WCAG WG weekly telecon

24 Mar 2005

See also: IRC log


[Microsoft], +1.408.830.aaaa, Becky_Gibson, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Wendy, [IBM], Mike, +1.202.707.aabb, Yvette_Hoitink, Michael_Cooper, Ben, +1.408.830.aacc, Dave_MacDonald, John_Slatin, Matt, Bengt, Tim_Boland, JasonWhite, rellero, Andi, Doyle, Luca_Mascaro, Gregg, Makoto, +1.408.830.aadd, snutarelli, Neil_Soiffer
Roberto_Scano, Roberto_Castaldo, WATANABE_Takayuki, Alex, Li




<Yvette_Hoitink> Hi everyone

<LucaMascaro> Hi Yvette

<Yvette_Hoitink> Wendy, I might leave before the end because I'm not feeling too well

<Yvette_Hoitink> But I do want to hear the report about the f2f

<Makoto> Hi everyone

<wendy> yvette - ok. hope you feel better.

<Yvette_Hoitink> thx


<wendy> makoto - apparently, i dropped you. sorry about that. please call back in.

me, test

<wendy> scribe: david

<snutarelli> Hi Yvette, many thanks..

gv: no tech call this week so, straight f2f, there was also coord group, that we will talk a bit about

<Yvette_Hoitink> sebastiano: you can now mute and unmute yourself

<snutarelli> I know

GV: tim, yvette, jason, matt Bengt, were not at F2F

<DoyleB> cannot hear a thing total static

gv: presume eeryone read outout of f2f, we'll summarize questions raist at cg meeting then those f the group, will help explain how we cot towhere we got to..over a full dayof deliberations, intependent groups that converged on it.


Update from Face to Face

<ben_> F2F results summary: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0642

js: at coordinating grou0p, comments in response to greggs (issues) post, protocall and formats feel that we may be talkingabout not a w3c note that we will not set a tech baseline. Al Gilman, nervous about decision, concern that because no baseline will jeopardize adoption and make other groups rush in to fill percieved void, js pointed out that JIS and EU werein attendence and were in agreement
... they were concerned that we are delegating our guidlines as a note, this way

wc: they are worried that without a default that [eople will not know when they are done and may notbe able to conform

gv: for clarity, there were a lot of other things we discussed but if we didn't reach concensus we would not post them...
... one thing on table was, 1)??...2) offer guidance 3) say nothing about baseline

what is # 1

<wendy> 1) include baseline in guidelines (normative)

<wendy> 2) offer informative guidance

<wendy> (in techniques)

gv: we knew that if you do set a baseline we put time stam on document and lots of "until user agents"
... if we don't then others will, ie countries, we thought that might be ok because different countries may have different needs,,, otherwise bar could be too high or too low

#1) was baseline in techniques doc

lg: baseline funny, because usually in wai we go to the lowest denominator, this is a celing rather than a floor

tb: 1) what real world examples motivated 2) could a mechanism be difined to update the guidelines

gv: real world examples include scripting, if you require scripts then alternates necessary every country would have to have AT that supports scripts...

tb: hard to understand how in TR, would pass the grade...need indication of sufficient quality, quantity and wide spread adoption, how could this be acheived?

wc: what gv sent was unanimous agreed but there are other clarifications on table, ie, generally if a decision maker cannot make assumptions about what tech user has trned on, then if they use a tech that may be turned off they would be requeired to make a fall back, if they ar assured then no falolback necessary

in cr, we could show the w3c, and html, css sites where when css is off site is usable, we can also show where enterprise is reasonably sure they have the proper AT to use application, ie, if IBM sells a widget to a specific client that requieres it they would be sure, so we think we willl not have oroblem getting through cr

gv: if there is lots of push back in CR then we would have failed but we think we can address the key issues, we just didn't have stuff on the table that could be agreed on

tb: thanks thats ok, and fine for now

gv: js sent me some text to provide context, to explain why we came to our decision and how we can proceed successfully,

tb: these questions will be asked by others

gv: toward end of call we will see if we have consensus on other things, we need people to know we haven't tossed the dog poop over the fence

jw: what happened to structure quesiton

gv: didn't post because we have priciples down and will try to lay it out clearly
... no explicit baseline, we will go through GL looking for unnecessary "implicit" baseline clean those up. look at it for tightening
... Document "guide to guidelines" contains general techniques, talks about background and reasons , techniques, advisory stuff, links to tech docs , not clear whether each technique qould be its own document
... Guidelines, guide, to technology specifics, (two other entities, check list which is a list of SC)

annotated schecklist not required for rec, mayn or not finished before rec, but not necessary, aplication , topic based doc, ie. forms, etc...not required for rec but makes docs more usable, but inmortant, needs to be an organization other than by SC, there were t4ests tagged against techniquqes

nothing in the tech docs that is required unless its the onoly way to do something but we wouldn't say that

js: point out that end of greggs message, there is a long list of action items to be completed and by date...one of them, is to conduct user analysis to determine best structure to the guide document.
... rename general techniques to guide doc

jw: that's ok

js: action item, will try to write an explanation of the relationship of structions,

gv: accepted

<wendy> ACTION: john summarize proposed resolutions from structure discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/24-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]

wendy can you make action item above

<wendy> david - yep. done.

gv: turn to wendy for the fit of this stuff, go to CR in JUNE!!!!!,,,
... wendy will give project plan

wc: matt & yvette on q

mm: lets do timeline first

Work on timeline and action items to get this all done

yh: will discuss later

wc: thx for those who helped, learning ms project, nothing for list yet, but the main things are, based on andi's rec....if we want a rec this year, the last day is dec 21, so working back, june 1 last call, to get there, resolve all issues, that are necessary for last call...2 hours every thursday, close 4 components per call, bugzilla,

that would be 5 weeks, if we do per week then 7 weeks, 2 per week would be 10 weeks

all issues and summaries need to be resolved, esp baseline which could hold us up...look at each task, how they could interact with each other

gv: components, are areas where we have bugs, each guidelin is a comonent

wc: other components include.... presentation and structure, etc....(too fast for me)

gv: 4 guidelines per phone call too much I think, where are all the techniuqes in this formula

wc: i'm looking at thursday call, tech scedule separate, doesn't include guide so this is scary, when we lookat what has to be closed before last call, much higher level of completeness for GL
... not all issues have tobe closed before LC

gv: if WCAG were down, and guide was down and solid techs would go fast, they are notes...GL and Guide ar really important...
... GL are too high level for some, so we need guide to the guidelines

wc: everyone is volunteer
... a lot of these tasks are full days tasks we ae already cutting into 90 minutes a week, and mailing list, etc...this is before they do any actuall "work" on the gl
... no way to continue as we are

asw: what do you mean that all tech have to go through thurs call

gv: Thursday is only authority
... thurs can adopt or turn down
... im will give a yeah or ney above us

im =TIm

asw: how can we issue tech document

gv: we create task force, they will bring their recs to us

asw: for test cases also

gv: yes

yh: how does that work in practice?

gv: we could just adopt, or go through every item, I think tech group will bring us docs, we will be reading in advance, and it will go quickly, unless there is a bomb
... we may find some issues and tech will go back and we will go back and forth and eventually it will pass I think

wc: I think that we did a lot of planning for this f2f and planning helps make things efficient

and meaningful

it will only work if people are serious and read in advance,

wc: if we are prepared we can get yeh, ney on thursdays

gv: unless I'm overided by group we will not walk every item on thurs calls, most will happen on list
... our group should read it as we get final drafts from tech force
... those who want to walk techs should be on wed calls

mc: agress with wendy , GL paramount, tech, secondary, echo concern, better write techs for other guidelines javascript etc....

this will help us on GL, moving baseline out, will mae it easier,,, but want to walk some techs in guidlelines before we finish guidelines

gv: GL paramount, but without techs we won't have confidence in GL
... JS says the guide is even more critical than GL, twhen GL goes to rec, the Guide is what peple will look for, the guide should be stable at that point, same effect as what a report has to a law, it will be the thing people turn to in dispute

wc: clarify, final vote and last call different

js: last call, canditate, proposed rec...

gv: roposed frozen

wc: needs to be just about compete at last call or in danger of being sent back


gv: assumption of June july as vacation, also teachers have double schedules in april, march, which frees up in June
... we're pressed coming and going

<wendy> s/june july/july august

tb: wondering about motivation, for timeline, worried that sacrificing quality

gv: good point

tb: css went back to last call high quality paramount, rather than timeline

gv: this is about how hard to work, there is no social graduation, if not ready it won't go out, wendy is just saying this is important, to prepare for meeings beforehand

zakim take a nap

wc: the reason I gave deadline is web cluster in europe will be going to press with our recs in sept regardless of when we are done, a lot of other orgs feel the same way and will do their own thin, if we go to 2006 it will have negative influence on credibility, and on motivation

gv: wendy did not just decide this, this is from WAI, and those above us
... don't shoot the messenger

js: all that said, i[m convinced we are closer than it seems,
... can get guidelines done, with hard work, between calls
... list can be used between calls , and calls can be to make sure we got it right
... ask everyone to help out as much as we can

gv: begin a practise, don't spring things at meeting, if we are prepared...come with propossals
... review agree, comment and send back

wc: appreciate those who help

gv: reviewed front to back, recommend yo read the doc front to back, its pretty good, with some fixes it good, has come a long way

Discussion on initial feedback

yh: why did you abandon UAAG? doublin decided

js: analysis, doesn't resolve key questions
... UAAG is a good tool, but not a baseline

yh: ok
... implicit/explicit
... authors and us, UAAG good for us

GV: UAAG is a good tool, but not a baseline

asw: do we need to resolve longer calls

yh: that's late, but I can do it

doyle: can't do it, its during my lunch hour now, might fudge it in

gv: let's go for 2 hours but THEY HAVE TO BE EFFICIENT!!!!!
... 4-6 EST

js: we'll revisit it in a few weeks

gv: if you take an assignment, and can't do it, let us know rightaway, so we can find another way to do it.
... it will be "just in time" approach
... 1) review 2) agree, 3) comment and 4) send back
... in bugzilla,resolve them, send the easy ones to list first, the hard ones at bottom, and they can be sent back and te easy stuff can pass
... thx to f2f ers
... th wendy, and peole who read the list before call
... it's doable, let's get down to it

<rellero> bye

<wendy> david - thank you very much for minuting


Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: john summarize proposed resolutions from structure discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/24-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.119 (CVS log)
$Date: 2005/03/24 22:49:54 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.119  of Date: 2005/03/23 10:01:53  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/not good/a celing rather than a floor/
FAILED: s/june july/july august/
Found Scribe: david
Inferring ScribeNick: David
Default Present: [Microsoft], +1.408.830.aaaa, Becky_Gibson, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Wendy, [IBM], Mike, +1.202.707.aabb, Yvette_Hoitink, Michael_Cooper, Ben, +1.408.830.aacc, Dave_MacDonald, John_Slatin, Matt, Bengt, Tim_Boland, JasonWhite, rellero, Andi, Doyle, Luca_Mascaro, Gregg, Makoto, +1.408.830.aadd, snutarelli, Neil_Soiffer
Present: [Microsoft] +1.408.830.aaaa Becky_Gibson Loretta_Guarino_Reid Wendy [IBM] Mike +1.202.707.aabb Yvette_Hoitink Michael_Cooper Ben +1.408.830.aacc Dave_MacDonald John_Slatin Matt Bengt Tim_Boland JasonWhite rellero Andi Doyle Luca_Mascaro Gregg Makoto +1.408.830.aadd snutarelli Neil_Soiffer
Regrets: Roberto_Scano Roberto_Castaldo WATANABE_Takayuki Alex Li
Got date from IRC log name: 24 Mar 2005
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2005/03/24-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: john

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]