See also: IRC log
<David> me/ david is front
<David> me, test
<wendy> scribe: Becky
mc: please get in habit of dialing in and being ready to go at top of hour
wc: wendy will chair since
Michael has little voice
... discuss work plan
... want to go to last call by June; need to consider what we need to do as tech. task force before June
... goal is to have sched. of every wed. until June and agenda, milestones, work items
... need to divy up open bugzilla entries to tackle each week
ja: what is status of techniques docs before last call
wc: need html, css, general and
... html and css about 100 open items each
... have been discussing with svg group
... voice xml Katie and ? have created document
... lisa has created rdf techs draft; macromedia is working on techs for flash; Loretta is thinking about pdf
js: can we tie looking at techs
with GL and issues summary to help things go in parallel
... 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
wc: techs bugzilla entries aren't tied to particular guidelines - makes it hard to query for techs issues realted to a particular GL
bc: many issues are global and apply to mulitple techs; might be able to update entry form
wc: could use keywords to tie tech issue with GL
js: would help with end to end
stuff; but might take more time to set up than it would
... consider it if it isn't too much work to map the issues
wc: would help to see where we are missing techs and to help close issues we have; sounds like good approach and should consider
js: anyone think it is a bad idea?
bc: will help us keep focused and not jump around from week 2 week
wc: will help with end to end
js: perhaps Wendy and Ben take an action item to see how hard it would be to categorize techs by GL
wc: still have to figure out how
to divy up work
... do similar to GL end to end where someone looks at issues and makes proposals to solve
... how can we do apply that method to techs
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
wc: seems analogous to extreme programming - pairs programmers to share ideas and work
js: extreme issue closing!
wc: Wendy will look at this - are there other volunteers to help?
bc: each tech has to be looked at for sorting - can label at the same time?
ja: what techs have to be done for last call?
wc: some techs might not be
completed ever becuz of changes in tech
... but will change over time
... want techs as complete as possible before we go to rec. minimum is HTML, CSS, and Scripting
... Dean Jackson is willing to work with us but we need to make time to work with him
ja: what about test suite?
wc: yes needed for last call;
also need CSS and scripting tests;
... feel that at a minimum need html tests and css tests; scripting really depends upon baseline
... techniques could be enough;
mc: if we go with baseline (in
current form) have to modify JS
... need to remind people that we need folks to volunteer and take on tasks in order to reach these goals
wc: aiming for an hour call today - likely will be 1.5 hours
mc: should discuss call length at end of call
wc: discuss baseline proposal and
affect on techs
... started that with discussion of JS techs
mc: want to checkin and see if
people have concerns about how baseline decision affect
... need to get out a post about baseline and techs
... 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
... right now we provide all of them but don't necessarily give details about what they are for beyond GL
... so nned to map techs to a given baseline that author selects; perhaps in metadata
... does group have other issues or reactions?
js: when providing techs for different scenarios Michael outlined are some types more laborious than others?
wc: hoping we can talk about
things in terms of audience and what tools they have
... concern when we talk about UA support
js: is there a way to do this
that doesn't req. exhaustive info about UA support?
... what other issues do people have?
<wendy> bg: when a technology is not supported, providing the alternative is harder to write (those techniques).
<wendy> bg: is there a way we can specify technologies vs user agents?
<wendy> bg: to say ecmascript 1.3 vs firefox 1.0
dm: in HTML techs are we going to add all these if ands & ors? if this is supported do that if y do this
mc: assume it is in metadata
dm: how to look at metadata -
... 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?
mc: WCAG provides advice about selecting baseline; onced that's done there are ready made views of the common baselines we need to provide
dm: so we are into the world of views
bc: that info should be clear by
reading techs; i18n uses lang. like consider doing x to acheive
Y and listing pros and cons
... see a fair amt of x-referencing; author reads all techs on technology they are interested in
dm: one document or many - have
... each tech in separate file or all together
wc: on agenda for discussion in
... have issues when hear "view" - seems over complicated
mc and wc: agree with
dm: going thru techs for
accessible JS menu and then at end there is a link to a tech on
how to degrade gracefully
... new tech, new document or what?
bc: in discussion for that tech
you might include UA info about support of JS - and might
provide link to tech for providing alternatives
... author may or may not use the alternate tech
dm: but would that be going somewhere else - to another document or is all the info inline?
bc: I don't think the organization matters as long as all cross linked
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?
wc: who as action item to do structural layout?
js: I have action item for structure of guide doc - but I hope that is all
bc: I'm willing to work on it
js: good idea to do comparable example exercise for techniques
wc: good idea but who can do it and by when?
js: do we have to answer now?
mc: having some navigation and knowing it will work is imp
bc: need agreement on types of techs - sufficient tech and optional tech;
js: so taxonomy matters more than navigation
bc: most tech are written in such a way that doesn't work with baseline discussion- often say must do this
mc: do we have to go thru each tech and say how it might need to be rewritten
bc: yes, can talk in generalities about how tasks or titles might be rewritten but will eventually need to get to specifics
mc: Ben, Becky and Michael have action item to do that
wc: is there a way to pick 10
HTML techs and get some sense of what the issues are before the
... Ben may have already done some of this?
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)
... can we look at the techs related to those GL
dm: techs docs is where all these
ifs and ors will come in
... related to baseline decision
mc: could do all script ones and some from HTML and CSS
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
wc: tomorrow meeting is not about structure; focusing on baseline and effect on techs
bc: phrasing to me seems to fall into structure; until have done soring we can't really determine phrasing and organization
js: do similar sorting exercise on CSS and scripting
bc: sorting ques relate to
... need to pick a few SC and look at techs from different technologies
js: look at some ones as for guide doc: 1.1, 1.3, 2.4, 3.1 and 4.2
wc: techs sorting has been covered in this discussion
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
wc: Wendy and Ben work on a plan
for that so can assign that out next week
... can spend time now or take offline
<wendy> ACTION: wendy and ben figure methodology and plan for techniques sorting assignments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/30-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
wc: discussion of how people feel this affects techniques
mc: just want to have a checkin on this from techs task force
wc: are there comments or concerns about directon of SC as checklists?
js: in order to get to recommendation favors the simple checklist - don't think we need annotated one for recommendation
wc: plan to deal with test cases marked as pending
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
js: process reminder - techs task
force makes proposals to WG and WG has final say on what is
accepted and not
... for recommendation track we need to focus on what should be in WCAG and propose those items to full WG
cr: what are we going to be
polling for? accepted, rejected and optional or do we need more
... is OK if we just stay with those 3?
wc: what other categories could there be?
bc: changes in structure related
to baseline change where test cases fit in
... for ex: easy to accept test for optional tech but not necessarily for a sufficient tech.
js: why is one harder than other?
is just a test of does the technique accomplish its goal or
... tech describe how to code things that are sufficient to satisfy a SC
... just need to figure out if test really tests the given technique or not
cr: see tests and techs as being
equiv. if techs are req or not req then that is the same for
... see the tests as beyond WCAG; if test is good for accessibility but not covered in WCAG it is still useful
js: but that is outside of our
scope given the amount of work we have; keep these tests but
... sense to have tests techs that we don't have
cr: how can we figure out now what techs will be included for sure
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
... 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
ja: but way more techs than there are GL so will take us longer - need to take into consideration
wc: agreed - need to look at
using more polls; and getting people to take assignments and
... 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
cr: keep polling as before? break test into batches?
wc: not exactly; instead of just
looking at tests perhaps look at techniques and related
... and follow the WG GL discussions
ja: is there a way to assign techs and test review based on GL?
wc: 9 of us and 13 guidelines; but have concerns
js: think it should at least be a two person group; one can take respon. for techs and someone else takes tests
wc: Jenae is suggesting breaking up techs by GL
js: but like earlier idea of assigning at least two people per GL
wc: need a detailed plan to get
from a to b so we can stop talking about process -that is the
... at one hour - would like to give remaining time to Ben, Becky, Michael and other to discuss techs before Thurs call
cr: would like to move ahead but not quite sure how to do it?
wc: wendy will propose a plan
js: don't move forward right now with previous test review plans - but hold off until Wendy proposes new plan
wc: need to get new plan in motion by next week
<wendy> ACTION: michael drink lots of throat coat tea to get well soon! [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/30-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]
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) No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: Becky_Gibson Found Scribe: Becky WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Becky_Gibson Chris ChrisR Dave_MacDonald David Don_Evans IPcaller Jenae John_Slatin Michael_Cooper Microsoft P16 bc ben bg cr dm inserted ja js mc wc wendy You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0684.html Got date from IRC log name: 30 Mar 2005 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2005/03/30-wai-wcag-minutes.html People with action items: coat drink lots michael of tea throat wendy WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]