy]
bc: this is a bit cart before the horse. started out polling on techniques.
21:58:58 [wendy]
bc: perhaps first classify techniques and then classify the tests.
21:59:07 [wendy]
bc: looking at the tests for techniques completeness.
21:59:16 [wendy]
bc: think the polling should be on status of techniques.
21:59:37 [wendy]
gv: thought our goal this time around was to get enough of the pieces to show how they fit together.
22:05:40 [David]
22:07:29 [wendy]
22:07:45 [wendy]
ack d
22:08:02 [wendy]
dmd: up to this point, assumed we would not have techniques that we could not map back to a guideline.
22:08:12 [wendy]
gv: there is a difference between map back to and specifically required by.
22:08:50 [ChrisR]
22:09:08 [wendy]
gv: is my description way off from where people think we are headed? or alternate map to move forward?
22:09:09 [wendy]
ack c
22:09:17 [wendy]
cr: think it should be like wcag 1.0: must, should, may
22:09:37 [wendy]
cr: 3 was iffy, or burden or.. level 3 was there as resource.
22:09:49 [wendy]
cr: as it is now, virtually no site conforms to AAA
22:09:53 [wendy]
(WCAG 1.0 AAA)
22:10:05 [wendy]
cr: i thik people will think of WCAG 2.0 in the same way.
22:10:07 [wendy]
cr: doubt people will go for level 3.
22:10:30 [wendy]
cr: if level 3 is really attainable and then have something else (level 4 or best practices), then that needs to be realy clear.
22:11:45 [wendy]
gv: some people feel that you could have level 3 conformance w/out doing all of...perhaps some %. others disagree.
22:12:04 [wendy]
gv: we didn't argue that one out, b/c we wanted to finish level 3 first.
22:12:10 [wendy]
gv: weren't sure what was in level 3, therefore not sure what arguing.
22:12:27 [wendy]
gv: most people seem to feel that most sites will not meet level 3
22:12:38 [wendy]
gv: the reason for level 4, there are some things which are not testable
22:13:24 [wendy]
gv: folks from industry are worry that someone somewhere will require level 3. therefore, don't want stuff in level 3 that is good advice.
22:13:29 [wendy]
22:15:14 [Zakim]
22:16:14 [Yvette_Hoitink]
gv: My understanding that we have a "level 4" in techniques documents with good advise
22:16:22 [Yvette_Hoitink]
gv: is that the general understanding?
22:16:49 [Yvette_Hoitink]
gv: anyone who doesn't think that's a good idea?
22:17:11 [Yvette_Hoitink]
someone: I thought techniques would be for SC and would map back to a guideline
22:17:20 [Yvette_Hoitink]
gv: map back to is different than required for
22:18:10 [Yvette_Hoitink]
22:18:31 [Yvette_Hoitink]
gv: we used to require testing with people with disabilities
22:18:41 [Yvette_Hoitink]
gv: still a good idea but not required
22:18:47 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, unmute me
22:18:47 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
22:18:51 [Yvette_Hoitink]
22:19:02 [Yvette_Hoitink]
can someone else minute?
22:19:11 [David]
22:19:23 [David]
I can minute
22:19:24 [Michael]
ack kerstin
22:19:39 [Yvette_Hoitink]
thanks, Wendy dropped so can't do it and I'm too tired
22:19:55 [Yvette_Hoitink]
22:20:03 [Michael]
scribe: wendy, Yvette_Hoitink, David
22:20:19 [David]
kerten: concerns - people will take take techs and make them the final word
22:20:26 [Zakim]
22:20:58 [Zakim]
22:21:12 [wendy]
zakim, drop wendy
22:21:12 [Zakim]
Wendy is being disconnected
22:21:14 [Zakim]
22:21:25 [David]
dersten: prefers them in a completely separate space, if it is not tesable and best practise its level 3 confusing for legislation
22:21:40 [David]
derstn = kersten:
22:21:51 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, unmute me
22:21:51 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink was not muted, Yvette_Hoitink
22:22:09 [Zakim]
22:22:23 [wendy]
zakim, drop wendy
22:22:23 [Zakim]
Wendy is being disconnected
22:22:24 [Zakim]
22:22:31 [David]
kerten= kerstin
22:23:09 [Zakim]
22:24:29 [David]
kerstin:correctin of above- said if it was testable & best practise put in level 3 if not testable drop it...
22:25:22 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, mute me
22:25:22 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
22:25:53 [David]
gv: have test procedures separate from techniques. tests like legal system...techniques like churches and synogoges...
22:27:02 [David]
gv: would like to see if we have done 2 things...1) do we have and architechture for the relationship betweenn tests, techniques and guidelines?
22:28:35 [David]
chris: techniues to author...afterward use test and checklists......
22:29:24 [David]
gv: legalistic approach can just follow tests...but a really accessible site will go from techniques
22:30:48 [David]
gv: don't want to have test procedures around that are unrequired but don't want to throw them out either.
22:31:08 [David]
kerstin: are ther 2-3 tests for each SC
22:31:34 [David]
gv: should be 1-1 relationships checklist to sc
22:33:16 [David]
correction1-1 checkist to test procedure unless if they are or, may have several checklists for each sc
22:34:21 [Zakim]
22:34:26 [David]
gv: each checklist item would have one test...1-1 relationship
22:35:08 [David]
unless their are "or's"
22:35:31 [ben_]
ack G
22:35:33 [ben_]
ack Kerstin
22:35:41 [ben_]
ack Andi
22:36:05 [David]
andi: critical point where we need to generate checklists...
22:36:22 [David]
gv: yeah pushing toward it
22:36:49 [David]
bc: we met this mornins hope to have prototype for 1.1 for next week
22:38:42 [David]
gv: can't have specific technology checklist ...should be one big checklist document, that would be filtered...according to conditions
22:39:33 [Yvette_Hoitink]
I need to go, gotta get up very early tomorrow
22:39:36 [David]
gv: ie if you have not pictures it would filter them out....people would select the technologies they want
22:39:39 [David]
22:39:42 [rellero]
22:39:49 [Zakim]
22:40:00 [Yvette_Hoitink]
Yvette_Hoitink has left #wai-wcag
22:40:37 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
22:40:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Mike_Barta, Trace, Andi_Snow-Weaver, John_Slatin, JasonWhite, Matt, Chris_Ridpath, David, rellero (muted), Kerstin_Goldsmith, Gian, Roberto_Castaldo (muted),
22:40:40 [Zakim]
... Bengt, Wendy
22:41:21 [David]
gv: michael do you have a good idea for a plan for "we agree...on theste tests
22:41:32 [rcastaldo]
Bye everybody, I've got to leave the call
22:41:36 [rcastaldo]
rcastaldo has left #wai-wcag
22:41:43 [wendy]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
22:41:49 [Zakim]
22:42:06 [wendy]
22:42:25 [rellero]
22:42:31 [Zakim]
22:42:32 [Zakim]
22:42:34 [Zakim]
22:42:36 [Zakim]
22:42:38 [Zakim]
22:42:40 [Zakim]
22:42:41 [Zakim]
22:42:42 [Zakim]
22:42:44 [Zakim]
22:42:46 [Zakim]
22:42:48 [Zakim]
22:42:50 [Zakim]
22:43:32 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
22:43:32 [Zakim]
On the phone I see JasonWhite
22:44:07 [wendy]
zakim, drop jason
22:44:07 [Zakim]
JasonWhite is being disconnected
22:44:09 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
22:44:10 [Zakim]
Attendees were Michael_Cooper, +1.866.803.aaaa, [Microsoft], Bengt_Farre, Trace, John_Slatin, JasonWhite, Andi_Snow-Weaver, Yvette_Hoitink, Matt, Wendy, Loretta_Guarino_Reid,
22:44:12 [Zakim]
... Mike_Barta, Chris_Ridpath, rellero, Bengt, David, Kerstin_Goldsmith, Gian, Roberto_Castaldo
22:45:04 [wendy]
Present: Michael_Cooper, Bengt_Farre, Gregg, Ben, John_Slatin, JasonWhite, Andi_Snow-Weaver, Yvette_Hoitink, Matt, Wendy, Loretta_Guarino_ Reid, Mike_Barta, Chris_Ridpath, rellero, Bengt, David, Kerstin_Goldsmith, Gian, Roberto_Castaldo
22:45:12 [wendy]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
22:46:13 [wendy]
zakim, bye
22:46:13 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
22:46:17 [wendy]
RRSAgent, bye
22:46:17 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items