IRC log of wai-wcag on 2005-03-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

09:56:03 [bengtf]
bengtf has joined #wai-wcag
09:56:15 [bengtf]
bengtf has left #wai-wcag
11:17:26 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
13:30:07 [Michael]
Michael has joined #wai-wcag
13:30:18 [Michael]
rrsagent, bye
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
I see 13 open action items:
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: mc add defn of positive test case [1]
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T14-32-28
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: mc update references to "additional ideas" [2]
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T14-33-10
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: mc add applicability conditions to req [3]
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T14-34-47
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wac and mc create change log for reqs document [4]
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T14-35-33
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: mc to use the same definition in requirements document [5]
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T14-43-56
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: mc move testability language from wcag 2.0 into requirements doc ("The Working Group believes that all success criteria should be testable. Tests can be done by computer programs or by people who understand these guidelines. Tests done by people who understand the guidelines should get the same results testing the same content for the same success criteria." [6]
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T14-43-57
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jenae compare definitions from reqs doc with QA glossary [7]
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T14-44-42
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wac proposal about mapping techniques to success criteria or guideline ok [8]
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T15-03-08
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: mc and wac incorporate/link to scenarios/personas (that eowg evolved from tom's earlier work) [9]
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T16-31-24
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: mc add the importance of linking from wcag 2.0 techniques to wcag 1.0 checkpoints [10]
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T16-52-22
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wac write proposal for how css techniques could be written with "macro-level" tasks and how might be incorporated into html techniques. think about how map from wcag 1.0 checkpoints to wcag 2.0 techniques. includes how to link to tests (many of which are html) and back to general techniques. [11]
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T16-53-19
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: mc delete first two sentences of UA support documentation requirement [12]
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T17-05-33
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: mc delete the untestable techniques / additional ideas stuff [13]
13:30:18 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T17-14-13
13:31:38 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
13:31:38 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/03/01-wai-wcag-irc
13:31:43 [Michael]
rrsagent, make log world
13:32:33 [joeclark]
joeclark has joined #wai-wcag
13:33:14 [ben]
ben has joined #wai-wcag
13:49:46 [joeclark]
[tap tap tap]
13:57:18 [Andi]
Andi has joined #wai-wcag
13:57:47 [Andi]
scribe: Andi
14:01:14 [Andi]
mc: 3 breakout groups - UAAG impact analysis, work plan to resolve baseline, long term work plan
14:02:23 [Andi]
mc: can work plan to resolve baseline procees without completion of UAAG impact analysis?
14:04:48 [Andi]
attending: Alex Li, Paul Thorpe (from binary characterization WG), Alistair Garrison, David McDonald, Andi Snow-Weaver, Jenae Andershonis, Michael Cooper, Carlos Iglesias,Joe Clark, John Slatin, Ben Caldwell, Katie Haritos-Shea, Wendy Chisholm
14:05:03 [wendy]
wendy has joined #wai-wcag
14:07:10 [Andi]
mc: Combine UAAG impact analysis and work plan to resolve baseline groups
14:07:32 [Andi]
mc: Ben, Joe, Alex, Andi
14:07:47 [Andi]
Wendy, Michael, Jenae on long term planning
14:08:19 [Andi]
David on UAAG impact analysis
14:08:30 [Andi]
Alistair - long term planning
14:08:49 [Andi]
Katie on UAAG impact analysis
14:09:45 [Andi]
break into groups for 1 hour until 10:10
14:15:45 [joeclark]
BREAKING!
14:50:25 [sh1mmer]
sh1mmer has joined #wai-wcag
15:08:28 [joeclark]
UAAG evaluations:
15:08:29 [joeclark]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/impl-pr2/
15:32:16 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
15:38:17 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #wai-wcag
15:39:59 [Michael]
scribe: Michael
15:40:07 [Michael]
topic: Planning subgroup
15:40:20 [ken]
ken has joined #wai-wcag
15:40:24 [Michael]
wc: looked at requirements to pass through the stages to get to Rec
15:40:51 [Ryladog]
Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
15:40:51 [Michael]
deliverables, tasks to complete deliverables, owners for tasks, Gantt chart of all this
15:41:00 [Michael]
we have more to do to make the plan
15:42:01 [Michael]
js: consider availabilities of the people with tasks so we have a realistic timeline
15:42:18 [Michael]
even if timeline longer than we want we can get things done
15:43:19 [Michael]
wc: no dates for tasks set, but looked at minimum timeframes
15:43:27 [Michael]
mc's intuition 1.5 years to get to PR
15:43:43 [Michael]
set of things we must do, in a particular order
15:43:55 [Michael]
need a clear set of deliverables and divide into tasks
15:44:51 [Michael]
js: this is the biggest project involved in - geographic, time, organizations - very complicated, keep this in mind
15:45:14 [Michael]
feeling way through it; we need to help each other stay on task
15:46:11 [Michael]
mc: have to take into account the work of the larger group
15:47:43 [Michael]
wc: need to know each task we have to do to clear rec. Don't know the time will take on each task yet.
15:48:46 [Michael]
going forward: we need to finish the project plan
15:48:57 [Michael]
could have people look at deliverables and figure out the tasks for each
15:49:05 [Michael]
have people look at issues and figure out tasks needed to close
15:49:27 [Michael]
assign owners to each deliverable
15:49:33 [Michael]
create a Gantt chart
15:50:03 [Michael]
we have a lot of work assigned to people but it's not getting done
15:50:39 [Michael]
js: propose adding a timeline / milestone update to the Thursday call agenda each week
15:51:27 [Michael]
al: need to set big picture timeline first
15:52:01 [Michael]
determine major deliverables without timeline, break down into tasks, then assign timeline
15:52:13 [Michael]
finally calculate final deliverable
15:54:37 [Michael]
topic: UAAG impact analysis and baseline planning
15:55:27 [Michael]
bc: discussed conditional content issue, take to UAAG as recommendation for change
15:56:27 [Michael]
discuss other technologies e.g., script, MathML, SVG, issue is what does WCAG say about using technology vs. switching to fallbacks
15:56:55 [Michael]
tc: what should be in WCAG and what should be in UAAG
15:58:11 [Michael]
will browser manufacturers comply with UAAG and should we provide fallback techniques
15:58:37 [Michael]
al: WCAG should assume standards met, but techniques reflect reality that ATAG & UAAG not met
15:59:32 [Michael]
the changing of technologies otherwise ties us up in keeping track
16:00:34 [Michael]
we have to accept that there are a variety of standards from various sources, and various levels of proper implementation
16:00:57 [Michael]
khs: UAAG should require UA to support W3C technology
16:02:04 [Michael]
doesn't mean don't support other technologies also, but should at a minimum support W3C
16:02:35 [Michael]
bc: UAAG unclear about what to do when a feature is not supported, this issue affects us
16:02:58 [Michael]
khs: W3C tech will have gone through PF
16:04:25 [Michael]
to clarify, if a technology for a feature exists, the UA should support the W3C version, but can also support other versions
16:06:09 [Michael]
wc: not sure we can impose this requirement, nor does it necessarily guarantee accessible
16:06:15 [joeclark]
q+
16:06:59 [Michael]
khs: part of supporting multiple accessible formats
16:07:35 [wendy]
q+ to say, "uaag has content labels so that you can claim what you do conform to"
16:08:01 [Michael]
tc: technologies used should be accessibility-capable a la UAAG, WCAG
16:09:33 [wendy]
q-
16:10:42 [Michael]
to judge technology accessible, you need to be designed to work with UAAG compliant UA, and a UAAG compliant UA itself
16:10:48 [Michael]
ack joe
16:11:21 [Michael]
jc: WCAG 2 advantage eliminates chauvinism towards W3C specs in WCAG 1
16:12:04 [Michael]
we can't therefore require UA to always support W3C version of the tech they implement
16:13:59 [Michael]
when we talk about UAAG, we equate "web page with media in it" as a browser launching an external player
16:14:05 [Michael]
this should not be the assumption
16:14:22 [Michael]
affects baseline assumption
16:14:28 [sh1mmer]
q+
16:14:40 [joeclark]
UIUC's UAAG evaluations:
16:14:42 [joeclark]
http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/wai-eval/index.php?option=Evaluations
16:14:44 [sh1mmer]
q-
16:15:26 [Michael]
bc: need a solid decision
16:15:38 [Michael]
we say follow the spec and expect UA to catch up
16:15:56 [Michael]
or we deal with practical reality
16:16:12 [Michael]
we need to decide which
16:16:38 [Michael]
q+ david
16:16:54 [wendy]
q+ to ask, "if informative, are any required for conformance?"
16:17:12 [Michael]
al: techniques not part of conformance
16:17:37 [Michael]
bc: yes, but we have to provide a way to say what the standard and supported way to do things
16:17:50 [Michael]
dmd: doesn't repair techniques deal with this?
16:17:54 [Michael]
ack david
16:18:05 [Michael]
ack wendy
16:18:05 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to ask, "if informative, are any required for conformance?"
16:18:51 [Michael]
bc: need to walk the list of out-of-spec things and ask if someone can conform to WCAG 2 without a workaround
16:19:08 [Michael]
e.g., alternatives for OBJECT and EMBED, UA can't get at it
16:19:18 [joeclark]
q?
16:20:27 [Michael]
tb: QA requirement: should have conformance model for WCAG 2 that doesn't contradict conformance models for technologies
16:21:30 [Michael]
there is a large body of tests for technologies we could reuse to test for accessibility
16:21:55 [joeclark]
q+
16:22:43 [joeclark]
Standards-compliant ways to use <object> that mostly work:
16:22:45 [joeclark]
http://joeclark.org/access/captioning/bpoc/embed-object.html
16:23:25 [Tom]
q+
16:23:25 [Michael]
wc: using NOEMBED doesn't break WCAG because of loophole to document spec violations
16:23:35 [Michael]
bc: but those techniques don't even work at all
16:23:43 [joeclark]
q+ to say iframe, true alternative for video
16:23:43 [Michael]
wc: find other techniques
16:24:31 [Michael]
concerned about "techniques used for conformance" because we are non-normative so none of them are technically
16:24:34 [Michael]
ack joe
16:24:34 [Zakim]
joeclark, you wanted to say iframe, true alternative for video
16:25:07 [Michael]
jc: IFRAME alt content works and is a viable alternative technique
16:27:43 [Michael]
keep in mind which kind of alternative a particular person needs, don't provide an inappropriate one
16:28:42 [Michael]
wc: we have had a "minimum" alternative requirement to provide very base accessibility
16:28:47 [Michael]
certainly you could go further
16:28:59 [Michael]
but we need some level 1 requirement
16:29:49 [Michael]
jc: in real world, this base requirement met in a very simple way, e.g., link to transcript, not pluperfect directly associated transcript
16:30:50 [Michael]
wc: SC as checklist simplifies some of this
16:31:05 [joeclark]
iframe reference, for the hell of it:
16:31:06 [joeclark]
http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/special/iframe.html
16:31:32 [joeclark]
note that you can use name, longdesc (!), and title
16:31:52 [Michael]
we know that to truly determine if content accessible, need usability testing, but need simpler conformance requirements
16:32:13 [Michael]
dmd: we can suggest that in techniques
16:32:23 [Michael]
(non-normatively)
16:32:39 [Michael]
tc: advocating workarounds could stop progression
16:33:09 [Michael]
bad as it is to leave people behind with non-useful techniques, strict techniques needed to push technology forward
16:33:14 [joeclark]
q+ John
16:33:33 [Michael]
wc: but doing so could seriously damage credibility
16:33:35 [Michael]
ack tom
16:34:03 [wendy]
q+
16:34:03 [Michael]
tc: but at least we're taking a solid position, this could enhance credibility
16:34:06 [Michael]
ack john
16:34:33 [Michael]
js: we could do a "strict" and "transitional" techniques
16:34:48 [Michael]
mc: but that's another work item
16:34:57 [Michael]
wc: but then techniques affect conformance
16:35:35 [Michael]
tc: would be too compromising, we need to put our foot down
16:36:25 [Michael]
wc: how would we compromise things?
16:37:16 [Michael]
tc: backwards compatibility may not compromise accessibility but gives permissoin
16:37:21 [Michael]
EMBED
16:37:32 [joeclark]
q+
16:38:25 [wendy]
ack w
16:38:31 [wendy]
scribe: wendy
16:38:35 [wendy]
ack joe
16:39:05 [Michael]
tc: action item: itemize the cringe factors
16:39:07 [joeclark]
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/customdtd/
16:39:11 [wendy]
jc: in xhtml can make embed part of the dtd and validate.
16:39:26 [wendy]
scribe: michael
16:40:24 [joeclark]
That URL teaches how to use a custom DTD.
16:40:48 [joeclark]
q++
16:40:56 [joeclark]
q+
16:41:04 [Michael]
q- +
16:41:07 [Michael]
ack joe
16:41:41 [Michael]
jc: propose complete the UAAG analysis at all costs
16:42:27 [joeclark]
not quite *all*. Give Ben help if necessary, but finishing that analysis should be done first.
16:49:10 [ben]
scribe: Ben
16:49:19 [ben]
mc: reviews deliverables from charter
16:49:40 [wendy]
http://www.w3.org/2004/04/wcag-charter.html#deliverables
16:50:13 [ben]
mc: believe that we need to come out of this meeting with a pretty solid plan for completing these deliverables
16:50:27 [ben]
mc: would like to have someone assigned to responsibility for these
16:51:04 [ben]
wc: propose we do as much as we can with the plan today about who wants to do and really fill it out at the CSUN f2f
16:51:42 [ben]
js: there is a proposal before the full WG about checklists that has a significant impact on this subgroup. is it appropriate for us to make a recommendation or take a position on that?
16:52:05 [ben]
mc: yes, would be useful for us to come out with a recc. on this.
16:52:35 [ben]
wc: proposal is that our checklist is just the SC
16:53:00 [ben]
wc: any discussion on that proposal?
16:53:10 [ben]
tc: have we talked about how it effects use cases and personas yet?
16:53:47 [ben]
tc: initial thoughts are that it will anger some audiences
16:54:16 [ben]
jc, dm, others: would like to get a clearer picture of what the proposal is
16:54:42 [ben]
wc: would like to discuss this in preparation for CSUN mtg.
16:56:05 [wendy]
q?
16:56:49 [ben]
agenda options for this afternoon: agree on reqs., features of project plan, baseline issue proposal, propsal re SC as checklist
16:57:47 [gregg]
gregg has joined #wai-wcag
16:59:51 [ben]
action: subgroup get together on thursday to do further work, discussion on baseline analysis
17:00:33 [ben]
meeting with PF and UA this afternoon
17:01:02 [Michael]
topic: meeting with PF and UA
17:01:11 [ben]
wc: has been a variety of discussions about AT support with various people where there is a frustration with AT not supporting what we need them to be supporting
17:01:22 [ben]
UA does a lot of their job, but AT finds it difficult to do what they need to do.
17:01:46 [ben]
wc: plan is to get together with other groups to determine what our message to AT vendors is and continue the discussion at CSUN.
17:02:46 [ben]
wc: PF is working on DHTML roadmap in cooperation with HTML WG. some of this is to determine what the common semantics for page layout (ex. navigation bar, etc.)? (ex. I want to go to the navbar vs. Navigation may or may not be found in a list)
17:03:34 [ben]
wc: a good deal of unknown info for AT. today, rich is going to present about roadmap and lisa will be talking about semantics and metadata that can be included to help with some of this
17:04:12 [ben]
wc: I think PF wants feedback from us about what we see as common structural elements, but we also need to present some of our issues with baseline and the div. of responsibilitites between authors and user agents
17:05:28 [ben]
wc: one of the issues is that there are often types of information that never make it into the DOM to be made avail. to AT.
17:06:23 [ben]
wc: some of this relates to role and state information
17:06:43 [ben]
mc: proposal of baseline as we came out of Dublin is something to describe to them (as well as the issues we have with it).
17:07:15 [ben]
mc: also dealing with AT vs. requiring conformance through fallbacks - need to discuss some reasons why we don't have consensus on that
17:07:54 [ben]
mc: other thing is perfect world vs. real world - do we describe only techs. that work in spec or also techniques that lead to accessibiliy in "real world".
17:08:00 [ben]
al: we can do both
17:08:21 [ben]
js: if we were to do both, we don't yet have agreement on how to distinguish them
17:09:10 [ben]
js: one of my concerns is that we do all this work and come out with a spec. My sense is that AT vendors aren't watching us very closely. Some haven't been following WCAG 2.0 work. We're just now getting to the point where AT supports what was in WCAG 1.0.
17:09:19 [wendy]
action: wendy make sure that all UA and Asst. tech devs are on review list
17:09:30 [Michael]
q+ to say a fourth point is that we don't know as much about accessibility of dynamic things as we need to
17:09:37 [ben]
asw: not sure some AT is concerned about specs
17:10:34 [ben]
js: would like to show that there are benefits to the techniques that we create through AT developers support for specs. want to encourage them to build WCAG 2.0 into their development cycles.
17:10:41 [ben]
q?
17:11:06 [Michael]
ack m
17:11:08 [Zakim]
Michael, you wanted to say a fourth point is that we don't know as much about accessibility of dynamic things as we need to
17:11:45 [ben]
mc: want to suggest a 4th point: one issue we've been facing is accessibility of DHTML - seems like a weakness in our development of techniques.
17:12:20 [ben]
wc: thing is to ask rich what techniques they'd recommend we include?
17:12:40 [ben]
mc: question would be how much of a priority for us to get this kind of information into the group?
17:13:07 [ben]
wc: matt made an effort to do this with scripting developers, but the issue was we didn't make tasks for them clear.
17:13:28 [ben]
wc: feel that there is some more work we need to do - we've been asking for help, but need to give them clearer tasks.
17:13:39 [ben]
mc: other points?
17:15:29 [joeclark]
LUNCHEON
17:15:29 [ben]
break for lunch - mtg. begins @ 1:30
17:15:57 [ben]
ben has left #wai-wcag
17:16:31 [wendy]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/meetings/f2fmar05.html#agn
17:19:40 [sh1mmer]
sh1mmer has joined #wai-wcag
17:38:46 [sh1m]
sh1m has joined #wai-wcag
17:42:37 [research__]
research__ has joined #wai-wcag
17:46:45 [sh1mmer]
sh1mmer has joined #wai-wcag
18:13:55 [ben]
ben has joined #wai-wcag
18:34:02 [Andi]
Andi has joined #wai-wcag
18:38:50 [Andi]
Andi has left #wai-wcag
18:40:02 [wendy]
wendy has joined #wai-wcag
18:40:49 [Ryladog]
Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
18:45:44 [wendy]
RRSagent, make log public
18:45:49 [wendy]
RRSagent, make log world
18:52:47 [wendy]
rrsagent, pointer?
18:52:47 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2005/03/01-wai-wcag-irc#T18-52-47
18:59:36 [wendy]
Topic: joint meeting with PFWG, UAWG, and DIWG
18:59:56 [wendy]
IRC log at - http://www.w3.org/2005/03/01-pfua-irc
19:05:00 [alan]
alan has joined #wai-wcag
19:09:46 [Michael]
Michael has joined #wai-wcag
19:12:04 [ben]
current irc channel is #pfua
19:13:05 [sh1mmer]
sh1mmer has joined #wai-wcag
19:34:37 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
20:48:08 [ken]
ken has joined #wai-wcag
20:50:07 [wendy]
wendy has joined #wai-wcag
20:50:09 [Andi]
Andi has joined #wai-wcag
20:50:15 [joeclark]
joeclark has joined #wai-wcag
20:52:52 [Andi]
scribe: Andi
20:53:25 [Michael]
Michael has joined #wai-wcag
20:53:49 [ben]
agenda?
20:54:04 [Andi]
mc: this AM agreed on some overall tasks
20:54:09 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #wai-wcag
20:55:34 [Andi]
mc: talk about overall features of a project plan
20:55:41 [Ryladog]
Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
20:56:14 [Andi]
mc: concious of deliverables as required by charter - requirements, guidelines, techniques, checklists, test cases, implementation tests and reports, issue tracking reports
20:56:51 [Andi]
mc: divide into tasks - resolve blocer issues, define implementation testing, complete requirements, guidelines, techniques
20:57:08 [Andi]
mc: techniques includes mapping to guidelines, plugging holes
20:57:44 [Andi]
mc: are these the right top level tasks?
20:57:52 [Andi]
js: doesn't think mapping things are
20:58:26 [Andi]
mc: add checklists to top level tasks
20:59:12 [Andi]
mc: identify tasks, sub-tasks, time to complete each task, dependencies, milestones, responsibilities
21:01:23 [Andi]
al: since don't have all variables identified, have to start with milestones
21:01:30 [Andi]
al: then do tasks, sub-tasks, dependencies
21:01:41 [Andi]
al: then assign responsibilities
21:02:53 [Andi]
mc: last is time to complete each task
21:05:11 [Andi]
js: 4 of 7 editors are here - can take this plan to the main group
21:05:24 [Andi]
mc: ask main group to fill in the blanks
21:05:30 [Andi]
mc: that they own
21:05:50 [Andi]
bc: assumption is we will release another public draft about two weeks after CSUN
21:06:09 [Andi]
bc: can't identify number of public drafts
21:06:27 [Andi]
mc: can identify what we need to have arrived at in order to go to Last Call
21:07:01 [Andi]
wc: current schedule has one more public draft before Last Call
21:07:34 [Andi]
mc: milestones are Last Call, Candidate Rec, Proposed Rec, Rec
21:08:36 [Andi]
js: have to define deliverables needed for each stage
21:09:11 [Andi]
al: tasks define how to accomplish the milestones
21:10:41 [Andi]
mc: requirements documents are not subject to the same milestones as the guidelines are
21:14:57 [Andi]
al: need to agree on the deliverables
21:15:01 [Andi]
mc: defined by charter
21:15:14 [Andi]
mc: charter doesn't specify "which" techniques
21:15:19 [Andi]
mc: documents
21:15:52 [Andi]
js: what deliverables are the techniques task force responsible for
21:16:13 [Andi]
mc: everything except guidelines requirements, guidelines document, and guidelines issue tracking
21:17:43 [Andi]
wc: issue tracking reports only needed for normative documents
21:19:12 [Andi]
wc: general techniques are part of Thursday call discussions now
21:22:16 [Andi]
mc: define tasks for techniques requirements documents
21:24:57 [Andi]
al: have to limit review cycles so you don't end up in infinite loop
21:26:13 [Andi]
al: have to define groundrules from the beginning
21:26:18 [Andi]
wc: up to the chair to close it
21:26:42 [Andi]
wc: define date for when we want to publish it as a note
21:26:56 [Andi]
al: can build in two rounds into cycle
21:27:11 [Andi]
al: if then decide to do a third round, affects the rest of the schedule
21:29:14 [wendy]
ACTION: mc add defn of positive test case [1]
21:29:16 [wendy]
ACTION: mc update references to "additional ideas" [2]
21:29:17 [wendy]
ACTION: mc add applicability conditions to req [3]
21:29:19 [wendy]
ACTION: wac and mc create change log for reqs document [4]
21:29:21 [wendy]
ACTION: mc to use the same definition in requirements document [5]
21:29:22 [wendy]
ACTION: mc move testability language from wcag 2.0 into requirements doc ("The Working Group believes that all success criteria should be testable. Tests can be done by computer programs or by people who understand these guidelines. Tests done by people who understand the guidelines should get the same results testing the same content for the same success criteria." [6]
21:29:24 [wendy]
ACTION: jenae compare definitions from reqs doc with QA glossary [7]
21:29:25 [wendy]
ACTION: wac proposal about mapping techniques to success criteria or guideline ok [8]
21:29:27 [wendy]
ACTION: mc and wac incorporate/link to scenarios/personas (that eowg evolved from tom's earlier work) [9]
21:29:28 [wendy]
ACTION: mc add the importance of linking from wcag 2.0 techniques to wcag 1.0 checkpoints [10]
21:29:30 [wendy]
ACTION: mc delete first two sentences of UA support documentation requirement [12]
21:29:31 [wendy]
ACTION: mc delete the untestable techniques / additional ideas stuff [13]
21:33:28 [Andi]
wc: for SMIL, first step is to analyze accessibility features of SMIL
21:33:35 [joeclark]
q+
21:34:41 [Andi]
jc: what is the relationship between SMIL and timed text?
21:34:45 [Andi]
ack joeclark
21:35:01 [Andi]
jc: captions and subtitles do not work in SMIL
21:35:13 [Andi]
jc: too complicated
21:35:29 [Andi]
jc: feature creep in timed text specification
21:36:15 [Andi]
jc: SMIL 2 just came out
21:37:26 [Andi]
jc: multi-media going towards open captioning
21:37:56 [Andi]
jc: are we just being very thorough with our own specifications? it's going to be a lot of work for not a lot of gain
21:38:20 [Andi]
js: so what is your proposal for what we could do that would be minimal, meet current need, and not make us do anything we don't absolutely have to
21:38:56 [Andi]
jc: could WC contact SMIL group to ask them what they think the relationship of SMIL and timed text to us
21:39:10 [Andi]
jc: minimum thing to do is find out what they think the requirements are.
21:39:22 [Andi]
wc: talked to SVG group about them writing the techniques document
21:39:41 [Andi]
wc: preference is for other groups to do their own techniques documents
21:40:12 [Andi]
jc: ask them what they think the relationship should be? then ask them if they would be willing to write the document
21:40:54 [Andi]
wc: find someone who is interested in participating in both groups who might do this
21:41:16 [Andi]
wc: Andrew Kirkpatrick more interested in working on ERT WG
21:41:36 [Andi]
jc: we will have to do SMIL guidelines
21:41:44 [Andi]
jc: timed text spec is not complete yet
21:42:24 [Andi]
jc: volunteered to write techniques for non-SMIL multi-media technologies
21:42:37 [Andi]
jc: if we need them
21:42:53 [Andi]
js: Joe, will you write general techniques for multi-media
21:43:09 [Andi]
wc: if techniques exist somewhere else, can just refer to them
21:43:19 [joeclark]
JOE WILL CONSIDER
21:43:24 [Andi]
action: Joe will consider doing this
21:43:52 [Andi]
jc: can make accessible multi-media using no "special features"
21:45:08 [Andi]
mc: have to create techniques for some other technology besides CSS and HTML
21:45:44 [Andi]
as: what about PDF? don't have to be part of our deliverables but still a proof point
21:45:50 [Andi]
wc: Flash also
21:46:08 [Andi]
jc: PDF would be a better choice. There is a PDF Accessibility working group
21:46:35 [Andi]
wc: if we give PDF group a timeline when things have to be done, maybe that would help move that along
21:46:52 [Andi]
jc: PDF can embed multi-media into it
21:47:05 [Andi]
mc: would love to have an interactive technology where content changes on you
21:47:40 [Andi]
jc: Loretta is part of PDF group
21:48:24 [Andi]
mc: don't have to do SMIL before we go to rec
21:48:35 [joeclark]
PDF-Access Working Group item:
21:48:36 [joeclark]
http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailarchive/uaccess-l/msg02853.shtml
21:48:43 [mcmay]
mcmay has joined #wai-wcag
21:49:15 [Andi]
mc: how do we resolve blocker issues?
21:49:34 [Andi]
wc: have a pretty good idea of what our blockers are
21:50:10 [Andi]
al: have to resolve blocker issues for each major task
21:50:23 [Andi]
<hi matt>
21:51:45 [joeclark]
q+ action item to Wendy to ask Loretta to help us out?
21:52:00 [joeclark]
q+ action item to Wendy to ask Loretta to help us out
21:52:04 [joeclark]
well, there you go.
21:52:21 [mcmay]
ACTION: wac ask Loretta to help us out
21:52:37 [Andi]
wc: need to resolve baseline for good
21:54:27 [Andi]
wc: agree that there could be blocker issues on individual tasks that don't keep the entire project from progressing but there are also some blocker issues that need to be resolved at the project level
21:54:36 [joeclark]
ah.
21:55:55 [Andi]
bc: 3 blocker issues and 1 elephant issue in Bugzilla
21:56:11 [Andi]
bc: how do we make it clear that some techniques are sufficient and some are optional
21:57:40 [Andi]
wc: <reads the other two from Bugzilla>
22:04:36 [Andi]
kg: vote on most important two issues to resolve at CSUN face to face meeting - all in favor except 1 abstention
22:05:13 [Andi]
kg: 2 issues are baseline and checklist of success criteria rather than techniques
22:07:57 [joeclark]
for information, UAAG definition of "content": http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/glossary.html#def-content
22:11:15 [Andi]
js: present to Tuesday afternoon editors' call that these two items should be on the agenda for the Thursday call 3/10 and at CSUN
22:11:30 [Andi]
kg: must be brought up at the editors' meeting
22:12:01 [Andi]
kg: TTF voted that these two items are the most important for us to resolve and should be on the agenda at the 3/10 call and the CSUN meeting
22:12:57 [Andi]
al: proposes that we have a vote before the end of the CSUN meeting to close these issues
22:13:29 [Andi]
as: I think the process requires that all members in good standing be allowed to vote even if not present at the face to face meeting
22:14:45 [Andi]
wc: we will come to a decision at the face to face meeting, summarize, publish to the list, give people a deadline to raise an objection
22:15:18 [Andi]
wc: have until March 8th to complete the process of re-joining WCAG
22:17:10 [joeclark]
q+
22:17:56 [joeclark]
q?
22:18:25 [Andi]
mc: reviews status
22:18:41 [Andi]
mc: agreed that we want to do everything in our power to resolve blocker issues at CSUN
22:18:53 [Andi]
mc: have holes in the project plan but it's a good start
22:18:57 [Andi]
ack joeclark
22:20:27 [Andi]
jc: doesn't think that a vote of "participants in good standing" vs a vote of everybody attending would make a difference
22:21:04 [Andi]
jc: process is biased towards people with expense accounts
22:21:33 [Andi]
as: is participating via phone an expense issue?
22:21:42 [Andi]
jc: not usually
22:23:46 [wendy]
everyone has until 8 march to complete the rejoin process as outlined at:
22:23:52 [wendy]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/participation.html#Becoming
22:26:19 [Andi]
kg: third major blocking issue we need to focus on is the overall project plan
22:29:54 [Andi]
Andi has left #wai-wcag
22:30:47 [ben]
ben has left #wai-wcag
22:33:33 [mcmay]
mcmay has left #wai-wcag