WCAG WG weekly telecon

3 Feb 2005


See also: IRC log


Bengt, Roberto_Scano, Becky_Gibson, Wendy, Alex_Li, rellero, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Chris, Andi, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Mike
Roberto, Castaldo
andi, david, ben



gv: start off with discussion of charter and participation

Charter and Participation http://www.w3.org/wai/gl/participation.html

gv: all members have to requalify

wc: now under new W3C patent policy
... W3C makes work available royalty free
... organizations who have patents on W3C work need to identify
... when members who are part of a W3C member org re-join, have to disclose any applicable patents
... all others have to go through the "invited experts" process

<rscano> rs: I've done confirmation - as AC Rep for IWA/HWG for me, Roberto Ellero, Roberto Castaldo, Gez Lemon, Luca Mascaro, Sebastiano Nutarelli

<wendy> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/participation.html

wc: first step - only want to review draft
... second step - want to review drafts
... third step - want to become member in good standing
... if want to become member in good standing, have to joing mailing list
... need W3C login and password
... if part of W3C member org, W3C person in your org has to approve
... will take at least 2 business days
... if W3C member org, AC rep has to complete a nomination form

<rellero> The following errors were encountered: Cannot leave a group you're not participating in

wc: if have login already, don't need to ask for it again

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?

<rscano> IMHO patents only if are wcag-specific... not WAI specific.

al: example - patent that allows Web application to function just like a Windows application in terms of keyboard operation.

<bengt> wendy: can only select one of the participation terms ?

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.

<rscano> yes this is right

wc: you can exclude W3C members from having to pay licensing fee
... have 30 days to complete this

<wendy> ACTION: wendy talk with alex, ian, and others about sap patent question

jw: expenses to participate in the working group are an issue

js: Joe Clark and Yvette have raised this issue as well
... issue for invited experts working on their own

<wendy> ACTION: wendy follow up with jason and judy about expense issue in the invited expert agreement

yh: my company will pay for some trips but I can't go on the very expensive ones

wc: issue with maintaining participant in good standing status
... have to complete an invited expert appication for each group you want to join
... all WAI groups have been re-chartered
... contact Wendy if have any issues or questions in completing the forms

Techniques Task Force Update

mc: spent a lot of time reviewing test files
... some list discussion - reviewed yesterday - came to some resolution on a lot of them
... action items resulted - edits to techniques documents and relationship to the guidelines
... CSS technique about using certain syntax for identifying colors - will close by putting in advisory information but not a CSS technique
... soon will be asking Wed participants to review batches of test files and make recommendations on what to do with them
... face to face meeting in Boston at the end of the month

as: registration for the techniques meeting

wc: have to register for the W3C plenary
... will be registration for CSUN meeting
... will be meeting at the Marriott - don't have all the details yet

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

js: it will also help us make sure nothing falls through cracks in the transition

wc: highlighted that looking between 1.0 to 2.0 there are issues starting at priority 2 quesiton marks.

<Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "Most important is that every WCAG 2 level has list of new additions"

wc: andi said that we could just start at priority 1 and 2

<wendy> previous discussion of mapping, priority 1 checkpoints: http://www.w3.org/2005/01/06-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item03

yh: important for users to list what you need to do in level 2 above and beyond what they did in 1.0
... from version 1.0 to 2.0

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

andi: I was just looking at things that had a quesiton mark

gv: we must differentiate when something is changed or diffferent...

andi: 2 pass process, figure out different then go back and elaborate on differences.
... 3.1 started with Ben's mapping...then I looked for SC ...it said related to 4.2 but could not find related one

js: think it maps to 1.3

gv: don't think its tied toany SC...perhaps 1.3 advisory

gv: discuss where it goes
... I think it is not required for conformance... some aspect (related to formating) are required but not like math ML

<Kerstin> 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

asw: 3.3
... mapped 1.3 & 2.4 but could not get sc

gv: 1.3 only advisory no sc

mapped to1.3 no sc - avisory

<lmascaro> the point 1.3 as it considers an ulterior level in XSL technologies?

<ben_> gv: think we should say, not required, advisory in html techniques

<ben_> yh: can we say WCAG isn't tech specific, so we no longer have tech specific info in the guidelines

<ben_> gv: some tech specific (ex. alt text for images) would be required by success criterion

<ben_> 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

<ben_> ac: am I to understand that this req. has been removed b/c it is tech specific?

ac: is there a presentation that says you must use css

<rscano> "use stylesheets for presentation" :)

gv: no, any separation technique is ok

asw: not requiring metadata anymore...

js: might map to 3.1 level 3
... it may need a sc to be written

<Zakim> wendy, you wanted to say, "some of the prog located could be accom through metadata"

<bengt> agress

gv: yes

yh: 2.3 level 3 delivery units have descriptive titles - that is metadata

gv: limited map to 2.4 sc4

ben whats the 1.0 guideline

<ben_> 13.2

<Yvette_Hoitink> In my comment: s/2.3 level 3/2.4 level 3 item 4

gv: 1.0 guideline 13.2 to 2.4 sc4
... meta data is a tecunique that couldbe used o the folling requirements

jw: i don't think it covers it... that's a tech specific statement
... 1.1 and 1.3 can be done with meta data as per Lisa


asw: frames and how the relate, tech specific,

js: 1.3?

structural component

gv: butthis talks about whats thepurpose
... sounds 2.4 ish
... is it advisory?

js: there is a html techniques for it
... should be more than advsory in html

bc: has a place

jw: a frame is purely presentational

jw: so there will be 1.3 probs

js: agree

gv: agree with jason which can be used to convey tructure which trips 1.3


gv: most uses of fmames would trigger 1.3

js: question: just wondering if it should be discussed in general techniques

jv: we can describe it in presentationrather than elemental form

asw: so what's the decision

gv: most uses of frames would require this to meet 1.3

bc: this until user agent has actually been fulfilled

hey andi what was that last one in 1.0

<Andi> 10.2

Definition of structure (Issue 506) http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=506

wc: proposal from John on structure and delivery units and authored units

jw: don't mind having it in but don't think it is particularly helpful

<Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "and/or?"

yh: not sure John has the correct definition

<wendy> Structure:

<wendy> a. The way the parts of an authored unit are organized in relation to each other

<wendy> b. The way a collection of authored units is organized in relation to a

<wendy> delivery unit;

<wendy> c. The way a collection of delivery units is organized

gv: add "and" after each to clarify

<wendy> current defn of structure (19 Nov 2004 draft):

<wendy> structure

<wendy> Structure includes both hierarchical structure of the content and non-hierarchical relationships such as cross-references, or the correspondence between header and data cells in a table. The hierarchical structure of content represents changes in context. For example,

<wendy> 1. A book is divided into chapters, paragraphs, lists, etc. Chapter titles help the reader anticipate the meaning of the following paragraphs. Lists clearly indicate separate, yet related ideas. All of these divisions help the reader anticipate changes in context.

<wendy> 2. A bicycle is divided into wheels and a frame. Further, a wheel is divided into a tire and a rim. In an image of the bicycle, one group of circles and lines becomes "wheel" while another group becomes "frame."

<wendy> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#structuredef

gv: recommendation to use John's definition and follow with some examples

<wendy> ACTION: js add examples to structure defn

Issue 848: accept Loretta's proposal to reword? http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=848

gv: proposal to substitute user agent for plug-in

wc: if using UAAG for baseline, should use "user agent" here

<wendy> http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/glossary.html#def-user-agent

<lmascaro> but when it is the plugin to contain the user-agent type real player?

gv: software and doc components together have to conform to UAAG

<wendy> "The software and documentation components that together, conform to the requirements of this document." s/"this document"/UAAG 1.0

Issue 887: accept Ben's explanation and close this bug? http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=887

gv: Access Board issue - principles are not testable
... principles are only meant to be titles, not testable. SC are testable.

js: thought we decided that guidelines were to be written as imperatives not as testable propositions.

gv: clarifies response - not that guidelines are testable, SC are testable.

jw: SC should be interpreted in the context of the guideline and GL should be interpreted in the context of the principle

<wendy> that fits well under: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#structuredef

gv: js to take a plain language pass at this

wc: paragraph under "how to read this document"

<wendy> ACTION: john and jason write paragraph to fit under "how to read this doc" that explains that when doubt in interpretation look to thte level above

gv: old issue from Greg Gay - minimize use of repetitive and non-meaningful content

Issue 499: covered in guideline 1.1? http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=499

gv: bc thinks this is covered under 1.1 gl about non-text content that does not convey any information

js: HTML technique about alt=""

lg: what about not including "link to" in your link text, etc.?

gv: do we want to put this in as advisory or do we want to require this?
... requiring it may get us into trouble with some things we don't mean for it to apply to

jw: not testable
... could be interpreted to cover items we don't want it to cover

gv: moves we close the bug with text Wendy proposed in 1.1

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: john and jason write paragraph to fit under "how to
... read this doc" that explains that when doubt in interpretation
... look to thte level above
[NEW] ACTION: js add examples to structure defn
[NEW] ACTION: wendy follow up with jason and judy about expense
... issue in the invited expert agreement
[NEW] ACTION: wendy talk with alex, ian, and others about sap
... patent question
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.109 (CVS log)
$Date: 2005/02/03 22:52:15 $