See also: IRC log
<wendy> type, /me message
<wendy> scribe: wendy
jenae summarizes mon-wednesday
ja: we met mon and tues. wed
there were 330 folks.
... we had a few folks who don't usually call in joined on monday.
... the highlight of the day was steve bratt joining us in the afternoon to talk about getting through rec track.
... he wasn't able to give us concrete steps, but suggested going to last call sooner than later.
... we talked about what "2 implementations" means for us.
... he talked about test cases and that can help us get through CR.
... next steps: probably another WD, then last call, then CR (test cases), PR, and REc
... wednesday there were several topics.
... at lunch we talked about test cases.
... the whole group into talbes of 8 and found out that about 40% of specs have test suties.
... all the groups reported back. lots of people in the same place. pushback that there aren't enough resources.
... people don't understand why we need them and what makes a good test case.
... other highlight - the WAI site redesign presentation by Shawn Henry.
... good stats on the current usability of the site and also on the new design.
... thought it would be helpful if we ran our html test cases against the redeisn to ensure it will be accessible.
js: on wednesday, got my attn:
versioning at the beginning of the day (thought provoking
discussion. diff points of view. shelf-life of different specs.
planning for obsolesences)
... thinking about that as an integral part of the process, not that it means failure.
... several presentations about multimodal applications - speech-activated with text-to-speech out that had interesting applications and implications for us.
tb: on friday - al, wendy, and
michael presented to request that specification consider
... believe that there is a possible way forward for specGL to have an annex or appendix that lists additional considerations.
... help get accessibility into specGL as a best practice.
dmd: on mon and tues, a bit slow
start to getting started. we revisted some issues that we
thought we had resolved. e.g., do we ask the main group about
doing a 1.1 or 1.5 instead of a 2.0.
... made us revisit what is working and what is not.
... mc thought about moving the principles up as an overarching principles to frame all of the guidelines (atag, uaag, wcag, xag).
... we met with UAWG on thursday at lunch.
... we talked with them about this. got a maybe.
... it's a proposal taht we may want to discuss w/the main group.
mc: I've been asked to send it to the list before tomorrow' mtg.
bc: while you were doing that,
wac and i met with richard ishida about i18n.
... while ago had shared techs dtd.
... believe their work provides us with a model to fit our needs for techniques.
mc: mon focused on requirements -
what are we doing.
... supposed to be an hour, but took the day.
... others have identified issues that came up from that discussion.
... clear that we need to solidfy the requirements. stop the target from moving.
... need to be braver about saying, "an issue has been dealt with and is closed."
... also braver that consensus does not have to mean unanymity. can find ways to move forward.
... on tuesday, we met with other groups, but a major goal was to create a project plan.
... we worked on the outline of a plan and will work on some more.
... the idea is that we will have a clear list of tasks to accomplihs, timeline for each task, try to break them into 1 or 2 hour chunks to decrease the daunting factor to get people plugged in.
... once we agree on the timeline we need to hold ourselves to it.
... have a rough outline will complete in the next few weeks.
js: strong consensus of those
present that making a decision about baseline and form of
checklists are "blocker issues" that are preventing us from
... the outcome of those will have impact on deliverables.
<Michael> scribe: Michael
wac: relation of CSS and HTML techniques
e.g., a CSS test may depend on an HTML test, e.g., structure in HTML -> CSS presentation
action to create proposals, and Jenae will create tests
look at testable assertions
some questions from first day made it clear that we need very good documentation of our decisions
when a repeat question comes up, we just point to the decision and rationale
more of an internal document for now but could become an FAQ or WCAG 1.0 to 2.0 transition material
issues with WCAG 2.0 are important points, but hopefully we can provide clarity within this work
this review helpful for minutes
<scribe> ACTION: everyone send trip report to Wendy [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/09-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
js: met with UA group while they met with SVG to review UA responses to SVG draft
SVG group creating examples, planning to have an accessibility chapter
request from Peter Korn instead that they make all the examples demonstrate accessibility
accessibility chapter then focuses on more complex, subtle things
they seemed receptive
wac: met with Dean Jackson and Chris Lilly (SVG)
accessibility techniques for SVG note
also met with ERT group Friday morning to discuss test suites and EARL
we want them to do test suites, but their main focus is EARL
discussion of what we can provide so they can create test suites
changes in WCAG 2 that might affect EARL
<wendy> js: had an informal conversation thursday a.m. with jim allan and jon gunderson from UAWG.
<scribe> scribe: wendy
js: had questions about how they
describe conditional content.
... uawg hadn't meant it to be exclusive,that should get title with other info. but that's not clear from way written.
fyi: david, /me comments are not logged.
js: discussed creating a joing
working group note that could help clarify.
... another way to help get interoperability between guideliens, w/out going through the rec track.
... so, a lot of coordination with other groups.
tb: there were 3 issues in
coordinating with WCAG (via QA).
... at the close of the meeting on friday, wac is going to look at qa responses.
... qa wants wcag to identify deprecated features by providing mapping between 1.0 and 2.0.
<scribe> ACTION: jenae and wendy review and respond to qa responses to specgl comments (by the end of march) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/09-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]
js: lunch on wednesday was
assigned seating to meet new people and discuss test
... didn't talk a lot about that, but did discuss machine tests versus human tests. no one else had thought about human testability.
... all of their stuff is narrowly tech specs. everything is algorithmically testable.
... we had a good discussion about what quality alt text might sound like. tbl was in the discussion.
dmd: thursday during the day we mapped 1.1 to uawg.
js: in relation to thinking about baseline issue and if we adopt uaag 1.0 what does it say about a certain technique.
wac: many aciton items about requirements documents. when get those done and get back to discussion?
js: i am presenting on
... could use it as an opportunity to try out the persona notion
wac: what action items need to be
completed before the CSUN F2F?
... seems like planning and requirements document-related action items.
js: do w have test files that have been reviewed for all of guideline 1.1
mc: believe we're in good shape
js: some revision work that needs
to happen with guidelien 1.1.
... other things that techs group needs to focus on to prep for public WD?
mc: there are open action items
on all docs, particularly css and html.
... don't think we can at this point.
... particularly need scripting updates, has gone througha couple rounds with no changes. partly b/c not sure what to do until resolve baseline.
... i have many action items that probably won't get done until end of march.
js: could those be delegated?
mc: except editorial, yes.
js: also at plenary discussed
modifying the technique submission form to make it easier to
use to harvest techs from people.
... cna send somethingt o bc today or otmorrow.
bg: i can spend time on css or something else. don't have a lot of time, b/c traveling.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.115 of Date: 2005/02/15 22:31:37 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: wendy Inferring ScribeNick: wendy Found Scribe: Michael Inferring ScribeNick: Michael Found Scribe: wendy Inferring ScribeNick: wendy Scribes: wendy, Michael ScribeNicks: wendy, Michael WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. Default Present: John_Slatin, Ben, Wendy, Chris, David, Tim_Boland, Ken_Kipnes, Becky_Gibson, Don_Evans, Michael_Cooper, Jenae Present: John_Slatin Ben Wendy Chris David Tim_Boland Ken_Kipnes Becky_Gibson Don_Evans Michael_Cooper Jenae WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0575.html Got date from IRC log name: 9 Mar 2005 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2005/03/09-wai-wcag-minutes.html People with action items: everyone jenae report respond review send trip wendy WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found! Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>. Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of new discussion topics or agenda items, such as: <dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]