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