IRC log of wai-wcag on 2005-02-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:20:52 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
19:20:52 [RRSAgent]
is logging to
19:21:01 [wendy]
Meeting: WCAG WG weekly telecon
19:21:31 [wendy]
19:22:35 [ben]
ben has joined #wai-wcag
20:35:25 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #wai-wcag
20:35:38 [wendy]
agenda+ 2.4 L3 SC1 (Reading order) <>
20:35:56 [wendy]
agenda+ 2.4 L3 SC2 (Focus order)
20:35:58 [wendy]
20:36:11 [wendy]
agenda+ Brief Intro to Checklist Format
20:36:14 [wendy]
20:37:23 [wendy]
zakim, agenda order is 3, 1, 2
20:37:23 [Zakim]
ok, wendy
20:37:27 [wendy]
20:37:51 [wendy]
agenda+ 2.4 L3 SC3 (Images have structure) <>
20:38:05 [wendy]
agenda+ 2.4 L3 SC4 (page titles) <>
20:38:18 [wendy]
agenda+ 2.4 L2 SC2 <>
20:38:28 [wendy]
agenda+ 2.4 L2 SC1 (Table of contents) <>
20:38:38 [wendy]
agenda+ 2.4 L2 SC3 (Skipping repeated content) <>
20:38:50 [wendy]
agenda+ baseline
20:40:08 [wendy]
Regrets: Alan Chuter, Roberto Castaldo, WATANABE Takayuki, Sailesh Panchang
20:41:03 [wendy]
zakim, this will be wcag
20:41:03 [Zakim]
ok, wendy; I see WAI_WCAG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 19 minutes
20:41:10 [wendy]
zakim, ping me in 17 minutes
20:41:10 [Zakim]
ok, wendy
20:49:08 [Yvette_Hoitink]
Yvette_Hoitink has joined #wai-wcag
20:49:14 [Yvette_Hoitink]
Hi Bendy ;-)
20:52:21 [Yvette_Hoitink]
just kidding, I saw both your names and remembered the slip one of us made in Dublin
20:52:26 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started
20:52:33 [Zakim]
20:52:38 [Yvette_Hoitink]
when you said you were used to being called Bindy cause your wife's name is Mindy, right?
20:52:47 [ben]
20:53:07 [Yvette_Hoitink]
Somehow 'Remvette' or 'Yvco' doesn't really work as well ;-)
20:53:16 [Yvette_Hoitink]
(my fiance is called Remco)
20:54:22 [LucaMascaro]
LucaMascaro has joined #wai-wcag
20:54:49 [Yvette_Hoitink]
Hi Luca, are you new here?
20:56:51 [LucaMascaro]
Yes, i'm a newbye from the working group. I'm a IWA-HWG member :)
20:57:05 [Michael]
Michael has joined #wai-wcag
20:58:10 [Zakim]
wendy, you asked to be pinged at this time
20:58:50 [Yvette_Hoitink]
Ah, another one of Roberto Scanos recrutes? :-)
20:59:04 [LucaMascaro]
Yes :)
20:59:13 [Yvette_Hoitink]
Are you from Italy too?
20:59:43 [tecks]
tecks has joined #wai-wcag
20:59:47 [LucaMascaro]
No, i'm from switzerland, but i speak italian and francais
20:59:58 [Yvette_Hoitink]
Cool! I'm from the Netherlands
21:00:01 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has joined #wai-wcag
21:00:01 [Zakim]
21:00:10 [tecks]
Hello all...will call in in a bit. Is anyone on the phone yet?
21:00:15 [Yvette_Hoitink]
I don't think we had a Schweitzer yet
21:00:32 [Yvette_Hoitink]
Schweizer/Schweitzer? I don't remember
21:00:36 [Yvette_Hoitink]
o well
21:00:54 [LucaMascaro]
I'm from tessin, in lugano
21:01:02 [Zakim]
21:01:03 [ben_]
ben_ has joined #wai-wcag
21:01:18 [Zakim]
21:01:21 [Yvette_Hoitink]
That's a nice part of Switzerland, I was there once during a holiday
21:01:21 [Zakim]
21:01:22 [Zakim]
21:01:28 [Zakim]
21:01:33 [David]
David has joined #wai-wcag
21:01:38 [MattSEA]
MattSEA has joined #wai-wcag
21:01:52 [Zakim]
21:02:01 [Zakim]
21:02:05 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
21:02:05 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [Microsoft], ??P0, Michael_Cooper, Alex_Li, [IPcaller], Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Matt, Wendy, Yvette_Hoitink
21:02:08 [Zakim]
21:02:12 [Becky_Gibson]
Becky_Gibson has joined #wai-wcag
21:02:13 [LucaMascaro]
Yes, is a very nice region :)
21:02:15 [ben_]
zakim, ??P7 is Gregg_and_Ben
21:02:15 [Zakim]
+Gregg_and_Ben; got it
21:02:24 [Becky_Gibson]
joining call soon - finishing up another call
21:02:24 [wendy]
zakim, Microsoft is Mike
21:02:24 [Zakim]
+Mike; got it
21:02:34 [gregg]
gregg has joined #wai-wcag
21:02:34 [wendy]
zakim, ??P0 is David
21:02:34 [Zakim]
+David; got it
21:02:50 [Zakim]
21:02:51 [wendy]
zakim, IPcaller is Chris
21:02:52 [Zakim]
+Chris; got it
21:02:57 [Zakim]
21:02:58 [wendy]
zakim, ??P9 is Doyle
21:02:59 [Zakim]
+Doyle; got it
21:03:26 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
21:03:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Mike, David, Michael_Cooper, Alex_Li, Chris, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Matt, Wendy, Yvette_Hoitink, Gregg_and_Ben, Doyle, Bengt_Farre
21:04:01 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, who's making noise?
21:04:07 [LucaMascaro]
who is me?
21:04:10 [Zakim]
21:04:15 [Yvette_Hoitink]
Luca, did you dial in yet?
21:04:17 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: David (5%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (46%), Mike (3%), Gregg_and_Ben (9%), Bengt_Farre (43%), Doyle (25%),
21:04:21 [Zakim]
... Wendy (3%)
21:04:24 [Zakim]
21:04:32 [Zakim]
21:05:23 [Zakim]
21:05:41 [LucaMascaro]
zakim, I am Luca_Mascaro
21:05:42 [Zakim]
ok, LucaMascaro, I now associate you with Luca_Mascaro
21:06:37 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 1
21:06:37 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "2.4 L3 SC1 (Reading order) <>" taken up [from wendy]
21:06:48 [LucaMascaro]
Zakim, mute me
21:06:48 [Zakim]
Luca_Mascaro should now be muted
21:06:49 [wendy]
21:06:50 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, mute me
21:06:50 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:07:01 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 3
21:07:01 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Brief Intro to Checklist Format" taken up [from wendy]
21:07:08 [wendy]
scribe: wendy
21:07:15 [wendy]
starting with TTF summary
21:08:13 [wendy]
mc: discussed the question, "must you follow our techniques/tests to conform?" if that's teh case, then we'd have to provide techs/tests for variety of technologies and be able to address changes quickly and deal w/internaional landscape.
21:08:32 [Zakim]
21:08:36 [wendy]
mc: therefore, difficult to do however if don't, people may take greater license than we'd intended.
21:08:46 [wendy]
mc: still working on requirements. starting to gel.
21:09:00 [wendy]
mc: requirements include checklists, general techs, test cases, techniques
21:09:07 [wendy]
mc: starting to speed up process of reviewing test cases.
21:09:18 [wendy]
mc: need to be able to approve test cases.
21:09:37 [wendy]
mc: a test case required for conformance (just for html at this time), means that content would have to follow test cases.
21:09:55 [wendy]
mc: decided that there are some test cases we feel are optional (not required for optional). a "holding bin" for now.
21:10:02 [wendy]
mc: some tests we've scrapped (went too far)
21:10:22 [wendy]
mc: checklists and test cases taking up majority of attention. techs need to proceed. lots of work to do.
21:10:25 [Zakim]
21:10:29 [wendy]
mc: assigning action items to people.
21:10:42 [wendy]
mc: working on ways to move quickly/make progress.
21:11:04 [wendy]
mc: at the f2f at tp will work on. output should be documents ready for review by csun f2f meetings and shortly after, publish as public drafts.
21:12:05 [wendy]
ack j
21:12:16 [gregg]
21:12:32 [wendy]
jw: 1. non of the techs can be required for conformance. they are not normative.
21:12:36 [wendy]
21:12:53 [wendy]
jw: in that sense, devs able to depart from techs as long as they meet the SC
21:13:19 [wendy]
jw: therefore, that aspect is addressed. however, how comprehensive do techs need to be?
21:13:39 [wendy]
jw: as far as checklist, completeing one should give strong assurance of conformance.
21:13:54 [wendy]
jw: however, may not be possible to provide checklists for every tech or combo of techs
21:14:08 [wendy]
jw: however, provide as much info as we can given our resources
21:14:23 [wendy]
mc: reflecting concerns of the group - 1. using techs and checklists to clarify guidelines.
21:14:31 [wendy]
mc: if we don't have them, will guidelines be clear enough.
21:14:47 [wendy]
mc: if we don't provide a checklist, author left to best interpretation, is there adequate assurance they following correctly.
21:14:55 [wendy]
21:14:57 [wendy]
ack g
21:15:09 [wendy]
gv: goes back to question of checklists are normative or not.
21:15:19 [rellero]
rellero has joined #wai-wcag
21:15:29 [wendy]
gv: some feel that checklist should be normative b/c SC not clear enough.
21:15:43 [wendy]
gv: if there isn't a checklist, then ppl would make up their own.
21:16:23 [wendy]
gv: wrt new techs, don't want to create info for non-public specs
21:16:26 [wendy]
21:16:51 [wendy]
s/non-public/non-open, public
21:17:10 [Zakim]
21:17:18 [rellero]
zakim, ??P13 is rellero
21:17:18 [Zakim]
+rellero; got it
21:17:21 [Michael]
q+ to discuss who does what work
21:17:25 [rellero]
zakim, mute me
21:17:25 [Zakim]
rellero should now be muted
21:17:26 [wendy]
gv: that's how we got to point of having one checklist instead of multiple.
21:18:12 [wendy]
gv: think can put off issue for now. we have 2 types of checklist items those that require both author and user agent requirements (these should not change often).
21:18:23 [wendy]
gv: if author's use new rules, then user agents can't take advantage of.
21:18:54 [wendy]
gv: compatibility issues as well as affordance issues.
21:19:32 [wendy]
gv: before get too deeply into debate, let's put ideas on the table and capture them. return to later after have made more effort on checklists.
21:19:37 [wendy]
ack w
21:19:53 [bengt]
bengt has joined #wai-wcag
21:21:17 [Zakim]
21:21:33 [bengt]
zakim, ??P14 is Bengt
21:21:33 [Zakim]
+Bengt; got it
21:21:54 [wendy]
wac: clarifies that we are not limited to w3c technologies, we are limited to technologies developed by consortia in an open process and available royalty free, etc. etc. reminds that we are working on client-side scripting b/c of ECMA.
21:21:57 [wendy]
ack j
21:22:13 [wendy]
q+ jason
21:22:15 [wendy]
ack john
21:22:20 [wendy]
ack mich
21:22:20 [Zakim]
Michael_Cooper, you wanted to discuss who does what work
21:22:31 [wendy]
js: wants to encourage innovation.
21:23:09 [wendy]
mc: who does what work. clear that we need to provide clarity. however, we're taking on several parts at once and that could muddy things.
21:23:15 [wendy]
mc: we could decrease our workload and provide focus.
21:23:26 [wendy]
mc: we need to discuss what we might farm out.
21:24:01 [wendy]
q+ to say, "give others freedom to develop the checklists/support materials that include all techs"
21:24:04 [wendy]
ack alex
21:24:17 [wendy]
al: a # of techniques that say, "must"
21:24:31 [wendy]
al: that language decreases flexibility/innovation and future developments
21:24:56 [Yvette_Hoitink]
q+ to say "some techniques are _a_ way but not the only way"
21:25:09 [wendy]
gv: checklists tend to be that way.
21:25:22 [wendy]
al: encourage, "this will work" and not say, "that will not work for sure"
21:25:29 [wendy]
al: it is not a repository of all techs on the web
21:25:37 [wendy]
ack jas
21:26:21 [wendy]
jw: if this wg were to contemplate normative checklists, would argue strongly for checklists being generated by 3rd parties. then have a test for valid checklists.
21:26:41 [wendy]
jw: uaag has something similar - how to use uaag in other specs
21:27:24 [wendy]
21:27:44 [wendy]
jw: if checklists were created outside of the WG, create a reasonable verification regime.
21:28:00 [wendy]
ack yv
21:28:01 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "some techniques are _a_ way but not the only way"
21:28:29 [wendy]
yh: some techniques are _a_ way but not the only way and not necessarily _the_ way
21:28:41 [gregg]
21:28:53 [wendy]
ack gr
21:28:59 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, mute me
21:28:59 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:29:21 [wendy]
gv: need to separate compatibility from ~affordance
21:29:34 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
21:29:48 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Alex_Li (8%), Gregg_and_Ben (99%)
21:29:54 [wendy]
zakim, mute alex
21:29:54 [Zakim]
Alex_Li should now be muted
21:30:01 [wendy]
zakim, unmute alex
21:30:01 [Zakim]
Alex_Li should no longer be muted
21:30:21 [wendy]
are other people hearing noise? a kind of beeping?
21:30:35 [rellero]
21:30:46 [LucaMascaro]
21:30:51 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
21:31:05 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: David (28%), Michael_Cooper (16%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (11%), Gregg_and_Ben (67%), John_Slatin (14%)
21:31:15 [wendy]
zakim, mute david
21:31:15 [Zakim]
David should now be muted
21:31:37 [wendy]
zakim, unmute david
21:31:38 [Zakim]
David should no longer be muted
21:31:52 [wendy]
gv: those checklist items where user agent has to do something w/what the author does - we need to be concrete about.
21:32:07 [wendy]
zakim, mute david
21:32:07 [Zakim]
David should now be muted
21:32:23 [wendy]
david? are you using voice over ip?
21:32:28 [wendy]
zakim, unmute david
21:32:28 [Zakim]
David should no longer be muted
21:32:28 [David]
21:32:36 [wendy]
never mind - i muted you but still heard the noise.
21:32:38 [David]
I want 5% a the begining of call
21:32:40 [wendy]
ghost in the machine...
21:32:44 [David]
21:32:54 [wendy]
gv: did everyone have a chance to look at the prototype?
21:33:28 [wendy]
21:34:12 [wendy]
bc: tour - broken into 3 sections. 1 scoping query 2 questions about elements, types of categories (forms, non-text content)
21:34:23 [wendy]
bc: those related to applicability conditions that we're including in techniques.
21:34:42 [wendy]
gv: purpose for the 2 pages is to make the checklist shorter?
21:34:44 [wendy]
bc: right
21:34:53 [wendy]
bc: reduces the # of checklist items on page 3
21:35:20 [wendy]
bc: page 3 includes 20-some items which is not a complete set for the 6 level 1 criterion for guideline 1.1 - it's only listing those tests that are most complete.
21:35:23 [wendy]
bc: primarily idea for format
21:35:38 [wendy]
gv: questions or comments?
21:35:54 [wendy]
gv: since no questions, apparently it's perfect. ;)
21:36:17 [wendy]
ack john
21:36:39 [wendy]
js: yesterday, talked about the need to provide for interaction between automated tools and human evaluators.
21:36:55 [wendy]
js: some of these items likely to be tested by tools. author primarily by humans.
21:37:54 [wendy]
gv: what if someone partially fills out and wants to come back, perhaps fill it out then generate an earl statement. when come back, feed earl into it.
21:38:37 [wendy]
gv: could run an automated tool could do as much as it could, generate earl, show up as comment fields in the checklist.
21:38:43 [wendy]
21:39:19 [wendy]
gv: through more use, generate more complete earl statements
21:39:32 [wendy]
js: perhaps flip it around so that automated tool can incorporate this checklist and use it to spit out results
21:39:42 [wendy]
gv: use this as a reporting format
21:39:57 [wendy]
gv: then tools will help you fill this out
21:40:12 [ChrisR]
tool that performs evaluation and produces EARL statement:
21:40:20 [wendy]
js: turn this over to the ERT WG and write guidelines
21:40:23 [wendy]
ack we
21:40:50 [wendy]
wac: sounds like post-rec work.
21:43:15 [wendy]
gv: yes
21:43:24 [Zakim]
21:43:25 [wendy]
wac: how expansive is checklist that feel we need to get through rec?
21:43:41 [wendy]
gv: should cover major w3c technologies
21:43:44 [wendy]
js: what are those?
21:44:02 [Zakim]
21:44:18 [ben_]
zakim, ??P7 is Gregg_and_Ben
21:44:18 [Zakim]
+Gregg_and_Ben; got it
21:44:18 [wendy]
zakim, ??P7 is Gregg_and_ben
21:44:19 [Zakim]
I already had ??P7 as Gregg_and_Ben, wendy
21:45:20 [wendy]
gv: html, css. question is also, what about movies? no checklist for any multimedia? in general, so not tech-specific.
21:45:26 [wendy]
js: presumably SMIL
21:45:32 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
21:45:45 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: David (8%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (19%), Gregg_and_Ben (93%), John_Slatin (3%)
21:46:39 [wendy]
js: are there ppl we can recruit who are not part of this group who can help us write checklists?
21:46:41 [wendy]
21:47:35 [wendy]
ack wendy
21:48:09 [wendy]
wac: hoping to coord w/european project. preliminary discussions have started. they are chartered to work on smil and svg.
21:48:35 [wendy]
gv: next step - get some checks that are not compatibility related.
21:48:45 [wendy]
(i.e., general techniques)
21:49:17 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
21:49:37 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Alex_Li (13%)
21:49:43 [wendy]
zakim, mute alex
21:49:43 [Zakim]
Alex_Li should now be muted
21:49:54 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
21:49:54 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Mike, David, Michael_Cooper (muted), Alex_Li (muted), Chris, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Matt, Wendy, Yvette_Hoitink (muted), Doyle, John_Slatin, JasonWhite,
21:49:57 [Zakim]
... Luca_Mascaro (muted), Becky_Gibson, Avi, rellero (muted), Bengt, Gregg_and_Ben
21:50:00 [wendy]
zakim, mute loretta
21:50:00 [Zakim]
Loretta_Guarino_Reid should now be muted
21:50:24 [wendy]
zakim, unmute loretta
21:50:24 [Zakim]
Loretta_Guarino_Reid should no longer be muted
21:50:31 [wendy]
zakim, mute loretta
21:50:31 [Zakim]
Loretta_Guarino_Reid should now be muted
21:50:44 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 1
21:50:44 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "2.4 L3 SC1 (Reading order) <>" taken up [from wendy]
21:51:02 [Doyle]
I have a work issue to contend with and will have to sign off - sorry for my short stay!!!
21:51:14 [wendy]
js: these still need a lot of work. would like to ask if good enough to include in next WG.
21:51:22 [wendy]
js: don't feel will get much better until get suggestions/comments.
21:51:32 [wendy]
ciao doyle
21:52:20 [Zakim]
21:52:22 [wendy]
js: there are no techniques for level 1 of 2.4. all we say at level 1 is a cross-reference to 1.2
21:52:23 [wendy]
21:52:47 [wendy]
js: these drafts written b4 most recent draft of req docs
21:53:03 [wendy]
gv: looking at the first one - "when arranged in order that effects meaning..."
21:53:17 [wendy]
gv: title "reading order" task "controlling reading order"
21:53:24 [wendy]
gv: what is the actual technique?
21:53:43 [wendy]
gv: list under "may be redcuced or avoided by..."
21:53:54 [wendy]
can someone else minute?
21:54:20 [wendy]
gv: techs tend to morph the meaning of the SC
21:55:14 [wendy]
gv: if more restrictive, have to be careful when map to checklist
21:56:40 [wendy]
js: ongoing concern is that it is diffcult to simulaneously staying general (w/out relying on html) and make the distinction what might be required vs good practice.
21:56:48 [wendy]
js: one goal is to get that feedback from the group.
21:56:52 [wendy]
js: many places where i don't know.
21:57:03 [wendy]
21:57:16 [wendy]
js: need a way to distinguish between required vs good practice
21:57:56 [wendy]
gv: should we organize these by writing in the success criteria, and writing "advisory" below it. SC becomes the task. below it: the following are things that need to be done...
21:58:11 [wendy]
gv: then below that, "these are recommended..."
21:58:20 [wendy]
gv: required goes into checklist. recommended are advisory.
21:58:36 [wendy]
gv: when come into techniques get this is required, more info about why doing it, etc.
21:59:08 [wendy]
js: that might work. in discussion about including in general techniques testable statement (same or not as task) that could be the checklist item.
21:59:58 [wendy]
marked up a draft of something like that at:
22:00:05 [wendy]
js: these things written in november before that discussion
22:00:07 [wendy]
ack loretta
22:00:35 [wendy]
lgr: looking at 1st item in reading order. would any of these be required?
22:00:49 [wendy]
lgr: are these all advisory?
22:00:51 [wendy]
22:01:08 [wendy]
gv: when is it good advice vs when it is required?
22:01:24 [wendy]
q+ david
22:01:25 [David]
22:01:28 [wendy]
ack w
22:01:38 [wendy]
22:01:46 [wendy]
lgr: understand that format a problem, what about the content?
22:02:09 [wendy]
js: jw raised a question a while ago about reading order, should it even be a SC. could be handled by 1.3.
22:02:20 [wendy]
js: may be another instance of the bottom-up approach.
22:04:02 [wendy]
wac: if level 3 then it is optional for level 1.
22:04:10 [wendy]
wac: should clarify what level it is required for.
22:04:17 [wendy]
wac: are some people saying should not be required at any level?
22:04:28 [wendy]
ack w
22:04:47 [wendy]
ack david
22:05:25 [wendy]
dmd: req vs advisory problematic when dealing w/things that are not part of the document. people could theoretically not follow any techniques documents and conform.
22:05:39 [wendy]
js: and these are non-normative docs
22:05:58 [wendy]
gv: it is compeltely open whether the checklists will be normative or not.
22:06:40 [wendy]
22:07:00 [wendy]
22:07:26 [ben]
ben has joined #wai-wcag
22:07:43 [wendy]
ack loretta
22:07:54 [wendy]
lgr: my confusion goes back to yvette's comment.
22:08:11 [gregg]
use the word "necessary" instead of required - at least while working on this
22:08:27 [wendy]
lgr: (looking at using lists) if you are numbering things, can help with reading order. but there are other ways to do it.
22:09:15 [wendy]
wac: restates for clarification - concern that there are many ways to do something and fear that we are requiring only one way.
22:09:28 [Zakim]
22:09:33 [wendy]
js: lgr is right. in this case, there are several techniques that could work in certain circumstances, so it is that kind of list.
22:09:44 [wendy]
js: it is clear that is not what people are envisioning.
22:10:23 [wendy]
js: to return to david's point, confusing required/optional point - my understanding of the status of the checklist (normative or not), but clear that the techs docs will be non-normative.
22:10:31 [wendy]
js: have to be careful to use words like required here.
22:10:33 [wendy]
ack j
22:10:56 [wendy]
js: we are providing non-normative info. "this will be required" in a tech doc is a non-normative statement.
22:11:11 [wendy]
js: this is an issue for how we use the term "required"
22:11:29 [wendy]
js: could say, "this is currently the only way we know how to do this." and may not be able to go any further.
22:11:35 [wendy]
gv: currently believe to be necessary.
22:12:06 [Zakim]
22:12:13 [Zakim]
22:13:26 [wendy]
wac: important for us to provide as much as we can about our intent so that people can interpret for their own situations.
22:14:01 [wendy]
22:14:23 [wendy]
ack wendy
22:14:45 [wendy]
wac: js, bc, and i are working on a prototype
22:14:59 [wendy]
js: should we hold off on these drafts until after we show the prototype?
22:15:16 [wendy]
gv: rather than having these floating around, is this replacing something?
22:15:19 [wendy]
js: emptiness
22:15:48 [wendy]
gv: put an editor's note that the form and format is being reconsidered. put into doc to collect them.
22:16:21 [wendy]
gv: anyone speak against?
22:16:28 [wendy]
gv: internal draft
22:16:41 [wendy]
no one disagrees
22:16:45 [wendy]
zakim, mute loretta
22:16:45 [Zakim]
Loretta_Guarino_Reid should now be muted
22:16:53 [wendy]
bc: need to be cleaned up before next public draft
22:17:02 [wendy]
js, gv - agreed
22:17:14 [wendy]
gv: may pull out if don't have cleaned up.
22:17:21 [Zakim]
22:17:38 [Zakim]
22:18:02 [wendy]
zakim, close item 2
22:18:02 [Zakim]
agendum 2 closed
22:18:03 [Zakim]
I see 8 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
22:18:05 [Zakim]
3. Brief Intro to Checklist Format [from wendy]
22:18:09 [wendy]
zakim, close item 3
22:18:09 [Zakim]
agendum 3 closed
22:18:10 [Zakim]
I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
22:18:11 [Zakim]
1. 2.4 L3 SC1 (Reading order) <> [from wendy]
22:18:15 [wendy]
zakim, close item 1
22:18:15 [Zakim]
agendum 1 closed
22:18:16 [Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
22:18:17 [Zakim]
4. 2.4 L3 SC3 (Images have structure) <> [from wendy]
22:18:20 [wendy]
zakim, close item 4
22:18:20 [Zakim]
agendum 4 closed
22:18:22 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
22:18:24 [Zakim]
5. 2.4 L3 SC4 (page titles) <> [from wendy]
22:18:27 [wendy]
zakim, close item 5
22:18:27 [Zakim]
agendum 5 closed
22:18:28 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
22:18:30 [Zakim]
6. 2.4 L2 SC2 <> [from wendy]
22:18:32 [wendy]
zakim, close item 6
22:18:32 [Zakim]
agendum 6 closed
22:18:34 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
22:18:36 [Zakim]
7. 2.4 L2 SC1 (Table of contents) <> [from wendy]
22:18:38 [wendy]
zakim, close item 7
22:18:38 [Zakim]
agendum 7 closed
22:18:39 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
22:18:40 [Zakim]
8. 2.4 L2 SC3 (Skipping repeated content) <> [from wendy]
22:18:43 [wendy]
zakim, close item 8
22:18:43 [Zakim]
agendum 8 closed
22:18:44 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
22:18:46 [Zakim]
9. baseline [from wendy]
22:18:51 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 9
22:18:51 [Zakim]
agendum 9. "baseline" taken up [from wendy]
22:19:03 [wendy]
issue 1073 <>
22:19:17 [wendy]
issue 1324 <>
22:19:26 [wendy]
gv: these were public comments
22:19:36 [wendy]
gv: people expressed concerns about baseline.
22:20:09 [wendy]
gv: concern that it will create a gap - how can you say that you know there is a gap but we're only requiring x.
22:20:29 [wendy]
gv: please read it.
22:20:54 [wendy]
issue 1073 <>
22:21:03 [wendy]
gv: discussion of client-side scripts.
22:21:21 [wendy]
gv: uaag doesn't require scripts but if you support them, here's what you (a user agent developer) needs to do.
22:21:36 [wendy]
gv: does that mean that authors can use scripts w/out an equivalent/alternative, or only worry about accessible scripts.
22:21:40 [MattSEA]
22:22:05 [wendy]
gv: that parallels 4.2 - if you provide your own UI, ensure that what you do meets UAAG.
22:22:22 [wendy]
gv: that would seem that scripting is not outlawed any more than anything else as long as you do it in an accessible form.
22:22:39 [wendy]
issue 1161 <>
22:23:34 [wendy]
gv: how much do we assume about the technologies that end-users have?
22:24:06 [wendy]
gv: it could be accessible if you have the right parts or do we say, only those things that everyone is likely to have are accessible.
22:24:15 [wendy]
gv: how easy is it to get the technologies needed.
22:24:42 [Yvette_Hoitink]
q+ to say "40k is ok if everyone has to pay it"
22:24:47 [wendy]
gv: the $40,000 user agent would make it accessible vs. there is a free UA that does it but you choose another one - may not be the author's problem.
22:24:53 [wendy]
ack matt
22:25:16 [Zakim]
22:25:28 [Zakim]
22:25:41 [wendy]
m3m: there is a continuum on the scale where on the developer side there is a lot of javascript that is superfulous. can do it or do it in a way that doesn't require javascript or can be done in an equivalent manner.
22:25:48 [Zakim]
22:25:58 [Zakim]
22:25:59 [wendy]
m3m: in the techniques, biased towards stripping out as much superfulous javascript as possibl.e
22:26:11 [wendy]
m3m: however, point where a web doc becomes a web app.
22:26:53 [wendy]
m3m: at a certain point, you can't have everything from a web app unless create a separate site.
22:27:12 [wendy]
m3m: can say it is part of the baseline, but that techniques suggest say to use as sparsely as possible.
22:27:33 [wendy]
ack yvette
22:27:34 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "40k is ok if everyone has to pay it"
22:28:03 [LucaMascaro]
how it is behaved to us when the application adopts javascript XMLhttp for modify the content?
22:28:18 [wendy]
yh: 40k is ok if everyone has to pay it. that's not an accessibility problem.
22:28:22 [Zakim]
22:28:46 [wendy]
gv: means that pwd is paying that while others are not
22:29:01 [wendy]
yh: really like that the author not have to worry about the capabilities of the user agent.
22:29:20 [wendy]
yh: as long as the author can make content that follows guidelines, the user will be able to find a UA-conformant tool.
22:29:34 [wendy]
yh: creates problems in the short term. and introduce problem when new tech introduced.
22:29:51 [wendy]
yh: however, if tells authors how to create content that is at least theoretically accessible should stimulate creation of accessible UA.
22:30:32 [wendy]
ack alex
22:30:39 [wendy]
al: nothing else to add
22:30:47 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, mute me
22:30:47 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
22:30:58 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, unmute me
22:30:58 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
22:31:21 [wendy]
22:31:32 [wendy]
ack jason
22:31:35 [Yvette_Hoitink]
q+ to say "Multimedia post"
22:31:56 [wendy]
jw: important that we are talking of a recipe for setting baseline rather than setting a baseline itself.
22:32:03 [Zakim]
22:32:06 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has left #wai-wcag
22:32:29 [wendy]
ack w
22:33:14 [wendy]
wac: what are the next steps?
22:34:13 [wendy]
zakim, mute kerstin
22:34:13 [Zakim]
Kerstin_Goldsmith should now be muted
22:36:55 [Yvette_Hoitink]
ck y
22:36:56 [wendy]
ack yv
22:36:56 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "Multimedia post"
22:37:16 [wendy]
yh: a few weeks ago (25 jan), sent mail about captions/audio descriptions. didn't get much response.
22:37:26 [wendy]
yh: how do i put issues out there that didn't get much attn.
22:37:39 [wendy]
yh: how raise issues if not on the list.
22:38:08 [wendy]
gv: when raise it on the list, it gets put on bugzilla. but may not get discussed again until 1.2 comes around.
22:38:39 [wendy]
yh: felt like was dropping a bombshell and no one responded.
22:39:01 [wendy]
gv: if worried, check with ben so that ensure gets added.
22:39:09 [wendy]
bc: even better, add to bugzilla yourself.
22:39:20 [wendy]
action: yh ensure 1.2 got added to bugzilla
22:39:42 [wendy]
action 1 = yvette ensure that 1.2 issue sent to mailing list is added to bugzilla
22:40:31 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
22:40:31 [Zakim]
agendum 9 closed
22:40:32 [Zakim]
I see nothing remaining on the agenda
22:40:41 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make log world
22:40:45 [wendy]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
22:41:11 [wendy]
Chair: Gregg
22:41:14 [LucaMascaro]
Zakim, unmute me
22:41:14 [Zakim]
Luca_Mascaro should no longer be muted
22:41:16 [Zakim]
22:41:17 [Zakim]
22:41:18 [Zakim]
22:41:19 [rellero]
22:41:19 [Zakim]
22:41:21 [Zakim]
22:41:28 [Zakim]
22:41:37 [Zakim]
22:41:41 [Zakim]
22:41:42 [Zakim]
22:41:46 [Zakim]
22:41:50 [Zakim]
22:41:51 [Zakim]
22:41:54 [Zakim]
22:41:55 [Zakim]
22:41:57 [Zakim]
22:42:25 [Zakim]
22:42:27 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
22:42:29 [Zakim]
Attendees were [Microsoft], Michael_Cooper, Alex_Li, [IPcaller], Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Matt, Wendy, Yvette_Hoitink, Gregg_and_Ben, Mike, David, Chris, Bengt_Farre, Doyle,
22:42:31 [Zakim]
... John_Slatin, JasonWhite, Luca_Mascaro, Becky_Gibson, Avi, rellero, Bengt, Kerstin_Goldsmith
22:43:02 [wendy]
Prsent: Michael_Cooper, Alex_Li, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Matt, Wendy, Yvette_Hoitink, Gregg_and_Ben, Mike, David, Chris, Bengt_Farre, Doyle, John_Slatin, JasonWhite, Luca_Mascaro, Becky_Gibson, Avi, rellero, Bengt, Kerstin_Goldsmith
22:43:02 [ben]
RRSAgent, make log world
22:43:11 [wendy]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
22:43:33 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make minutes world
22:43:33 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes world', wendy. Try /msg RRSAgent help
22:43:42 [wendy]
hmm. that should be added to rrsagent. :)
22:44:01 [bengt]
hmm, wendy I was on twice ?
22:45:06 [wendy]
bengt - did you associate your ircnick with your phone nick? if so, maybe zakim, picked up both names.
22:45:19 [wendy]
note that it lists "IPcaller" and "[Microsoft]" as well
22:45:27 [bengt]
nope Bengt_Farre was already in when I called in as bengt :)
22:45:32 [wendy]
ah. but i'll clean it up in the lsit of present.
22:45:47 [bengt]
think it was scano or rellero ?
22:47:19 [bengt]
bye for now :)
22:47:26 [bengt]
bengt has left #wai-wcag
23:15:04 [ben]
ben has left #wai-wcag
23:25:13 [Yvette_Hoitink]
Yvette_Hoitink has left #wai-wcag