IRC log of wai-wcag on 2005-03-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:59:18 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
14:59:18 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/03/30-wai-wcag-irc
14:59:26 [David]
David has joined #wai-wcag
14:59:43 [wendy]
Meeting: Techniques Task Force weekly telecon
14:59:51 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has joined #wai-wcag
14:59:52 [wendy]
Chair: Michael
15:00:01 [wendy]
zakim, this is WCAG
15:00:01 [Zakim]
ok, wendy; that matches WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM
15:00:40 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
15:00:47 [Zakim]
+Michael_Cooper
15:00:54 [Zakim]
+Dave_MacDonald
15:00:59 [Becky_Gibson]
Becky_Gibson has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:15 [Zakim]
+??P16
15:01:21 [ben]
zakim, ??P16 is Ben
15:01:21 [Zakim]
+Ben; got it
15:01:23 [Zakim]
+Becky_Gibson
15:01:52 [Zakim]
+Wendy
15:02:08 [Zakim]
+John_Slatin
15:02:12 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:02:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [Microsoft], [IPcaller], Michael_Cooper, Dave_MacDonald, Ben, Becky_Gibson, Wendy, John_Slatin
15:02:25 [wendy]
zakim, [Microsoft] is Jenae
15:02:25 [Zakim]
+Jenae; got it
15:02:33 [wendy]
zakim, IPcaller is Chris
15:02:33 [Zakim]
+Chris; got it
15:03:32 [David]
me/ david is front
15:04:11 [David]
me, test
15:04:17 [wendy]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0684.html
15:04:42 [wendy]
agenda+ Work plan
15:04:50 [wendy]
agenda+ Discuss baseline proposal and implications for techniques
15:05:07 [wendy]
agenda+ Techniques sorting
15:05:11 [wendy]
zakim, pick a scribe
15:05:11 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Jenae
15:05:32 [wendy]
scribe: Becky
15:05:42 [wendy]
agenda+ Success criteria as checklists
15:05:49 [wendy]
agenda+ Plan to deal with test cases marked as pending
15:05:53 [Zakim]
+Don_Evans
15:06:07 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 1
15:06:07 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Work plan" taken up [from wendy]
15:06:36 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: please get in habit of dialing in and being ready to go at top of hour
15:07:29 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: wendy will chair since Michael has little voice
15:07:57 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: discuss work plan
15:08:23 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: want to go to last call by June; need to consider what we need to do as tech. task force before June
15:08:45 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: goal is to have sched. of every wed. until June and agenda, milestones, work items
15:09:09 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: need to divy up open bugzilla entries to tackle each week
15:10:01 [Becky_Gibson]
ja: what is status of techniques docs before last call
15:10:34 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: need html, css, general and Javascript and ideally would like to have another technology as well
15:10:36 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: html and css about 100 open items each
15:10:54 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: JavaScript has been waiting for the baseline and script alternatives issue to be resolved
15:11:03 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: have been discussing with svg group
15:11:23 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: voice xml Katie and ? have created document
15:12:00 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: lisa has created rdf techs draft; macromedia is working on techs for flash; Loretta is thinking about pdf
15:12:00 [wendy]
ack john
15:12:37 [Becky_Gibson]
js: can we tie looking at techs with GL and issues summary to help things go in parallel
15:13:07 [Becky_Gibson]
js: for ex: looking at GL 2.1 on Thurs call it might help to look at techs related to 2.1 the same or next week
15:13:46 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: techs bugzilla entries aren't tied to particular guidelines - makes it hard to query for techs issues realted to a particular GL
15:14:12 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: many issues are global and apply to mulitple techs; might be able to update entry form
15:14:27 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: could use keywords to tie tech issue with GL
15:14:49 [Becky_Gibson]
js: would help with end to end stuff; but might take more time to set up than it would save
15:15:03 [Becky_Gibson]
js: consider it if it isn't too much work to map the issues
15:15:30 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: would help to see where we are missing techs and to help close issues we have; sounds like good approach and should consider
15:15:38 [Becky_Gibson]
js: anyone think it is a bad idea?
15:15:53 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: will help us keep focused and not jump around from week 2 week
15:16:04 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: will help with end to end
15:16:22 [Becky_Gibson]
js: perhaps Wendy and Ben take an action item to see how hard it would be to categorize techs by GL
15:16:31 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: still have to figure out how to divy up work
15:16:54 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: do similar to GL end to end where someone looks at issues and makes proposals to solve
15:17:10 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: how can we do apply that method to techs
15:17:53 [Becky_Gibson]
js: sometimes issue review can be daunting when there are many open issues - having two people, 1 for GL and 1 for techs might help divy up work
15:18:17 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: seems analogous to extreme programming - pairs programmers to share ideas and work
15:18:24 [Becky_Gibson]
js: extreme issue closing!
15:18:42 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: Wendy will look at this - are there other volunteers to help?
15:19:32 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: each tech has to be looked at for sorting - can label at the same time?
15:20:02 [Becky_Gibson]
ja: what techs have to be done for last call?
15:20:19 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: some techs might not be completed ever becuz of changes in tech
15:20:26 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: but will change over time
15:20:44 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: want techs as complete as possible before we go to rec. minimum is HTML, CSS, and Scripting
15:21:08 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: Dean Jackson is willing to work with us but we need to make time to work with him
15:21:14 [Becky_Gibson]
ja: what about test suite?
15:21:28 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: yes needed for last call; also need CSS and scripting tests;
15:21:56 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: feel that at a minimum need html tests and css tests; scripting really depends upon baseline
15:22:16 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: techniques could be enough;
15:23:02 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: if we go with baseline (in current form) have to modify JS
15:23:22 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: need to remind people that we need folks to volunteer and take on tasks in order to reach these goals
15:23:47 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
15:23:47 [Zakim]
agendum 1 closed
15:23:48 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:24:00 [Zakim]
2. Discuss baseline proposal and implications for techniques [from wendy]
15:24:00 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 2
15:24:00 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Discuss baseline proposal and implications for techniques" taken up [from wendy]
15:24:01 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: aiming for an hour call today - likely will be 1.5 hours
15:24:10 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: should discuss call length at end of call
15:24:21 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: discuss baseline proposal and affect on techs
15:24:32 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: started that with discussion of JS techs
15:24:55 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: want to checkin and see if people have concerns about how baseline decision affect techs
15:25:06 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: need to get out a post about baseline and techs
15:25:35 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: there are techs for making tech X accessible and techs for what to do if tech X is not supported and techs for what to do when a Ua screws up
15:26:01 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: right now we provide all of them but don't necessarily give details about what they are for beyond GL
15:26:30 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: so nned to map techs to a given baseline that author selects; perhaps in metadata
15:26:38 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: does group have other issues or reactions?
15:27:55 [Becky_Gibson]
js: when providing techs for different scenarios Michael outlined are some types more laborious than others?
15:28:26 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: hoping we can talk about things in terms of audience and what tools they have
15:28:41 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: concern when we talk about UA support
15:29:07 [Becky_Gibson]
js: is there a way to do this that doesn't req. exhaustive info about UA support?
15:29:15 [Becky_Gibson]
js: what other issues do people have?
15:29:44 [wendy]
bg: when a technology is not supported, providing the alternative is harder to write (those techniques).
15:29:55 [wendy]
bg: is there a way we can specify technologies vs user agents?
15:30:07 [wendy]
bg: to say ecmascript 1.3 vs firefox 1.0
15:30:56 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: in HTML techs are we going to add all these if ands & ors? if this is supported do that if y do this
15:31:05 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: assume it is in metadata
15:31:16 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: how to look at metadata - rdf?
15:31:55 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: I'm Joe WebMaster I want to know if I can put a JS menu into my page. Is there a place I can look to figure out what to assume about my audience or policy?
15:32:20 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: WCAG provides advice about selecting baseline; onced that's done there are ready made views of the common baselines we need to provide
15:32:26 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: so we are into the world of views
15:33:01 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: that info should be clear by reading techs; i18n uses lang. like consider doing x to acheive Y and listing pros and cons
15:33:27 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: see a fair amt of x-referencing; author reads all techs on technology they are interested in
15:33:39 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: one document or many - have we decided?
15:34:11 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: each tech in separate file or all together
15:34:20 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: on agenda for discussion in future
15:34:39 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: have issues when hear "view" - seems over complicated
15:35:03 [Becky_Gibson]
mc and wc: agree with
15:35:08 [Becky_Gibson]
Ben's suggestion
15:35:37 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: going thru techs for accessible JS menu and then at end there is a link to a tech on how to degrade gracefully
15:35:46 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: new tech, new document or what?
15:36:28 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: in discussion for that tech you might include UA info about support of JS - and might provide link to tech for providing alternatives
15:36:39 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: author may or may not use the alternate tech
15:37:02 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: but would that be going somewhere else - to another document or is all the info inline?
15:37:20 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: I don't think the organization matters as long as all cross linked
15:37:50 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: thinking about a person that wants to print out the techs document - one print button to get whole thing - do we want to support that?
15:38:04 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: who as action item to do structural layout?
15:38:21 [Becky_Gibson]
js: I have action item for structure of guide doc - but I hope that is all
15:38:28 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: I'm willing to work on it
15:39:01 [Becky_Gibson]
js: good idea to do comparable example exercise for techniques
15:39:24 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: good idea but who can do it and by when?
15:40:21 [Becky_Gibson]
js: do we have to answer now?
15:40:32 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: having some navigation and knowing it will work is imp
15:41:03 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: need agreement on types of techs - sufficient tech and optional tech;
15:41:16 [Becky_Gibson]
js: so taxonomy matters more than navigation
15:41:38 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: most tech are written in such a way that doesn't work with baseline discussion- often say must do this
15:41:59 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: do we have to go thru each tech and say how it might need to be rewritten
15:42:40 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: yes, can talk in generalities about how tasks or titles might be rewritten but will eventually need to get to specifics
15:42:56 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: Ben, Becky and Michael have action item to do that
15:43:34 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: is there a way to pick 10 HTML techs and get some sense of what the issues are before the Thursday call?
15:43:44 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: Ben may have already done some of this?
15:44:27 [Becky_Gibson]
js: structure discussion happens on April 14 and want some prototype stuff for some of the GL 1.1,1.3,2.4 and 4.2 (scribe thinks)
15:44:38 [Becky_Gibson]
js: can we look at the techs related to those GL
15:44:58 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: techs docs is where all these ifs and ors will come in
15:45:08 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: related to baseline decision
15:45:26 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: could do all script ones and some from HTML and CSS
15:46:01 [Becky_Gibson]
js: what has to happen with techs sorting stuff that was done in Boston - is that enough so don't have to go back to Html and focus on css and scripting
15:46:39 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: tomorrow meeting is not about structure; focusing on baseline and effect on techs
15:47:14 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: phrasing to me seems to fall into structure; until have done soring we can't really determine phrasing and organization
15:47:35 [Becky_Gibson]
js: do similar sorting exercise on CSS and scripting
15:48:01 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: sorting ques relate to SC
15:48:21 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: need to pick a few SC and look at techs from different technologies
15:48:49 [Becky_Gibson]
js: look at some ones as for guide doc: 1.1, 1.3, 2.4, 3.1 and 4.2
15:49:18 [wendy]
agenda?
15:49:37 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: techs sorting has been covered in this discussion
15:49:59 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: that seems to be the next big work item - we should figure out how to assign to members in group to get raw data
15:50:19 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: Wendy and Ben work on a plan for that so can assign that out next week
15:50:58 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: can spend time now or take offline
15:51:05 [wendy]
action: wendy and ben figure methodology and plan for techniques sorting assignments
15:51:13 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 4
15:51:13 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Success criteria as checklists" taken up [from wendy]
15:51:34 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: discussion of how people feel this affects techniques
15:51:49 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: just want to have a checkin on this from techs task force
15:52:08 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: are there comments or concerns about directon of SC as checklists?
15:52:42 [Becky_Gibson]
js: in order to get to recommendation favors the simple checklist - don't think we need annotated one for recommendation
15:53:21 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 5
15:53:21 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Plan to deal with test cases marked as pending" taken up [from wendy]
15:53:28 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: plan to deal with test cases marked as pending
15:54:07 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: we have a bunch of tests that are pending; we have 2 steps - 1 we are finished with test, it is good for accessibility and 2 how it fits into WCAG
15:55:55 [Becky_Gibson]
js: process reminder - techs task force makes proposals to WG and WG has final say on what is accepted and not
15:56:16 [Becky_Gibson]
js: for recommendation track we need to focus on what should be in WCAG and propose those items to full WG
15:56:43 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: what are we going to be polling for? accepted, rejected and optional or do we need more categories?
15:56:52 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: is OK if we just stay with those 3?
15:57:02 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: what other categories could there be?
15:57:23 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: changes in structure related to baseline change where test cases fit in
15:57:54 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: for ex: easy to accept test for optional tech but not necessarily for a sufficient tech.
15:58:24 [Becky_Gibson]
js: why is one harder than other? is just a test of does the technique accomplish its goal or not?
15:58:40 [wendy]
q+ to say, "tie tests to techniques..part of discussing issues with techniques...end-to-end, etc."
15:58:50 [Becky_Gibson]
js: tech describe how to code things that are sufficient to satisfy a SC
15:59:14 [Becky_Gibson]
js: just need to figure out if test really tests the given technique or not
15:59:34 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: see tests and techs as being equiv. if techs are req or not req then that is the same for the test
16:00:01 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: see the tests as beyond WCAG; if test is good for accessibility but not covered in WCAG it is still useful
16:00:26 [Becky_Gibson]
js: but that is outside of our scope given the amount of work we have; keep these tests but doesn't make
16:00:44 [Becky_Gibson]
js: sense to have tests techs that we don't have
16:00:58 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: how can we figure out now what techs will be included for sure
16:01:44 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: back to John's suggestion of having techs calls follow the WG call discussion of GL; test discussion should follow GL discussion as well
16:02:16 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: in order to reach last call when tough GL at WG call we need to be closing it; this will help techs close on the issue as well
16:02:39 [Becky_Gibson]
ja: but way more techs than there are GL so will take us longer - need to take into consideration
16:03:07 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: agreed - need to look at using more polls; and getting people to take assignments and making recommendations;
16:03:37 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: like we did when reviewing tests - can we expand to techs; do more work offline so can get to more yes and no decisions at meetings
16:04:02 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: keep polling as before? break test into batches?
16:04:32 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: not exactly; instead of just looking at tests perhaps look at techniques and related tests
16:04:41 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: and follow the WG GL discussions
16:05:19 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the call?
16:05:19 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Jenae, Chris, Michael_Cooper, Dave_MacDonald, Ben, Becky_Gibson, Wendy, John_Slatin, Don_Evans
16:05:37 [Becky_Gibson]
ja: is there a way to assign techs and test review based on GL?
16:06:01 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: 9 of us and 13 guidelines; but have concerns
16:06:25 [Becky_Gibson]
js: think it should at least be a two person group; one can take respon. for techs and someone else takes tests
16:06:39 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: Jenae is suggesting breaking up techs by GL
16:06:54 [Becky_Gibson]
js: but like earlier idea of assigning at least two people per GL
16:07:28 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: need a detailed plan to get from a to b so we can stop talking about process -that is the goal
16:08:09 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: at one hour - would like to give remaining time to Ben, Becky, Michael and other to discuss techs before Thurs call
16:08:33 [wendy]
actions?
16:08:33 [RRSAgent]
sees 1 open action item:
16:08:33 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wendy and ben figure methodology and plan for techniques sorting assignments [1]
16:08:33 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/30-wai-wcag-irc#T15-51-05
16:08:35 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: would like to move ahead but not quite sure how to do it?
16:08:43 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: wendy will propose a plan
16:09:38 [Becky_Gibson]
js: don't move forward right now with previous test review plans - but hold off until Wendy proposes new plan
16:09:54 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: need to get new plan in motion by next week
16:10:40 [wendy]
action: michael drink lots of throat coat tea to get well soon!
16:10:48 [Zakim]
-John_Slatin
16:10:49 [Zakim]
-Don_Evans
16:10:57 [Zakim]
-Dave_MacDonald
16:11:01 [Zakim]
-Jenae
16:11:03 [Zakim]
-Wendy
16:11:09 [Zakim]
-Chris
16:11:12 [wendy]
RRSagent, make log world
16:11:15 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has left #wai-wcag
16:47:05 [wendy]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
16:47:05 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/03/30-wai-wcag-minutes.html wendy
16:47:17 [wendy]
zakim, bye
16:47:17 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were [IPcaller], Michael_Cooper, Dave_MacDonald, Ben, Becky_Gibson, Wendy, John_Slatin, Jenae, Chris, Don_Evans
16:47:17 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
17:44:27 [wendy]
ben?
17:44:38 [wendy]
RRSAgent, bye
17:44:38 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items:
17:44:38 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wendy and ben figure methodology and plan for techniques sorting assignments [1]
17:44:38 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/30-wai-wcag-irc#T15-51-05
17:44:38 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: michael drink lots of throat coat tea to get well soon! [2]
17:44:38 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/30-wai-wcag-irc#T16-10-40