<wendy> sheesh! who's left?
<wendy> looks like a short meeting. :)
<scribe> scribe: Ben
mc: TTF summary
working on test files, each memeber of group taking a small batch and posting comments to the list
has been helpful in raising issues - we were able to make decisions about many of the test files
wc: have already reviewed levels 1 and 2
still need to work through level 3
WCAG 1.0 9.4 Create a logical tab order through links, form controls, and objects.
wc: doesn't seem to map to 2.1
(keyboard or keyboard interface)
... propose that we map to 2.4, level 3, item 2
WCAG 1.0 9.5 Provide keyboard shortcuts to important links (including those in client-side image maps), form controls, and groups of form controls.
wc: not clear if this maps to 2.1
... think the problem is that we've had issues with accesskey, which may be more of a user agent issue
... may not be a direct mapping anymore
... should we still be saying anything about this?
mm: I think so, but as generically as possible
<bengt> the links in the priorities doesnt point to anything ?
wc: think tabindex may be covered by previous SC - enough to map to guideline 2.4 (skipping blocks of repeated material)
ns: how does a user know about these?
mm: in XHTML 2, there will be an element that can be declared elsewhere in the document, so no accesskey attribute. Essentially provides a keybinding for the document in question.
lgr: feels like this isn't a 2.1 issue, but about practically functional - possible to operate via keyboard but also needs to be unduly burdensome?
mb: seems to line up with 2.1, level 3
lgr: you could provide this kind of functionality without meeting this requirement
mb: we're looking at limitations of phrasing in WCAG 1.0
... definition of what is important has always gotten us into trouble (ex. it doesn't say provide keyboard shortcuts to everything)
wc: wonder if it's related to
blocks of material and other types of structure we have in
... sounds like there are serveral issues on this and that there is no clear mapping, may want to consider adding a success criterion or modifying existing criterion
... HTML technique for accesskey maps to 2.1 level 1
... doesn't look like we can resolve today
... ~6 issues related to accesskeys in HTML techs
dm: has anyone used accesskeys successfully?
wc: numbers and some letters can be used successfully in some cases
WCAG 1.0 11.3 Provide information so that users may receive documents according to their preferences (e.g., language, content type, etc.)
wc: seems most related to 3.1, level 1, item 1
wc: other places to map?
not just providing language information, but allowing people to get it
wc: conformance claims talk about
multiple representations and conformance claims for delievered
units - seems like we're assuming negotiation is happening, but
not requiring it
... do we need to be more specific about this (in addition to what is said in conformance)
... looks like we're handling this in conformance, doesn't look like there is a good match for it in WCAG 2.0
WCAG 1.0 13.5 Provide navigation bars to highlight and give access to the navigation mechanism.
wc: 2.0 doesn't really talk about
navigation bars anymore
... instead we talk about dividing things into pieces that can be navigated through providing structure
... seems that essence is there, but no match to anything specific
bg: does that suggest a need to expand level 2 success criterion 1?
bg: suggests replacing table of
contents with navigation mechanism
... does that help it map better?
<Doyle> hand up
wc: 1.0 checkpoint shows what the
nav mechanism is and 2.4 level 2, item 1 is about navigating
structure of a document
... 1.0 checkpoing was focused on sitewide navigation
bg: hard to map directly, because navigation bar is so specific
<Doyle> hand down
wc: would be mapping a 1.0
priority 3 to 2.0 level 2
... leave this as a note for andi
WCAG 1.0 13.7 If search functions are provided, enable different types of searches for different skill levels and preferences.
wc: seems to map to 2.5 level 3, item 2
dm: doesn't seem like a match
wc: there's a sentence in the
core techniques about search techniques that don't require
perfect spelling, so spelling part of this was one of the key
... seems to map to both leve 3 criterion in 2.5
dm: are they talking about advanced search in google?
wc: no, more toward google spelling correction suggestions
<ChrisR> Bye for now, gotta run.
wc: there are a variety of other search techniues where you could get help prompts, spelling is one, but others don't seem to map to 2.0
lgr: agree that what we have now maps to both level 3 items, but it is only a subset of what was required in 1.0
wc: do we want to include more in
2.0 about some of those other options?
... for now, we can say it maps to some, but not all
ns: does it also map to 2.4 level 2 item 2?
wc: good point because it does highlight other ways to find things
bc: that works
wc: looks like we could dig
deeper to include all that was in 1.0, but that these 3
criterion (2 at level 3 and one at level 2) cover it fairly
... example of boolean search could address more advanced levels, but not sure how it fits for helping generate search terms
mb: are we making recommendations about features for applications?
wc: my understanding is that what we're saying is that we don't want to be as specific as we were in 1.0
<Becky_Gibson> sorry, I have to leave today
WCAG 1.0 13.8 - 13.8 Place distinguishing information at the beginning of headings, paragraphs, lists, etc.
wc: seems most related to 3.1, level 3, number 3 (reducing complexity) - we could suggest adding that as one of those strategies
dm: I think it's a good strategy to add there
WCAG 1.0 13.9 Provide information about document collections (i.e., documents comprising multiple pages.)
wc: mostly about link rel/rev etc.
bc: not clear how we cover site maps anymore - depends on def. of document (ex. a multi-page document?)
wc: we've focused in on delivery units - ex slideshow that is single document with multiple perceivable units
bc: agree that it maps to 2.4 level 2, item 2
WCAG 1.0 13.10 Provide a means to skip over multi-line ASCII art.
wc: does it map to guideline 1.1, level 1, item 4?
wc: possible interp would be that ASCII art is non-text that should be skipped
bc: what about 2.4 criterion on skipping repetitive info? expand to include nonsensical information?
wc: which do people prefer? some combination of level 1 criterion (at level 1) or someplace in 2.4 (at level 2)
lgr: think the original intention was that people provide a link that would be appropriate for skipping.
wc: this also sounds like a good
issue for techniques group
... comment from IBM that talks about definition of non-text content and questions whether ASCII art should be included
mc: in some techniques
discussions, we've debated whether to talk about ASCII art at
all anymore, but no agreement at this point.
... we could fail to acknowledge it and suggest replacing with an image
mm: if I were king of the world, I'd suggest taking a picture of your ascii art and adding a text alternative
wc: still have an HTML technique for this - recommend avoiding ASCII, but if used, provide a link to skip.
mc: sounds like two techniques with an or relationship
wc: we have a couple ways we could map this - main issue is whether we feel that this is a level 1 or level 2 kind of thing
WCAG 1.0 1.5 Until user agents render text equivalents for client-side image map links, provide redundant text links for each active region of a client-side image map.
mc: recent test file discussion, we felt it should be deprecated
bc: sounds like a WCAG 1.0 errata candidate
WCAG 1.0 5.6 Provide abbreviations for header labels.
wc: html technique related to making data tables accessible that relates
mc: issue with abbreviating labels?
wc: yes, this gives header labels a short handle
mc: seems inconsistent to say that you should provide less information
wc: if reading a long table and
having heading read, it makes sense to read the
... probably a user agent issue
lgr: I don't think it maps to the 3.1 criterion
mc: seems to fit under 2.4
wc: andi had suggested 1.3
... seems like it should map to 2.4, no SC
mc: would map to 2.4 about skipping blocks, maybe adapt this criterion for this purpose as well?
wc: not a whole lot else on our agenda today
(link to open issue summaries)
wc: recent comments may have created new issues for some guidelines
here's the right URI for open issue summary assignments: http://tinyurl.com/49x4c
wc: some issues are assigned to
"nobody" or "someone"
... these are available for people to write proposals on
... some are straightforward and others are more complicated
... today's agenda was a little sparse, partly because of number of regrets, partly because we're waiting on these issue summaries
... link to first quarter 2005 planning on home page
... changes to most recent draft were limited, we really need to focus on closing issues
<wendy> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/02/17-wai-wcag-minutes wendy
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.111 of Date: 2005/02/12 19:57:54 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: Ben Inferring ScribeNick: ben Default Present: Wendy, [Microsoft], Michael_Cooper, Mike, [IPcaller], Chris, Ben, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Bengt, Fantasai_Rainne, Matt, David, Neil_Soiffer, Becky_Gibson, [ATTcaller], Doyle Present: Wendy [Microsoft] Michael_Cooper Mike [IPcaller] Chris Ben Loretta_Guarino_Reid Bengt Fantasai_Rainne Matt David Neil_Soiffer Becky_Gibson [ATTcaller] Doyle Regrets: Gregg_Vanderheiden Andi_Snow-Weaver Kerstin_Goldsmith John_Slatin Alan_Chuter Roberto_Castaldo WATANABE_Takayuki Roberto_Ellero Roberto_Scano Sailesh_Panchang Yvette_Hoitink Loretta_Guarino_Reid_(partial) Becky_Gibson_(partial) Luca Mascaro Avi_Arditti Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0480.html WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]