IRC log of wai-wcag on 2005-02-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:00:52 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
15:00:52 [RRSAgent]
is logging to
15:01:01 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:09 [shadi]
zakim, this is wcag
15:01:09 [Zakim]
ok, shadi; that matches WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM
15:01:33 [Zakim]
15:01:36 [shadi]
ben, does it usually work for you?
15:01:41 [ben]
15:02:01 [shadi]
hmmm. i'll send a note to ralph, master of zakim
15:02:21 [Zakim]
15:02:27 [ben]
zakim, ??P28 is Ben
15:02:27 [Zakim]
+Ben; got it
15:02:40 [Zakim]
15:02:42 [Zakim]
15:02:54 [ben]
zakim, ??P31 is David
15:02:54 [Zakim]
+David; got it
15:02:59 [Zakim]
15:03:15 [wendy]
wendy has joined #wai-wcag
15:03:19 [ben]
zakim, [IPcaller] is Chris
15:03:19 [Zakim]
+Chris; got it
15:03:21 [Zakim]
15:03:32 [Zakim]
15:03:34 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:03:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Becky_Gibson, [Microsoft], Chris, Ben, David, Shadi, Wendy, Tim_Boland, Alex_Li
15:03:44 [wendy]
zakim, microsoft is jenae
15:03:44 [Zakim]
+jenae; got it
15:03:54 [Zakim]
15:04:12 [ken]
ken has joined #wai-wcag
15:04:18 [wendy]
scribe: david
15:04:22 [Zakim]
15:04:27 [David_]
David_ has joined #wai-wcag
15:04:36 [ben]
zakim, [IPcaller] is Alistair
15:04:36 [Zakim]
+Alistair; got it
15:04:37 [David_]
15:04:42 [Zakim]
15:04:44 [David_]
15:05:29 [wendy]
15:05:31 [AliG]
AliG has joined #wai-wcag
15:05:42 [wendy]
agenda+ checklists
15:05:53 [David_]
zakim, who's on the phone
15:05:53 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who's on the phone', David_
15:06:00 [wendy]
agenda+ Requirements for checklists & techniques
15:06:23 [wendy]
agenda+ title
15:06:26 [David_]
zakim, who is on the phone
15:06:26 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the phone', David_
15:06:39 [David_]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:06:39 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Becky_Gibson, jenae, Chris, Ben, David, Shadi, Wendy, Tim_Boland, Alex_Li, Ken_Kipnes, Alistair, John_Slatin
15:06:44 [wendy]
agenda+ alt text test 195 -
15:07:04 [wendy]
agenda+ alt text test 192 -
15:07:39 [wendy]
agenda+ alt text test 60
15:07:39 [Michael]
Michael has joined #wai-wcag
15:07:54 [Zakim]
15:08:04 [wendy]
agenda+ other reviewed test files
15:08:13 [wendy]
agenda+ Agenda for Technical Plenary
15:08:20 [wendy]
agenda+ Action item reminder
15:08:25 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 1
15:08:25 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "checklists" taken up [from wendy]
15:08:38 [wendy]
15:09:18 [David_]
ben: talks about cheklists model page 1, 2 ,3
15:10:12 [David_]
page one, two interogation phase, tie into aplicability, to filter out unnecesary tech
15:10:47 [David_]
page 3 provides summary of what you chose, and beow that there are checklst items
15:10:59 [David_]
top left would have a status icon
15:11:23 [David_]
status depends on the items checked off below
15:12:09 [David_]
each checklist item is true false with a reference to the test procedusre or the techniaue, both of which are linked
15:12:19 [Becky_Gibson]
15:12:49 [wendy]
ack becky
15:14:04 [David_]
AL: you mean I have to ALL the tests in order to conform
15:14:16 [shadi]
15:14:28 [David_]
BC: yup but there may be alternative ways
15:15:03 [David_]
AG: you can scope it for each web section
15:15:31 [wendy]
that's tim boland
15:15:39 [David_]
TB: who is it designed for
15:16:14 [David_]
BC: either designer or reviewer, could be several people
15:17:10 [David_]
ag: likely an evaluator would have tools to help them
15:17:48 [David_]
js: my understanding is that conformance can only be made at the level of the delivery unit
15:18:29 [David_]
aa conformance clame for the site says every delivery unit conforms
15:19:10 [David_]
ag: not the best way to look at it because here may be some overall priciples that would fail the site even though delivery units are ok
15:20:22 [David_]
ag: should be a series of questions "are you dealing swith whole site", or "this section only etc...."
15:20:34 [David_]
15:21:38 [David_]
shadi: builing a manual evaluation tool, I think it ias a bit too manual could become too big to go through one by one on, can we allow evaluation moduals to fill out part of this check list
15:22:10 [David_]
i don't see that built in, it is user based evaluation rather than automation
15:22:35 [David_]
ag: this is just a mock up, it could be put into a tool if we get the design riight
15:23:00 [David_]
bc: it published in TR version must be kitchen sink
15:24:02 [David_]
js: checklist items for general techniques, generalitems human testible, the technolgy specific could be automated
15:25:02 [wendy]
wendy has joined #wai-wcag
15:25:06 [David_]
al:Itcould be difficult to comply
15:25:45 [David_]
bc: is there goig to be an equivalent facilitation, ie, i have a better technique don't want to use yours, should be ok
15:27:22 [David_]
al: if people meet the big picture, then it's ok,
15:27:43 [David_]
js: techniques docs non normative so they canbe updated
15:29:22 [David_]
ag: 2 issues, 1) how to handle feedback from users about new techniues 2) applying these techs, they are testable techniques must be prescriptive, and udated as things change.
15:29:31 [ChrisR]
15:29:38 [David_]
js: big issue because of time commitments etc..
15:29:48 [David_]
ag: without it techs will be out of date
15:29:57 [Michael]
ack s
15:29:59 [Michael]
ack j
15:30:08 [Michael]
ack c
15:30:53 [shadi]
15:30:54 [David_]
cr: equivalent not a good idea, they should not be allowed to comply
15:31:21 [Michael]
ack j
15:31:32 [David_]
dm: undermines our hard work descerning the technicques
15:32:05 [ChrisR]
15:32:07 [wendy]
15:32:07 [David_]
js: I want this to be the bar, now your talented developers can come up with stuff we didn't think about
15:32:08 [Michael]
ack s
15:32:36 [David_]
shadi: trying to understand the target audience?
15:33:29 [David_]
i've been looking into describing them in rdf. taking them as machine readable, tools can do them or pass thm o to the enduser fo fill in the blanks
15:33:46 [David_]
wcag role to publish model that tools adhere to and follow
15:33:47 [wendy]
them == wcag 2.0 techniques
15:34:10 [Michael]
ack c
15:34:57 [ben]
15:35:06 [Michael]
q+ to say you can conform to wcag w/o following techs
15:35:18 [Michael]
ack w
15:35:22 [David_]
cr: i share jon's concern aabout flexibility, want to make sure best techniques in doc...but allowing user to do it themselve allows peole who don't conform to claim conform. must be able to update techniques to accomodat at least 1x per year, the other way opens flood gates
15:36:17 [David_]
wc: i'm concerned about the stuff we've added only deals in HTML, i think we need to give innovation
15:36:29 [AliG]
15:36:38 [Michael]
ack b
15:37:06 [David_]
bc: agree with wendy, besides anyone who does it is volunariy anyway
15:37:23 [David_]
we can't be web police
15:37:25 [Michael]
ack m
15:37:25 [Zakim]
Michael, you wanted to say you can conform to wcag w/o following techs
15:37:26 [wendy]
q+ to say, "if we provide enough info, should put ourselves out of business. ppl should know enough to create innovative, accessible applications"
15:37:57 [Michael]
ack t
15:37:59 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
15:38:11 [David_]
mc: agree, with ben and wendy, but yes we should update frequently
15:38:16 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Tim_Boland (90%), Alistair (48%)
15:38:24 [wendy]
zakim, mute alistair
15:38:24 [Zakim]
Alistair should now be muted
15:38:53 [wendy]
alistair - there is a lot of noise coming from your line. i've muted you for the moment. if you wish to unmute type "zakim, unmute me"
15:39:05 [Michael]
ack a
15:39:08 [David_]
tb:agree, I' hope there will be updated
15:39:09 [wendy]
ack a
15:39:22 [wendy]
zakim, unmute alistair
15:39:22 [Zakim]
Alistair should no longer be muted
15:40:11 [Michael]
q+ to say non-public technologies can conform to wcag but we can't create techniques
15:40:26 [David_]
ag: agree with tim, but I've seen 2 countries, if they do not see us updating they go and update their own guidlines. hope wcag 2.0 will call things back together
15:40:36 [wendy]
ack w
15:40:36 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say, "if we provide enough info, should put ourselves out of business. ppl should know enough to create innovative, accessible applications"
15:42:24 [David_]
wc: i hope that we will be able to put ourselves out of a job, but people do need to know..."yes this is accessble" but then we can't go out of business and we wan't to go out of business
15:43:20 [AliG]
15:43:32 [Michael]
ack j
15:45:03 [David_]
js: jason and I took action to update "how to read this doc" i we say "if you still can't figure out, and take most generous interpretation of sc, and guidine and principle, in a principled way to procedd in abscence of understanding to sc perfectly..
15:45:46 [David_]
our job is to produce materials that tell people what the end result, we are not in the evaluations business,
15:45:59 [Michael]
ack m
15:45:59 [Zakim]
Michael, you wanted to say non-public technologies can conform to wcag but we can't create techniques
15:46:02 [David_]
we give them information they they can use to make those tools
15:47:24 [David_]
mc: support john, i see our value as good advice, and bottom up part of developing guidelines
15:48:25 [Michael]
ack a
15:48:28 [David_]
I would like to see other orgs taking on the work based on what we are doing
15:49:14 [David_]
ag: we need industrial strength feedback mech but perhaps a local level, and these tech could be forwarded to way.
15:49:22 [David_]
15:50:09 [David_]
ag: we must write very prescriptive things , nice to do there own thing but I think it needs approval
15:50:22 [David_]
zakim, who's making noise?
15:50:36 [Zakim]
David_, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Alistair (60%), Michael_Cooper (99%)
15:51:03 [David_]
wc: what do you guys need on checklists?
15:51:17 [Zakim]
15:51:41 [David_]
bc: need discussion on equiv facilitation but if we are ok with basic structure, them we need to flesh it out
15:51:48 [AliG]
15:52:26 [wendy]
ack a
15:52:57 [David_]
ag: i think valuable to look at aplicabity conditions
15:53:37 [Zakim]
15:55:24 [Zakim]
15:55:29 [David_]
wc: issues we spoke about good for requirements doc...cope, goals, how we expect t to live on... great far as checklists, need to keep talking about tests, and appp conditions
15:56:05 [David_]
15:56:57 [wendy]
action: someone add to requirements from today's discussion and perhaps summarize in intro to wcag (our general philosphy about how this to live in the future, our approach, and philosophy)
15:57:02 [David_]
ag: we heard about equiv facilitation, itsa big point can we get more clarification and why it is required
15:57:23 [David_]
bc: we are divided on issue, so we could take it to big group
15:58:25 [wendy]
action: John send previous writing about wcag 2.0 approach to mailing list as initial proposal/discussion starter for an intro to wcag about philosphy/approach.
15:59:16 [David_]
js: careful about equiv facilitaiton, it is law term....specific...let's use another term...could undermine our work, confusion openings to say they do not have to use the web.
16:00:14 [David_]
katie are yu up after break?
16:00:15 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
16:00:15 [Zakim]
agendum 1 closed
16:00:17 [Zakim]
I see 8 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:00:18 [Zakim]
2. Requirements for checklists & techniques [from wendy]
16:00:21 [Zakim]
16:00:22 [Zakim]
16:00:26 [wendy]
zakim, ping me in 5 minutes
16:00:26 [Zakim]
ok, wendy
16:00:27 [Zakim]
16:00:28 [Zakim]
16:05:16 [David_]
zakim, ping me in 1 minute
16:05:16 [Zakim]
ok, David_
16:05:26 [Zakim]
wendy, you asked to be pinged at this time
16:05:59 [Zakim]
16:06:02 [Zakim]
16:06:17 [Zakim]
David_, you asked to be pinged at this time
16:06:53 [Michael]
zakim's not answering
16:06:56 [Becky_Gibson]
scribe: becky
16:07:33 [Zakim]
16:07:35 [Michael]
zakim, ??P15 is Michael_Cooper
16:07:35 [Zakim]
+Michael_Cooper; got it
16:08:14 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
16:08:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Becky_Gibson, jenae, Chris, Ben, Shadi, Wendy, Ken_Kipnes, Alistair, John_Slatin, ??P11, Michael_Cooper
16:08:28 [wendy]
is P11 David?
16:11:25 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 2
16:11:37 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Requirements for checklists & techniques" taken up [from wendy]
16:11:53 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: prev review of gen techs and test files we identified some changes needed
16:12:24 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: reorganized the documents some
16:12:36 [wendy]
16:12:50 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: now intro section for gen. req. and section for techs and section for checklists - tests are under checklists
16:13:10 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: is this new organization ok to proceed with?
16:13:54 [wendy]
ack q
16:13:55 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: req. doc isn't clear about what happens where (now that we have added more and more pieces)
16:14:01 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
16:14:06 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: will continue to work on this
16:14:11 [shadi]
16:14:15 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 11 (25%), David (7%), John_Slatin (13%), Michael_Cooper (76%), Shadi (5%)
16:14:48 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
16:14:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Becky_Gibson, jenae, Chris, Ben, Shadi, Wendy, Ken_Kipnes, Alistair, John_Slatin, David, Michael_Cooper
16:15:26 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: thinks structure will work - looks good
16:15:52 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: meeting tomorrow for more info about getting thru reccommendation track
16:16:05 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: these goals should be in our req. docs
16:17:17 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
16:17:17 [Zakim]
agendum 2 closed
16:17:18 [Zakim]
I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:17:19 [Zakim]
3. title [from wendy]
16:17:24 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 3
16:17:24 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "title" taken up [from wendy]
16:17:45 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: 4 more tests to list all having to do with title
16:17:54 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: some comments but not much disagreement
16:18:08 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: doc must have a title, title must not be empty
16:18:17 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: some discussion about what 'empty' means
16:18:43 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: propose the name from "title is not empty" to "title contains text"
16:19:03 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: and indicate the text does contain just whitespace
16:19:15 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: title describes document
16:19:28 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: some discussion abt this but WCAG says describe
16:19:44 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: are these 4 tests ok or do we need to do more?
16:20:13 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: sc actually says "has descriptive title" which is different than title describes
16:21:13 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: mc comment about title outside of head won't validate
16:21:46 [Becky_Gibson]
js: people talk about level one heading describing the page - that is outside of the head but title can't be
16:22:42 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: when things are bad html do they still work as they are supposed to or do they break - sometimes they work even when
16:22:56 [Becky_Gibson]
wrong - is an accessibility issue
16:23:03 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: are first 3 tests ok?
16:23:38 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: title describes the document - is that ok? should it be summarize, etc
16:23:54 [Becky_Gibson]
js: how about "title is descriptive" so it matches SC
16:24:16 [Becky_Gibson]
js: that sounds like a general tech. - automated tool can't pick that up
16:24:45 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: test 54 sounds like it is part of general tech suite
16:25:05 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: 2 categories of test: manual and automated
16:25:40 [ben]
16:25:46 [wendy]
16:25:54 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: title can be tech specific (is there a technology that doesn't have a title?)
16:26:02 [wendy]
16:26:24 [Becky_Gibson]
js: are there technologies that don't support a title?
16:26:28 [wendy]
ack b
16:26:38 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: there are enuf techs that have title that is ok to make a general tech.
16:26:57 [Becky_Gibson]
js: david is right, have to make sure to consider technology support before moving to general techs.
16:27:02 [AliG]
16:27:35 [Becky_Gibson]
cr; where are we with 54 - title describes doc?
16:27:53 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: put it in a holding pattern - it will likely move to general tests.
16:28:12 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: have to decide if will have tech. specific test or general test
16:28:31 [Becky_Gibson]
js: propse changing title to "title is descriptive of the document"
16:28:37 [AliG]
16:28:52 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: will leave the test in for now with the change in test title
16:29:10 [Becky_Gibson]
debate about identifies or labels wording
16:29:34 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: general agreement on the test and we can tweak the language later
16:30:01 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: if change the title can we take it to straw poll?
16:30:18 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: depends upon ben, john and wendy conversations about general tests
16:30:24 [Becky_Gibson]
js: prefer not to go to straw poll yet
16:30:31 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: leave it as pending
16:30:39 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: will change the name of 54 and change to pending
16:30:53 [AliG]
16:31:02 [Becky_Gibson]
js: other 3 will got to straw poll (50,51,53)
16:31:31 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: are we going to a two state poll? accept/reject and comment
16:31:57 [wendy]
ack a
16:32:00 [ben]
16:32:06 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: other 5 states were confusing so prefer accept/reject and comment
16:32:25 [Becky_Gibson]
ag: is there a decision that general techs are only manually tested
16:33:06 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: no decisions - just some discussion in small group (Ben, Wendy, John) and are working on a proposal
16:33:27 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: decision about manual or automatic testing is not in WCAG scope
16:33:34 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
16:33:40 [AliG]
16:33:48 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 11 (86%), John_Slatin (17%), Michael_Cooper (4%), Becky_Gibson (31%), Chris (0%), Ben (0%), Alistair (95%)
16:34:10 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: no proposal yet - just giving the group a heads up that proposal is coming
16:34:11 [AliG]
16:34:39 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: would prefer required vs. optional since all are valid tests
16:34:55 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: but that is at technique level
16:35:08 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: if not required by guidelines than test shouldn't be in there
16:35:35 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: but there may be tests that are not required but are helpful (good idea to look at this)
16:35:43 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: those wouldn't be in the test suite
16:36:01 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: if a technique is optional, it doesn't have any tests associated with it?
16:36:06 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: do people agree?
16:36:36 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: perhaps we can collect them but they are not required for conformance so aren't part of WCAG test suite
16:36:57 [Becky_Gibson]
js: if there is an optional tech. it provides one possible way of meeting S
16:37:12 [Becky_Gibson]
JS SC and it can be used to support conformance clain
16:37:28 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: opt. tech. might be good advice - might work for one group or not another
16:37:41 [Becky_Gibson]
js: so if use only optional techs then can't satisfy SC?
16:37:45 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: yes
16:38:15 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: can straw poll can we just say accept/reject and comments can be accept only as optional
16:38:24 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: does that give us the info that we need?
16:38:38 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: but if no such thing as optional than that should't come up
16:38:49 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: but there are some that we want to reject outright
16:39:10 [Becky_Gibson]
js: proposed req. optional, reject
16:39:24 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: accept as required; accept as optional; reject - ?
16:39:53 [Becky_Gibson]
js: designatate as optional means it can't be used for conformance
16:40:26 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: will make poll with accept as required, accept as optional, reject, comment
16:40:51 [Becky_Gibson]
js: modify to good advice but not required for conformance
16:41:11 [Becky_Gibson]
js: optional but can't be used to claim conformance
16:41:33 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: still somewhat unsure about what we mean by required and optioanl
16:42:07 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: is there a publishing deadline at the end of the week?
16:42:11 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: yes
16:42:31 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: not sure we have enough to publish internal draft at end of week
16:42:54 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: need to publish something - if we keep pushing deadlines back we develop a habit
16:43:18 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: not really anything of substance to add to GL so why waste time with it
16:43:27 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: wants to publish test suite
16:43:47 [Becky_Gibson]
js: several changes to general techs so want to publish
16:43:52 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: one change in css
16:44:17 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: we haven't published anything since Nov. 19 and we don't have many changes so should be a wake up
16:44:25 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: call to the group that we need to get going!
16:44:57 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: can we get the straw poll done so can vote by end of week and get more tests in the suite
16:44:59 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: yes
16:45:03 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
16:45:03 [Zakim]
agendum 3 closed
16:45:05 [Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:45:07 [Zakim]
4. alt text test 195 - [from wendy]
16:45:11 [wendy]
16:45:18 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: go to Becky's batch of tests
16:45:24 [Zakim]
16:45:34 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 7
16:45:36 [Zakim]
agendum 7. "other reviewed test files" taken up [from wendy]
16:45:37 [Becky_Gibson]
sorry hit the wrong button be right back
16:46:04 [Zakim]
16:46:24 [wendy]
scribe: wendy
16:47:04 [wendy]
bg: said that any input elements must have tabindex. uaag requires sequential navigation. putting tabindex has some implications.
16:47:13 [wendy]
bg: it puts it in the beginning of the tab order
16:47:31 [David_]
yup you did give me test michael sorry
16:47:59 [wendy]
bg: the technique has several editorial notes that say need to describe default navigation is generally ok.
16:48:10 [wendy]
bg: feeling that they should be rejected. or if stay, make optional.
16:48:21 [wendy]
bg: tabindex can make confusing if not careful how to do it.
16:48:34 [wendy]
mc, js, bc agree should not be required
16:48:48 [wendy]
bc: perhaps a condition where could be required, but need to describe
16:48:58 [wendy]
js: level 3 criterion that could map to
16:49:38 [wendy]
bg: the test currently maps to level 2. if make it optional, update it to map to 2.4 #x level 3
16:49:52 [wendy]
16:51:19 [wendy]
resolution: reject tests #138, #139, #140, #141, #142 (or make them optional)
16:52:22 [wendy]
saying right now - not required
16:52:26 [wendy]
bc: they are never musts
16:52:36 [wendy]
js: need a test for if tabindex provided, how to do it properly
16:54:04 [wendy]
action: chris and michael (and maybe john in general) clarify techniques/tests for using tabindex properly (if provided, do so ala....)
16:54:12 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
16:54:12 [Zakim]
agendum 7 closed
16:54:13 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:54:15 [Zakim]
4. alt text test 195 - [from wendy]
16:54:19 [wendy]
zakim, close item 4
16:54:19 [Zakim]
agendum 4 closed
16:54:20 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:54:21 [Zakim]
5. alt text test 192 - [from wendy]
16:54:27 [wendy]
zakim, close item 5
16:54:27 [Zakim]
agendum 5 closed
16:54:28 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:54:29 [Zakim]
6. alt text test 60 [from wendy]
16:54:33 [wendy]
zackim, close item 6
16:54:37 [wendy]
zakim, close item 6
16:54:37 [Zakim]
agendum 6 closed
16:54:38 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:54:40 [Zakim]
8. Agenda for Technical Plenary [from wendy]
16:54:43 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: meeting 2/28 and 3/1 for techs faces 2 face
16:54:45 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 8
16:54:45 [Zakim]
agendum 8. "Agenda for Technical Plenary" taken up [from wendy]
16:54:48 [wendy]
scribe: becky
16:55:05 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: sending delegates to some of the other meetngs during the plenary
16:55:36 [Michael]
oI18N (Michael, John)
16:55:38 [Michael]
16:55:40 [Michael]
16:55:41 [Michael]
oTimed text (Michael, Wendy)
16:55:43 [Michael]
oQA (Tim, Jenae)
16:55:44 [Michael]
oUA (Ben)
16:55:46 [Michael]
oPFWG, EO (John)
16:56:04 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: device independence - we don't have a rep. yet
16:56:43 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: will probabably attend DI - have done so before
16:57:01 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: talk about requirements; techs; test files
16:57:09 [Becky_Gibson]
on Monday & Tuesday at F2F
16:57:21 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: try to get drafts in good shape
16:57:41 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: have a public WD after WCAG F2F in LA a few weeks later
16:57:48 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: need techs docs in good shape
16:57:59 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: look at end to end analysis; over all look and feel
16:58:25 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: come up with a plan to get to recommendation - Wendy is really only one that understands that at this time
16:59:26 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: good to invite Steve, Tim or Ian (directors and COO)
16:59:41 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: so can hear about W3c process directly
16:59:48 [wendy]
s/(directors and COO)/(director, COO, head of comm)
16:59:58 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: action items most people on this call do have a list of tests to reviews
17:00:14 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: please comment on your assigned tests to the list in the next few days
17:00:22 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
17:00:22 [Zakim]
agendum 8 closed
17:00:23 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
17:00:23 [Michael]
Action items at:
17:00:24 [Zakim]
9. Action item reminder [from wendy]
17:00:28 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 9
17:00:28 [Zakim]
agendum 9. "Action item reminder" taken up [from wendy]
17:00:29 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: many people have action items posted to bugzilla
17:00:32 [Michael]
17:00:45 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make log world
17:00:51 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: please review
17:01:03 [AliG]
17:01:19 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: and make an effort to knock off - volunteer to take other items if you see ones you can handle
17:01:38 [Zakim]
17:01:58 [wendy]
ack b
17:01:58 [Michael]
ack b
17:02:01 [Michael]
ack a
17:02:30 [Becky_Gibson]
ag: have been reading techs and GL - have non-text content defined in GL but in other docs refer to more specific terms
17:02:47 [Becky_Gibson]
js: general techniques?
17:03:36 [Becky_Gibson]
ag: specifically HTML techniques - these reference images directly but might it be better to refer to "non-text content" as in the rest of the docs
17:03:59 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: too big to handle at end of call - can we take this up offline and add to agenda at later meeting
17:04:08 [Becky_Gibson]
ag: hard to address to the list - hard issue to describe
17:04:27 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: either post to list or start by addressing with Michael directly
17:04:51 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: got through all items on agenda except alt tests - yeah! good progess today
17:04:58 [Zakim]
17:04:59 [Zakim]
17:04:59 [Zakim]
17:05:00 [Zakim]
17:05:03 [Zakim]
17:05:04 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has left #wai-wcag
17:05:06 [Zakim]
17:05:07 [Zakim]
17:05:08 [wendy]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:05:08 [Zakim]
17:05:10 [Zakim]
17:05:11 [Zakim]
17:05:12 [AliG]
AliG has left #wai-wcag
17:05:13 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has ended
17:05:15 [Zakim]
Attendees were Becky_Gibson, [Microsoft], Ben, Shadi, David, Wendy, Chris, Tim_Boland, Alex_Li, jenae, Ken_Kipnes, Alistair, John_Slatin, Michael_Cooper
17:05:19 [shadi]
shadi has left #wai-wcag
17:06:25 [wendy]
Present: Becky_Gibson, Ben, Shadi, David, Wendy, Chris, Tim_Boland, Alex_Li, jenae, Ken_Kipnes, Alistair, John_Slatin, Michael_Cooper
17:06:33 [wendy]
zakim, bye
17:06:33 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
17:07:16 [wendy]
regrets: lisa seeman
17:07:22 [wendy]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:08:24 [wendy]
Meeting: TTF of the WCAG WG weekly meeting
17:08:32 [wendy]
Chair: Michael
17:10:27 [wendy]
s/scribe: david/scribe: David_
17:10:34 [wendy]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:12:49 [wendy]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:15:03 [wendy]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:17:17 [wendy]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:18:18 [wendy]
weird. change isn't going through.
17:21:10 [wendy]
s/scribe: becky/scribe: Becky_Gibson
18:17:20 [wendy]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:47:22 [wendy]
RRSAgent, bye
18:47:22 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items:
18:47:22 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: someone add to requirements from today's discussion and perhaps summarize in intro to wcag (our general philosphy about how this to live in the future, our approach, and philosophy) [1]
18:47:22 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:47:22 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: John send previous writing about wcag 2.0 approach to mailing list as initial proposal/discussion starter for an intro to wcag about philosphy/approach. [2]
18:47:22 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:47:22 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: chris and michael (and maybe john in general) clarify techniques/tests for using tabindex properly (if provided, do so ala....) [3]
18:47:22 [RRSAgent]
recorded in