20:43:26 RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag 20:43:26 is logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/02/03-wai-wcag-irc 20:50:24 regrets: Roberto Castaldo 20:50:32 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0368.html 20:50:56 agenda+ Charter and Participation http://www.w3.org/wai/gl/participation.html 20:51:02 bengt has joined #wai-wcag 20:51:08 agenda+ Techniques Task Force Update 20:51:29 agenda+ Continued Discussion of Mapping of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to WCAG 2.0 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004OctDec/att-0603/WCAG_1.0_to_WCAG_2.0_SC_12-15-04.html 20:51:44 agenda+ Baseline 20:52:02 agenda+ Definition of structure (Issue 506) http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=506 20:52:14 agenda+ Issue 848: accept Loretta's proposal to reword? http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=848 20:52:39 rellero has joined #wai-wcag 20:52:42 agenda+ Issue 887: accept Ben's explanation and close this bug? http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=887 20:52:46 Hi 20:52:58 agenda+ Issue 499: covered in guideline 1.1? http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=499 20:56:59 WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started 20:57:06 +[Microsoft] 20:57:08 Michael has joined #wai-wcag 20:57:09 Yvette_Hoitink has joined #wai-wcag 20:57:14 Hi everyone 20:57:16 Hi 20:57:30 hi 20:57:43 Ciao Robertox2 20:57:50 +??P13 20:57:58 zakim, ??P13 is Bengt 20:57:58 +Bengt; got it 20:58:25 ben_ has joined #wai-wcag 20:58:55 +Bengt_Farre 20:59:05 ?? another me ? 20:59:25 zakim, Bengt_Farre is Roberto_Scano 20:59:25 +Roberto_Scano; got it 20:59:33 zakim, I am Roberto_Scano 21:00:22 Becky_Gibson has joined #wai-wcag 21:00:27 zakim, I am Roberto_Scano 21:00:27 ok, rscano, I now associate you with Roberto_Scano 21:00:27 ChrisR has joined #wai-wcag 21:00:28 +Becky_Gibson 21:00:53 +Wendy 21:00:56 nabe has joined #wai-wcag 21:01:07 +??P17 21:01:07 +[IPcaller] 21:01:11 +Alex_Li 21:01:12 zakim, ??P17 is rellero 21:01:13 +rellero; got it 21:01:17 zakim, mute me 21:01:17 rellero should now be muted 21:01:24 +[IBM] 21:01:27 +Loretta_Guarino_Reid 21:01:30 zakim, IPCaller is Chris 21:01:30 +Chris; got it 21:01:37 zakim, IBM is Andi 21:01:37 +Andi; got it 21:01:38 +Michael_Cooper 21:01:41 zakim, who's making noise? 21:01:47 +Yvette_Hoitink 21:01:52 wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Microsoft] (5%), Roberto_Scano (28%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (71%), Wendy (4%) 21:02:06 zakim, Microsoft is Mike 21:02:06 +Mike; got it 21:02:10 zakim, who's on the phone? 21:02:10 On the phone I see Mike, Bengt, Roberto_Scano, Becky_Gibson, Wendy, rellero (muted), Chris, Alex_Li, Andi, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink 21:02:11 zakim, who is making noise? 21:02:19 +??P26 21:02:21 rscano, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Mike (45%), Alex_Li (9%), Michael_Cooper (14%), Wendy (4%) 21:02:27 +[IPcaller] 21:02:29 zakim, ??P26 is Trace 21:02:29 +Trace; got it 21:02:35 zakim, ??P26 is Trace 21:02:35 I already had ??P26 as Trace, ben_ 21:02:37 zakim, IPcaller is Takayuki 21:02:37 +Takayuki; got it 21:02:38 +??P27 21:02:42 it went completely silent for me 21:02:44 achuter has joined #wai-wcag 21:02:46 zakim, ??p27 is David 21:02:46 +David; got it 21:02:51 zakim, who's making noise? 21:03:02 wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Alex_Li (6%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (34%) 21:03:05 zakim, I am Takayuki 21:03:05 ok, nabe, I now associate you with Takayuki 21:03:07 zakim, mute loretta 21:03:07 Loretta_Guarino_Reid should now be muted 21:03:12 zakim, unmute loretta 21:03:12 Loretta_Guarino_Reid should no longer be muted 21:03:15 zakim, mute alex 21:03:15 Alex_Li should now be muted 21:03:18 zakim, mute me 21:03:18 Takayuki should now be muted 21:03:19 zakim, unmute alex 21:03:19 Alex_Li should no longer be muted 21:03:22 zakim, mute mike 21:03:22 Mike should now be muted 21:03:22 zakim, who is on the phone? 21:03:23 On the phone I see Mike (muted), Bengt, Roberto_Scano, Becky_Gibson, Wendy, rellero (muted), Chris, Alex_Li, Andi, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Trace, 21:03:24 Nemo_[luca has joined #wai-wcag 21:03:26 ... Takayuki (muted), David 21:03:29 zakim, unmute mike 21:03:29 Mike should no longer be muted 21:03:37 ciao nemo 21:03:37 zakim, mute me 21:03:37 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 21:03:40 zakim, mute me 21:03:40 Bengt should now be muted 21:03:43 does it help? 21:03:50 zakim, unmute me 21:03:50 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 21:03:53 ? cant hear anything 21:04:13 +Alan 21:04:15 -Bengt 21:04:23 +JasonWhite 21:04:37 + +1.508.275.aaaa 21:04:44 - +1.508.275.aaaa 21:04:55 David has joined #wai-wcag 21:05:32 Andi has joined #wai-wcag 21:06:01 +John_Slatin 21:06:05 scribe: andi 21:06:05 zakim, mute me 21:06:05 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 21:06:23 lol 21:06:31 + +1.508.275.aabb 21:06:33 +??P30 21:06:41 zakim, unmute me 21:06:41 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 21:06:51 zakim, ??P30 is Bengt? 21:06:51 +Bengt?; got it 21:07:01 zakim, who's on the phone? 21:07:01 On the phone I see Mike (muted), Roberto_Scano, Becky_Gibson, Wendy, rellero (muted), Chris, Alex_Li, Andi, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Trace, Takayuki 21:07:05 ... (muted), David, Alan, JasonWhite, John_Slatin, +1.508.275.aabb, Bengt? 21:07:11 zakim, mute Bengt 21:07:11 Bengt? should now be muted 21:07:24 I am mute already :) 21:07:27 :) 21:07:36 gregg has joined #wai-wcag 21:07:44 zakim, who's making noise? 21:07:55 David, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: John_Slatin (30%), Alex_Li (4%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (4%), Yvette_Hoitink (30%), Trace (10%), David (4%), 21:07:58 lmascaro has joined #wai-wcag 21:07:59 ... +1.508.275.aabb (56%), JasonWhite (4%) 21:08:18 who was the one joning before me ? 21:08:33 zakim, mute me 21:08:33 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 21:08:44 - +1.508.275.aabb 21:08:51 gv: start off with discussion of charter and participation 21:09:00 zakim, take up item 1 21:09:00 agendum 1. "Charter and Participation http://www.w3.org/wai/gl/participation.html" taken up [from wendy] 21:09:03 gv: all members have to requalify 21:09:39 wc: now under new W3C patent policy 21:09:50 wc: W3C makes work available royalty free 21:10:28 wc: organizations who have patents on W3C work need to identify 21:11:07 wc: when members who are part of a W3C member org re-join, have to disclose any applicable patents 21:11:21 +Nemo_ 21:11:22 wc: all others have to go through the "invited experts" process 21:11:36 zakim, unmute me 21:11:36 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 21:12:50 mute me 21:13:00 zakim mute me 21:13:06 it's zakim, mute me 21:13:10 with a comma 21:13:10 rs: I've done confirmation - as AC Rep for IWA/HWG for me, Roberto Ellero, Roberto Castaldo, Gez Lemon, Luca Mascaro, Sebastiano Nutarelli 21:13:16 zakim, mute me 21:13:16 sorry, lmascaro, I do not see a party named 'lmascaro' 21:13:22 seems to be a satellite link with that long delay for echo 21:13:26 zakim, lmascaro is Nemo_ 21:13:26 sorry, Yvette_Hoitink, I do not recognize a party named 'lmascaro' 21:13:26 zakim, lmascaro is nemo 21:13:27 sorry, wendy, I do not recognize a party named 'lmascaro' 21:13:34 zakim, Nemo_ is lmascaro 21:13:34 +lmascaro; got it 21:13:41 zakim, mute lmascaro 21:13:41 lmascaro should now be muted 21:13:47 tanks 21:13:56 ok... nemo in the abyss now :) 21:14:01 :) 21:14:03 :-) 21:14:35 "loosing nemo" 21:14:43 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/participation.html 21:15:11 wc: first step - only want to review draft 21:15:19 wc: second step - want to review drafts 21:15:34 wc: third step - want to become member in good standing 21:16:00 wc: if want to become member in good standing, have to joing mailing list 21:16:09 wc: need W3C login and password 21:16:42 wc: if part of W3C member org, W3C person in your org has to approve 21:16:49 q+ 21:16:59 wc: will take at least 2 business days 21:17:16 ack becky 21:18:23 wc: if W3C member org, AC rep has to complete a nomination form 21:18:30 The following errors were encountered: Cannot leave a group you're not participating in 21:18:33 wc: if have login already, don't need to ask for it again 21:18:50 ack alex 21:19:45 al: what do we have to provide in terms of patents? if we have patents in the area of Web accessibility but don't apply to what we're doing here, do we have to disclose that? 21:20:13 IMHO patents only if are wcag-specific... not WAI specific. 21:20:28 al: example - patent that allows Web application to function just like a Windows application in terms of keyboard operation. 21:21:15 wendy: can only select one of the participation terms ? 21:21:26 zakim, who's on the phone? 21:21:26 On the phone I see Mike (muted), Roberto_Scano, Becky_Gibson, Wendy, rellero (muted), Chris, Alex_Li, Andi, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Michael_Cooper (muted), Yvette_Hoitink, Trace, 21:21:29 ... Takayuki (muted), David, Alan, JasonWhite, John_Slatin, Bengt? (muted), lmascaro (muted) 21:21:31 zakim, mute me 21:21:31 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 21:21:34 wc: thinks the only way that would be an issue is if WCAG WG came up with a technique exactly like the patent, it would be an issue. 21:21:45 yes this is right 21:22:08 wc: you can exclude W3C members from having to pay licensing fee 21:23:22 +Kerstin_Goldsmith 21:23:34 wc: have 30 days to complete this 21:23:45 action: wendy talk with alex, ian, and others about sap patent question 21:23:52 q? 21:24:04 ack jason 21:24:46 jw: expenses to participate in the working group are an issue 21:26:30 q+ 21:26:47 zakim, unmute me 21:26:47 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 21:26:55 zakim, unmute me 21:26:55 Bengt? should no longer be muted 21:26:56 js: Joe Clark and Yvette have raised this issue as well 21:27:12 js: issue for invited experts working on their own 21:28:33 action: wendy follow up with jason and judy about expense issue in the invited expert agreement 21:28:51 q? 21:29:07 yh: my company will pay for some trips but I can't go on the very expensive ones 21:29:19 wc: issue with maintaining participant in good standing status 21:29:34 ack bengt 21:30:24 wc: have to complete an invited expert appication for each group you want to join 21:30:35 wc: all WAI groups have been re-chartered 21:31:12 wc: contact Wendy if have any issues or questions in completing the forms 21:31:24 zakim, close item 1 21:31:24 agendum 1 closed 21:31:25 I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 21:31:27 2. Techniques Task Force Update [from wendy] 21:31:34 zakim, take up item 2 21:31:34 agendum 2. "Techniques Task Force Update" taken up [from wendy] 21:31:44 mc: spent a lot of time reviewing test files 21:31:58 zakim, mute me 21:31:58 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 21:32:04 mc: some list discussion - reviewed yesterday - came to some resolution on a lot of them 21:32:57 mc: action items resulted - edits to techniques documents and relationship to the guidelines 21:33:21 mc: CSS technique about using certain syntax for identifying colors - will close by putting in advisory information but not a CSS technique 21:34:22 mc: soon will be asking Wed participants to review batches of test files and make recommendations on what to do with them 21:34:44 mc: face to face meeting in Boston at the end of the month 21:34:57 ack a 21:35:21 as: registration for the techniques meeting 21:35:32 ack john 21:35:34 wc: have to register for the W3C plenary 21:35:43 wc: will be registration for CSUN meeting 21:36:36 wc: will be meeting at the Marriott - don't have all the details yet 21:36:41 zakim, close item 2 21:36:41 agendum 2 closed 21:36:42 I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 21:36:44 3. Continued Discussion of Mapping of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to WCAG 2.0 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004OctDec/att-0603/WCAG_1.0_to_WCAG_2.0_SC_12-15-04.html 21:36:46 ... [from wendy] 21:36:49 zakim, take up item 3 21:36:49 agendum 3. "Continued Discussion of Mapping of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to WCAG 2.0 21:36:52 ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004OctDec/att-0603/WCAG_1.0_to_WCAG_2.0_SC_12-15-04.html" taken up [from wendy] 21:37:25 scribe: david 21:38:35 yup 21:39:14 q+ 21:39:16 ack a 21:39:34 ack j 21:39:39 q+ to say "Most important is that every WCAG 2 level has list of new additions" 21:39:39 andi: issues in buzilla how to understand how to get from 1.0 to 2.0, we could have a mapping that stars from 1.0 to 2.0 , wg needs to agree on that 21:40:10 js: it will also help us make sure nothing falls through cracks in the transition 21:40:21 ack wendy 21:40:58 wc: highlighted that looking between 1.0 to 2.0 there are issues starting at priority 2 quesiton marks. 21:41:19 ack yvette 21:41:21 Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "Most important is that every WCAG 2 level has list of new additions" 21:41:28 wc: andi said that we could just start at priority 1 and 2 21:41:47 previous discussion of mapping, priority 1 checkpoints: http://www.w3.org/2005/01/06-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item03 21:42:20 yh: important for users to list what you need to do in level 2 above and beyond what they did in 1.0 21:42:33 zakim, mute me 21:42:33 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 21:42:45 zakim, who's making noise? 21:42:48 yh: from version 1.0 to 2.0 21:42:55 Yvette_Hoitink, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Loretta_Guarino_Reid (9%), Trace (37%) 21:43:05 who's Trace? 21:43:12 Gregg? 21:43:13 trace is ben and gregg 21:43:14 Gregg :) 21:43:16 ok 21:43:32 gv: should talk whether an item is required in 1.0, whether it is deprecated, or partially and we must say what part is different 21:44:08 andi: I was just looking at things that had a quesiton mark 21:45:35 gv: we must differentiate when something is changed or diffferent... 21:46:06 Kerstin has joined #wai-wcag 21:46:13 andi: 2 pass process, figure out different then go back and elaborate on differences. 21:47:31 andi: 3.1 started with Ben's mapping...then I looked for SC ...it said related to 4.2 but could not find related one 21:47:39 js: think it maps to 1.3 21:48:35 gv: don't think its tied toany SC...perhaps 1.3 advisory 21:49:13 andi what is your last initial? 21:49:29 andi snow-weaver 21:49:31 asw 21:49:40 thx 21:49:50 I knew that....:-) 21:51:12 gv: discuss where it goes 21:51:52 gv: I think it is not required for conformance... some aspect (related to formating) are required but not like math ML 21:52:06 Gregg, can we be careful to not use "Level 4" and instead simply call these things "advisory" -- we don't want the idea of level 4 creeping into our terminology 21:52:14 asw: 3.3 21:52:43 asw: mapped 1.3 & 2.4 but could not get sc 21:53:14 gv: 1.3 only advisory no sc 21:53:33 mapped to1.3 no sc - avisory 21:53:36 q+ to say "html technique" 21:54:20 ack john 21:54:21 ack wendy 21:54:21 wendy, you wanted to say "html technique" 21:54:31 zakim, mute me 21:54:31 Yvette_Hoitink was already muted, Yvette_Hoitink 21:55:06 ack john 21:56:13 q+ 21:57:28 q+ to say "tech inspecific" 21:57:34 zakim, unmute me 21:57:34 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 21:57:59 scribe: ben 21:58:02 the point 1.3 as it considers an ulterior level in XSL technologies? 21:58:15 gv: think we should say, not required, advisory in html techniques 21:58:31 -lmascaro 21:58:49 q+ 21:58:49 yh: can we say WCAG isn't tech specific, so we no longer have tech specific info in the guidelines 21:58:56 ack w 21:58:58 ack y 21:58:58 Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "tech inspecific" 21:58:58 David has joined #wai-wcag 21:59:23 am I back in? 21:59:36 gv: some tech specific (ex. alt text for images) would be required by success criterion 21:59:44 thx ben 21:59:48 ack yv 22:00:55 gv: ex WCAG 1.0 requirement to use alt on img maps to WCAG 2.0 1.1, this is different than this one (3.3) which is now recommended in HTML techniques 22:01:01 zakim, mute me 22:01:01 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 22:01:07 ack ach 22:01:17 thx ben I can go on scribe 22:01:23 ac: am I to understand that this req. has been removed b/c it is tech specific? 22:01:28 scribe: david 22:02:39 ac: is there a presentation that says you must use css 22:02:46 "use stylesheets for presentation" :) 22:02:51 gv: no, any separation technique is ok 22:03:44 +lmascaro 22:03:53 asw: not requiring metadata anymore... 22:03:59 zakim, unmute me 22:03:59 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 22:04:11 q+ to say, "some of the prog located could be accom through metadata" 22:04:15 ack john 22:04:23 js: might map to 3.1 level 3 22:04:28 q+ 22:04:39 js: it may need a sc to be written 22:04:42 ack wendy 22:04:42 wendy, you wanted to say, "some of the prog located could be accom through metadata" 22:04:55 agress 22:04:56 zakim, mute me 22:04:56 lmascaro should now be muted 22:05:10 gv: yes 22:05:11 ack y 22:05:51 yh: 2.3 level 3 delivery units have descriptive titles - that is metadata 22:06:23 gv: limited map to 2.4 sc4 22:06:50 ben whats the 1.0 guideline 22:06:54 scribe: david 22:07:10 13.2 22:07:13 In my comment: s/2.3 level 3/2.4 level 3 item 4 22:07:20 zakim, mute me 22:07:20 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 22:07:45 gv: 1.0 guideline 13.2 to 2.4 sc4 22:08:31 ack j 22:08:33 gv: meta data is a tecunique that couldbe used o the folling requirements 22:09:04 jw: i don't think it covers it... that's a tech specific statement 22:10:15 jw: 1.1 and 1.3 can be done with meta data as per Lisa 22:10:39 12.2 22:11:12 asw: frames and how the relate, tech specific, 22:11:26 q+ 22:11:45 js: 1.3? 22:11:50 structural component 22:12:02 gv: butthis talks about whats thepurpose 22:12:16 gv: sounds 2.4 ish 22:12:33 gv: is it advisory? 22:12:45 js: there is a html techniques for it 22:12:52 ack John 22:13:00 q+ John 22:13:12 js: should be more than advsory in html 22:13:51 ack ben 22:13:52 ack Jason 22:13:59 bc: has a place 22:14:21 jw: a frame is purely presentational 22:14:43 g+ 22:14:49 jw: so there will be 1.3 probs 22:15:05 ack John 22:15:09 js: agree 22:15:10 Q+ 22:15:15 ack gr 22:15:59 gv: agree with jason which can be used to convey tructure which trips 1.3 22:16:34 k 22:16:53 -Kerstin_Goldsmith 22:16:53 gv: most uses of fmames would trigger 1.3 22:17:18 js: question: just wondering if it should be discussed in general techniques 22:17:49 jv: we can describe it in presentationrather than elemental form 22:18:07 asw: so what's the decision 22:18:08 +Kerstin_Goldsmith 22:18:23 gv: most uses of frames would require this to meet 1.3 22:20:05 bc: this until user agent has actually been fulfilled 22:20:44 andi what was that last 1.0 one 22:20:50 zakim, close this item 22:20:50 agendum 3 closed 22:20:51 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 22:20:53 4. Baseline [from wendy] 22:21:47 hey andi what was that last one in 1.0 22:22:21 sorry? 22:22:23 zakim, close item 4 22:22:23 agendum 4 closed 22:22:24 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 22:22:25 5. Definition of structure (Issue 506) http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=506 [from wendy] 22:22:25