IRC log of wai-wcag on 2005-03-31

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:53:18 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
20:53:18 [RRSAgent]
logging to
20:53:23 [ben_]
ben_ has joined #wai-wcag
20:53:53 [wendy]
Meeting: WCAG WG weekly telecon
20:54:08 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started
20:54:16 [Zakim]
20:54:28 [wendy]
20:54:36 [wendy]
agenda+ TTF update
20:54:43 [wendy]
agenda+ Agenda and Procedures for Today
20:54:54 [wendy]
agenda+ Overview of Baseline discussion and proposal items from F2F
20:55:02 [wendy]
agenda+ Impact analysis: Guidelines and Success Criteria
20:55:10 [wendy]
agenda+ Summary of follow-up discussions and proposals
20:55:16 [Zakim]
20:55:19 [wendy]
agenda+ Impact analysis: Techniques
20:55:29 [wendy]
agenda+ Checking in: Responses from people on the call
20:55:34 [bengt]
zakim, ??P7 is Bengt_Farre
20:55:34 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
20:55:38 [wendy]
agenda+ Harvesting Ideas: Impact on Conformance
20:55:46 [wendy]
agenda+ Status check: action items, progress toward milestones
20:55:47 [bengt]
zakim, I am Bengt_Farre
20:55:48 [Zakim]
ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
20:55:52 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:55:52 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P6, Bengt_Farre
20:56:01 [wendy]
makoto or yvette, are you ??P6?
20:56:17 [Michael]
Michael has joined #wai-wcag
20:56:38 [Makoto]
zakim, ??P6 is Makoto
20:56:38 [Zakim]
+Makoto; got it
20:57:26 [wendy]
Regrets: Roberto Ellero, Roberto Scano, Roberto Castaldo, Kerstin Goldsmith, Luca Mascaro, Tim Boland, Sebastiano Nutarelli
20:57:29 [wendy]
thx makoto
20:57:55 [tecks]
tecks has joined #wai-wcag
20:58:37 [jslatin]
jslatin has joined #wai-wcag
20:58:47 [DoyleB]
Hey John!!!
20:58:55 [wendy]
hey john!
20:59:14 [DoyleB]
Is anyon eon call yet
20:59:32 [Zakim]
20:59:51 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:59:51 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Makoto, Bengt_Farre, Wendy
20:59:53 [Zakim]
21:00:05 [Makoto]
zakim, mute me
21:00:05 [Zakim]
Makoto should now be muted
21:00:05 [ben_]
zakim, ??P8 is Ben_and_Gregg
21:00:06 [Zakim]
+Ben_and_Gregg; got it
21:00:16 [Zakim]
21:00:27 [jslatin]
Hey there. Using MIRC. Have to do a "read whole window" to get the transcript window so won't do it often...
21:00:49 [Zakim]
21:00:58 [Zakim]
21:01:12 [Zakim]
21:01:18 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, ??P10 is Yvette_Hoitink
21:01:18 [Zakim]
+Yvette_Hoitink; got it
21:01:32 [Zakim]
21:01:34 [nabe]
nabe has joined #wai-wcag
21:01:34 [Becky_Gibson]
Becky_Gibson has joined #wai-wcag
21:01:44 [Zakim]
21:01:52 [Andi]
Andi has joined #wai-wcag
21:02:07 [Zakim]
21:02:09 [Zakim]
21:02:20 [Zakim]
21:02:22 [wendy]
zakim, [IBM] is Andi
21:02:22 [Zakim]
+Andi; got it
21:02:24 [Zakim]
21:02:26 [mcmay]
mcmay has joined #wai-wcag
21:02:29 [Zakim]
21:02:31 [wendy]
zakim, IPcaller is Takayuki
21:02:31 [Zakim]
+Takayuki; got it
21:02:41 [Zakim]
21:02:41 [David]
David has joined #wai-wcag
21:02:50 [Zakim]
21:02:52 [David]
Am I in the matrix
21:02:53 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
21:02:59 [wendy]
zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike
21:02:59 [Zakim]
+Mike; got it
21:03:03 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ben_and_Gregg (94%), John_Slatin (14%), Dave_MacDonald (80%), Becky_Gibson (80%), Takayuki (100%), Wendy (5%)
21:03:07 [Zakim]
21:03:08 [nabe]
zakim, I am Takayuki
21:03:09 [Zakim]
ok, nabe, I now associate you with Takayuki
21:03:14 [nabe]
zakim, mute me
21:03:14 [Zakim]
Takayuki should now be muted
21:03:31 [David]
I think I was talking when zakim said I'm noisy
21:03:35 [mcmay]
zakim, drop matt
21:03:35 [Zakim]
Matt is being disconnected
21:03:37 [Zakim]
21:03:38 [Zakim]
21:03:48 [Zakim]
21:03:59 [Neil]
Neil has joined #wai-wcag
21:04:02 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
21:04:02 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Makoto (muted), Bengt_Farre, Wendy, Ben_and_Gregg, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, John_Slatin, Dave_MacDonald, Matt, Andi, Neil_Soiffer, Loretta_Guarino_Reid,
21:04:02 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, mute me
21:04:06 [Zakim]
... Becky_Gibson, Takayuki (muted), Doyle_Burnett, Mike, JasonWhite
21:04:07 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:04:36 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, unmute me
21:04:36 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
21:06:06 [gregg]
gregg has joined #wai-wcag
21:06:41 [DoyleB]
Wendy - I am on the phone and IRC
21:07:08 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, mute me
21:07:08 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:07:11 [wendy]
scribe: wendy
21:07:29 [wendy]
bengt - if i scribe for the first 30 minutes, could you sribe the next 30 minutes?
21:07:46 [bengt]
could try with my bad english
21:08:10 [wendy]
wac: discussed how baseline proposal effects techniques. ben, becky, and michael sent something today. overlaps with techniques sorting.
21:08:33 [wendy]
21:08:53 [wendy]
mc: test cases. shelved discussion for a while. not surehow long.
21:09:31 [wendy]
mc: discussed some about plan
21:09:35 [wendy]
zakim, close item 1
21:09:35 [Zakim]
agendum 1 closed
21:09:37 [Zakim]
I see 8 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
21:09:38 [Zakim]
2. Agenda and Procedures for Today [from wendy]
21:09:41 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 2
21:09:41 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Agenda and Procedures for Today" taken up [from wendy]
21:10:18 [wendy]
gv: going through "key results" msg:
21:10:29 [wendy]
gv: describes process used at the F2F to reach proposed resolutions
21:10:53 [wendy]
gv: found places where UAAG is useful, but not useful as baseline.
21:11:36 [wendy]
gv: every time considered a baseline, the useful life of wcag descreased.
21:12:26 [wendy]
gv: baseline and techniques - clear that if guidelines said "do x" and techs said "do subset of x" that would be changing what is required for conformance.
21:12:30 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
21:12:41 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ben_and_Gregg (76%), Dave_MacDonald (61%)
21:12:47 [wendy]
zakim, mute Dave
21:12:47 [Zakim]
Dave_MacDonald should now be muted
21:12:59 [wendy]
zakim, unmute Dave
21:12:59 [Zakim]
Dave_MacDonald should no longer be muted
21:13:06 [wendy]
zakim, who's muted?
21:13:06 [Zakim]
I see Makoto, Yvette_Hoitink, Neil_Soiffer, Takayuki muted
21:13:37 [bengt]
zakim, mute me
21:13:37 [Zakim]
Bengt_Farre should now be muted
21:15:29 [wendy]
gv: we've set an aggressive timeline and thanks to those who are working to help reachit.
21:15:53 [wendy]
gv: thank you to those who worked so hard this last week to prep for today's meeting.
21:16:04 [wendy]
21:16:38 [wendy]
21:16:58 [wendy]
ack john
21:17:19 [wendy]
js: wcag won't set baseline doesn't mean that baselines won't be set. that takes place outside of wcag (govnt agency, policy, etc.)
21:17:42 [ben]
ben has joined #wai-wcag
21:17:52 [Zakim]
21:18:30 [wendy]
gv: typically at f2f we create proposals and bring to list/group to discuss since not everyone can attend the f2f.
21:19:48 [Zakim]
21:19:59 [bengt]
zakim, ??P7 is Bengt_Farre
21:19:59 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
21:20:03 [bengt]
zakim, I am Bengt_Farre
21:20:03 [Zakim]
ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
21:20:07 [wendy]
gv: goes through agenda for today
21:20:22 [wendy]
gv: "round robin" means that each person says something. starting w/those not in L.A.
21:20:49 [wendy]
gv: not debating, but get everything on the table
21:21:25 [wendy]
gv: by raising some of these issues, it may help us make a more intelligent baseline decision
21:22:13 [Zakim]
21:22:20 [wendy]
zakim, close item 2
21:22:20 [Zakim]
agendum 2 closed
21:22:21 [Zakim]
I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
21:22:22 [Zakim]
3. Overview of Baseline discussion and proposal items from F2F [from wendy]
21:22:24 [wendy]
zakim, close item 3
21:22:24 [Zakim]
agendum 3 closed
21:22:25 [Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
21:22:26 [Zakim]
4. Impact analysis: Guidelines and Success Criteria [from wendy]
21:22:31 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 4
21:22:31 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Impact analysis: Guidelines and Success Criteria" taken up [from wendy]
21:23:02 [Zakim]
+ +1.214.855.aaaa
21:23:10 [wendy]
21:23:31 [bengt]
zakim, is Bengt_Farre
21:23:31 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
21:23:33 [wendy]
js: action item from f2f. how would SC need to be changed to describe functional outcomes if no baseline is adopted in wcag 2.0.
21:23:40 [rscano]
rscano has joined #wai-wcag
21:23:42 [Zakim]
21:24:06 [wendy]
js: Mike, Michale, Gregg, and John.
21:24:45 [Zakim]
21:24:50 [bengt]
zakim, ??P7 is Bengt_Farre
21:24:50 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
21:25:00 [wendy]
js: where there is an effect, proposed wording. often the proposal is more about addressing a functional outcome than a baseline issue.
21:25:42 [wendy]
js: did not propose new wording for 3.1 since john is working on comprehensive 3.1 proposal.
21:25:59 [wendy]
js: likewise, others are working on 4.2
21:26:48 [wendy]
js: becky posted friendly amendment about 1.4.
21:27:26 [wendy]
gv: the big question is, "does the impact analysis indicate that the approach is workable or unworkable?"
21:27:55 [wendy]
js: bottom line - it would be doable.
21:28:36 [wendy]
mc, mb: nothing to add
21:28:46 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
21:28:46 [Zakim]
agendum 4 closed
21:28:47 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
21:28:49 [Zakim]
5. Summary of follow-up discussions and proposals [from wendy]
21:29:08 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 5
21:29:08 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Summary of follow-up discussions and proposals " taken up [from wendy]
21:29:22 [wendy]
21:29:33 [bengt]
21:29:39 [wendy]
21:29:44 [wendy]
scribe: bengt
21:29:56 [bengt]
wc: 2 messages
21:30:45 [bengt]
wc: 6 independent proposals made
21:32:36 [bengt]
wc: using terms differently
21:32:59 [bengt]
wc: issue between normative standard required
21:35:01 [bengt]
gv: lets walk these issues and see what ppl thinks about them
21:36:25 [bengt]
gv: we didnt consent on the definitions of the terms
21:37:33 [wendy]
ack we
21:37:37 [wendy]
ack john
21:37:47 [bengt]
wc: current definition of normative
21:37:56 [David]
21:38:10 [bengt]
wc: assumptions is required for conformance
21:38:55 [bengt]
wc: sync up with what we mean with that
21:40:51 [wendy]
ack david
21:41:19 [DoyleB]
normative - an authorative standard...Webster's
21:41:33 [bengt]
david: normative can only apply to a doc through w3c
21:41:51 [wendy]
wac: standard is used in many ways. noarmtive, also confusing. is RSS a standard? not published by ISO or W3C ... community-based.
21:42:57 [jslatin]
so "normative" = "required or permitted by the recommendaiton"?
21:44:15 [Zakim]
21:44:35 [ben]
gv: need to be sure we don't treat things differntly in diff. docs
21:44:36 [David]
David jumps in until bengt comes back on scribe
21:44:58 [ben]
scribe: David
21:45:07 [Zakim]
21:45:32 [bengt]
zakim, Sebastiano_Nutarelli is Bengt_Farre
21:45:32 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
21:45:43 [David]
wc: I believe relations hip of UAAG suffici to uaag tech is same as oursc to our GL
21:45:51 [David]
scribe: bengt
21:46:24 [bengt]
wc: UAAG has normative techniques in baseline
21:46:52 [jslatin]
time check...
21:46:58 [David]
wc: (add) our sc are are same role as sufficient techniques in UAAG 1
21:47:08 [wendy]
21:47:48 [wendy]
ack ja
21:48:58 [bengt]
jason: if the techniques has to be normative they have to be put through w3c process
21:49:32 [Zakim]
21:49:37 [David]
I'm back on scribe:
21:50:08 [David]
wc: I'm concerned about how people will claim conformance no matter what we do
21:51:18 [David]
gv: omment on #8 - f2f - baseline responsibiliy is on many, customers, governments, authors etc.
21:51:40 [David]
gv: baseline responsibilities will fall on a whole bunch of people
21:52:00 [David]
wc: let's move on and take this to the mailing list
21:52:22 [Zakim]
21:52:31 [David]
wc: assumptions we need to address, there are tons, things
21:53:35 [David]
gv: issues wendy has identified are pulled from the list, summaries, not necessarily her issues, just capturing issues for us to look at, these issues are meant to inform us, a lot of issues will be overcome by events
21:53:57 [David]
wc: some of the disagreements we are having is using terms differntsly
21:54:01 [wendy]
zakim, who's muted?
21:54:01 [Zakim]
I see Makoto, Yvette_Hoitink, Neil_Soiffer, Takayuki muted
21:54:06 [wendy]
zakim, mute bengt
21:54:06 [Zakim]
Bengt_Farre should now be muted
21:54:29 [David]
gv:as editors we found out we have some questions to ask above us, in the W3c
21:54:39 [David]
21:54:42 [wendy]
i'm hearing an echo. are others? (thought i might be your noise bengt)
21:54:48 [wendy]
21:54:52 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
21:54:52 [Zakim]
agendum 5 closed
21:54:53 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
21:54:53 [David]
no echo here
21:54:54 [Zakim]
6. Impact analysis: Techniques [from wendy]
21:54:58 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 6
21:54:58 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "Impact analysis: Techniques " taken up [from wendy]
21:55:11 [wendy]
zakim, unmute david
21:55:11 [Zakim]
sorry, wendy, I do not see a party named 'david'
21:55:15 [wendy]
21:55:19 [wendy]
zakim, unmute bengt
21:55:19 [Zakim]
Bengt_Farre should no longer be muted
21:56:16 [David]
mc: impact analysis, not having baseline means can't write tehniques to a particular baseline so we have to write techiques from weach sc for lots of "if's and ors"
21:56:54 [David]
wc: we may have to clarify technologies whether or not to includes UA's
21:56:58 [wendy]
21:57:03 [David]
21:57:08 [David]
21:57:32 [gregg]
21:58:05 [David]
mc: one issue is clear we cannot have an inventory of all techniques---would have been hard otherwise now super hard given all the combinations in a baselines
21:58:17 [David]
imposible to inventory als Us
21:58:18 [wendy]
q+ to ask, "would provide information to help authors make reasonable choices"
21:58:37 [David]
Us= User Agents above
21:59:53 [David]
mc: gracefule degradation, think if CSS not in baseline, realize that you use layout info tat helps understandibilities,,,, difficult position, graceful degradation mwould be layout tables and a big problem
22:01:57 [David]
gv: makes me shutter to think of all combinations, is it possible to put a technicuqe and put assumptions below that in a list,
22:02:54 [David]
mc: we see documenting it in metadata so we can assemble it easily but want that info in the prose of the tech doc also so average web designer can use it...
22:02:56 [gregg]
22:02:59 [gregg]
ack g
22:03:01 [gregg]
ack w
22:03:01 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to ask, "would provide information to help authors make reasonable choices"
22:04:21 [David]
wc: would there be information, if you can make assumptions about audience, here's what you can do....I think we need the techniques walk thrugh ASAP
22:04:51 [David]
wc: especially scripting, concerned how people will claim conformance.
22:05:16 [David]
mc: fortunately scripting doc is short....wendy ben becky & mike need to get together
22:06:19 [Neil]
22:06:21 [David]
bc: need to scope work by having statements about "this is what we recommend as a basline" and have 3 or 4 of them otherwise scope is infinate
22:06:33 [David]
gv: soping-what's that
22:06:56 [David]
bc: scoping - above no soping
22:08:03 [Zakim]
22:08:13 [David]
bc: I'm concerned we have no good information about what a baseline...I need to know...are you targeting a 4 year old screen reader or a 2 year old...
22:08:44 [David]
gv: can you put together a short post...for example this is a reasonable baseline
22:09:44 [ben]
action: ben to send some "for example" recommended baselines to list for discussion
22:10:27 [David]
neil: I think a user coming in is going to be unsure about a reasonable baseline and won't look in the tech docs, in writing techniqes we need to say.."theese are the most likely combinations, " ignotre unlikely ne w...have the expertise
22:10:41 [David]
22:10:58 [David]
mc: need good info on how to chose good baseline,
22:11:33 [David]
gv: if not in tech doc, perhoas we need a "how to set a good a baseline" non-normative doc
22:11:54 [David]
gv: even if its for our own use
22:12:18 [wendy]
22:12:21 [wendy]
ack neil
22:12:36 [David]
neil:above said ignore unlikely combinations
22:12:43 [wendy]
ack we
22:13:44 [wendy]
action: ben, becky, michael sort techniques. send something to list by tuesday 5 april
22:14:23 [David]
gv: we need t find out if we have found a solution or have we just shifted an unsolvable prob from GL to Tech docs we need to answer that
22:14:32 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
22:14:32 [Zakim]
agendum 6 closed
22:14:33 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
22:14:34 [Zakim]
7. Checking in: Responses from people on the call [from wendy]
22:14:38 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, unmute me
22:14:38 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
22:14:39 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 7
22:14:39 [Zakim]
agendum 7. "Checking in: Responses from people on the call " taken up [from wendy]
22:14:43 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
22:14:43 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Makoto (muted), Wendy, Ben_and_Gregg, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, John_Slatin, Dave_MacDonald, Matt, Andi, Neil_Soiffer, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Becky_Gibson,
22:14:47 [Zakim]
... Takayuki (muted), Doyle_Burnett, JasonWhite, Bengt_Farre
22:14:51 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, mute me
22:14:51 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
22:14:57 [wendy]
yvette, matt, neil, jason, bengt
22:15:14 [David]
people on call not in LA= neil, jason, yvette, Bengt, matt
22:15:20 [David]
22:15:27 [David]
starting with them
22:16:07 [David]
neil: think the general idea, good, but baseline just keeps coming back, shouldn't be normative but we need to nail down baseline down,,
22:16:09 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, unmute me
22:16:09 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
22:16:49 [wendy]
q+ yvette, Bengt, matt
22:18:24 [David]
jw: reasonable that tech should make assumption about UA support for some features, separate from guidelines proper, I agree we shouldn't make normative baseline probably the guide to the guidelines would be ok for baseline discussion
22:19:52 [David]
gv: want to capture, if in techniques, one were to say we provide underthese circumsatnces, likely to be true circumstances, doesn't say anything else cannot be conformant
22:20:40 [David]
gv: we can say " If you choose this baseline...the only way we no how to do it is ...'
22:21:19 [David]
ben: that's esactly what I meant...lay out reasonable baselines ...ignore unreasonable baselines
22:21:26 [wendy]
ack yv
22:22:46 [David]
yh: we should try to make as much of guidelines do not assume baselines...describe GL in functional terms not technical terms...worthhile to provide 3 extremesand describe pros and cons, do straw poll and see where people sit on this....
22:23:30 [wendy]
ack bengt
22:24:25 [David]
bengt: confused about baseline, still think our work has to assume a baseline of what browsers we want people to have....should be backwards compatible..
22:24:54 [Yvette_Hoitink]
david: that's the opposite of what I understood
22:25:01 [David]
gv: did you mean we not get to humgup on bqackword compativle lets look forward
22:25:39 [David]
bengt; yes
22:25:42 [David]
mm: at first I was very unhappy about dropping baseline, thought authors needed a grasp of that,
22:26:39 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, mute me
22:26:39 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
22:26:47 [David]
mm: cause there are all kinds of people who assume lynx and others with ie5 with this spread, there will be people pointing at the same document....and not agree on conformance. but I've softened...
22:27:30 [wendy]
david? how are you doing? want me to minute for a while?
22:27:55 [David]
mm: we should probably toak about web apps 85% of sites have heavy jsw all working from the same tools so if we go this way , we need at least one example of a web app environment...
22:28:13 [wendy]
ack m
22:28:16 [David]
yeah sure
22:28:23 [wendy]
scribe: wendy
22:28:29 [wendy]
ack john
22:29:27 [wendy]
js: lgr mentioned at the f2f that we seem to use the word "baseline" in 2 senses: 1. thinking of baseline as a ceiling (bump head on as moving up the tech ladder) 2. a floor that you can solidly base assumptions on.
22:29:40 [wendy]
js: "profiles" may be less-loaded than "baseline"
22:30:09 [wendy]
m3m: "profiles" has a defined meaning in w3c terms. it's an applicable definition.
22:31:23 [wendy]
m3m: a profile is essentially a subset of applicability within a specification. e.g., "full" SVG, SVG Basic
22:32:39 [wendy]
gv: DLNA doesn't create standards, it only creates profiles of standards
22:33:44 [wendy]
action: wendy research proposals on profiles that have been mentioned before.
22:34:25 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
22:34:26 [Zakim]
agendum 7 closed
22:34:26 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
22:34:27 [Zakim]
8. Harvesting Ideas: Impact on Conformance [from wendy]
22:34:33 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 8
22:34:33 [Zakim]
agendum 8. "Harvesting Ideas: Impact on Conformance" taken up [from wendy]
22:34:42 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
22:34:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Makoto (muted), Wendy, Ben_and_Gregg, Michael_Cooper (muted), Yvette_Hoitink (muted), John_Slatin, Dave_MacDonald, Matt, Andi, Neil_Soiffer,
22:34:46 [Zakim]
... Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Becky_Gibson, Takayuki (muted), Doyle_Burnett, JasonWhite, Bengt_Farre
22:35:15 [wendy]
q+ Makoto, Wendy, Ben_and_Gregg, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, John_Slatin, Dave_MacDonald, Matt, Andi, Neil_Soiffer, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Becky_Gibson, Takayuki, Doyle_Burnett, JasonWhite, Bengt_Farre
22:35:23 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, unmute me
22:35:23 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
22:35:23 [wendy]
ack makoto
22:36:22 [wendy]
q+ makoto
22:36:38 [wendy]
ack we
22:37:16 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
22:37:24 [Makoto]
zakim, mute me
22:37:24 [Zakim]
Makoto should now be muted
22:37:27 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Makoto (33%), Ben_and_Gregg (42%), John_Slatin (19%), Dave_MacDonald (42%), Wendy (17%)
22:38:10 [wendy]
bc: as look at baseline, need to evaluate the baseline assumptions. not convinced that if those are at technology-level they are enough.
22:38:32 [wendy]
bc: as web content becomes more complex, the baseline assumptions needed to evaluate a conformance claim, will be specific to UA and features of specs.
22:39:04 [wendy]
bc: just like every author knows what combo of mainstream their content works on, need same level of detail for asst techs.
22:39:06 [wendy]
ack ben
22:39:17 [wendy]
22:39:22 [wendy]
q+ bengt
22:39:25 [wendy]
ack Ben_
22:39:46 [wendy]
gv: might be tough to determine what tehcs ppl have on or not.
22:40:14 [wendy]
gv: is it legally possible to make a detailed claim? probably not likely they will not make any claim at all.
22:40:41 [wendy]
gv: realistic baselines - i conform to wcag 2.0 based on unrealistic assumptions...sounds dangerous to leave up to authors.
22:41:23 [wendy]
gv: whether we set a baseline or not, having authors think about and include in conformance claim, will make them likely to consider it.
22:41:29 [wendy]
yvette - can you minute for a while?
22:41:31 [Michael]
ack michael
22:41:34 [wendy]
(after you speak?)
22:41:34 [Michael]
Conformance is in context of a baseline, which I guess means you have to state what baseline you used in a claim. Should be simple, e.g., "WCAG conformant when tech A, B, and C supported". In metadata if we have metadata conformance claims. In prose if we have prose conformance claims.
22:42:30 [wendy]
22:42:52 [wendy]
ack yvette
22:43:30 [nabe]
Wendy, I still do not have a definete idea. So, I select "pass".
22:43:35 [wendy]
yh: if a site presumes IE...think claims should be based on technology not user agents. One assumption of accessibility is not assuming what technology your user has.
22:43:42 [wendy]
takayuki - ok
22:43:50 [Zakim]
22:43:54 [wendy]
yh: think many orgs will not make conformance claim, otherwise will make them liable.
22:44:04 [wendy]
q- takayuki
22:44:05 [DoyleB]
hand up
22:44:18 [wendy]
doyle - you are on the q twice
22:44:22 [wendy]
ack john_sl
22:44:43 [wendy]
js: assuming wcag does not specify a baseline, then conformance claim has to make statement about what techs the content supports.
22:45:09 [wendy]
js: agree info should be requested in simplest form.
22:45:18 [wendy]
js: agree, about technologies not UAs.
22:45:31 [wendy]
js: people can add UA info, don't prevent them.
22:45:35 [wendy]
ack Dave_Ma
22:45:52 [wendy]
dmd: agree, need a baseline statement in a conformance claim. provide a template.
22:46:24 [wendy]
dmd: don't know that we can easily say that you won't be assuming specific UAs, if go back to IE3, make certain assumptions.
22:46:52 [wendy]
ack Matt
22:47:04 [wendy]
m3m: agree, don't tie to specific UAs.
22:47:20 [wendy]
m3m: browsecap.ini enumerated all capabilities of every browser. had to be udpated every week.
22:47:59 [wendy]
ack andi
22:48:30 [wendy]
asw: agree, listing the techs as part of conf claim. agree, specify level of tech (or version?). agree, can spec UA but don't require.
22:48:30 [gregg]
Q+ does any common browser fully support std technologies (html, xhtml, css)
22:48:45 [wendy]
asw: like template idea
22:48:51 [wendy]
ack neil
22:49:06 [gregg]
22:49:19 [wendy]
ns: ppl likely to use a tool, like bobby, to claim conformance. w/a movable baseline, how will tools claim wcag conformance?
22:49:30 [wendy]
ns: create checkboxes? create own baseline?
22:49:41 [wendy]
ns: does WCAG 1.0 have a conformance claim that ppl make?
22:50:42 [wendy]
ack loretta
22:51:02 [wendy]
lgr: checking tools do have implicit baseline, perhaps be good if they made that implicit.
22:51:27 [wendy]
lgr: agree, specify by tech, not UA. however, requirements often based on UAs that need to support.
22:51:37 [wendy]
lgr: useful to have info about which UAs support which techs.
22:51:58 [wendy]
lgr: however, ack matt's comment about how often that info changes.
22:52:01 [wendy]
ack becky
22:52:07 [wendy]
bg: agree, spec by tech.
22:52:17 [wendy]
bg: optionally, UA and AT tested with.
22:52:42 [wendy]
bg: consider "audience" - u.s.-only or britain-only...may have useful implications. probably not required.
22:52:54 [wendy]
bg: ppl assuming UAs all the day. accept that happening today.
22:52:59 [wendy]
ack doyle
22:53:03 [wendy]
ack doyle
22:53:38 [wendy]
db: perhaps do a "feature match" - commonalities between user agents.
22:54:04 [wendy]
db: don't think bulk of orgs will publish the fact that they conform.
22:54:21 [wendy]
db: wonder about ppl who post logos and how many of them conform.
22:54:35 [wendy]
ack jason
22:55:08 [wendy]
jw: position sent to mailing list. should be minimal conditions for a tech to be used in conforming content.
22:55:29 [wendy]
jw: min info required to enable 3rd party to verify if the claim is true.
22:55:43 [wendy]
jw: names, versions of techs that are required.
22:56:01 [wendy]
jw: that should be sufficient. optionally: enable additional info about other assumptions.
22:56:23 [wendy]
jw: important to allow ppl to link to baselines isntead of including them in the conformance claim directly.
22:56:38 [wendy]
jw: commonly used ones, could be provided in guide or whichever doc we choose.
22:56:52 [Makoto]
zakim, unmute me
22:56:52 [Zakim]
Makoto should no longer be muted
22:56:55 [wendy]
ack makoto
22:57:22 [wendy]
mu: more difficult for developers to claim conformance. especially in non-english-speaking countries e.g., japan, korea, china.
22:57:34 [wendy]
mu: need UA support info and simple guidelines for authors to claim conformance.
22:57:42 [wendy]
ack bengt
22:57:48 [Makoto]
zakim, mute me
22:57:48 [Zakim]
Makoto should now be muted
22:57:56 [wendy]
bf: agree, tech instead of UA
22:58:44 [wendy]
bf: confused about baseline. if set profile for different user groups. e.g., cognitive may have one type of profile.
22:58:51 [wendy]
bf: that would match the audience you are looking for.
22:59:36 [wendy]
bf: something about IE and non-supported tech...
22:59:43 [wendy]
ack wendy
23:00:12 [Yvette_Hoitink]
23:00:17 [wendy]
ack gregg
23:00:24 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakijm, unmute me
23:00:37 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, unmute me
23:00:37 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink was not muted, Yvette_Hoitink
23:00:38 [wendy]
wac: this feedback will be used to create summary and hopefully proposal to be sent by next tuesday.
23:00:47 [wendy]
gv: seems to be more consensus than i would have guessed.
23:01:23 [bengt]
s/ last implicit to explicit ?/
23:02:20 [wendy]
gv: talking about techs vs browsers - is there at least one implementation for every technology. if did state UA, would need to state version, security patches, etc.
23:03:15 [wendy]
gv: had lots of reports today. the summary seems to be: lots of work to do. the conclusion about "no baseline in guidelines document itself" seems to hold (not collapse). however, lots of exploration still needed.
23:03:37 [wendy]
gv: haven't found a reason not to include this direction, have lots of work before are successfully heading in this direction.
23:04:31 [wendy]
js: what is in the pipeline for next week? 4.2 (lgr, et al), conformance claims (wac, et al), techniques (bc, mc, bg), defn of terms (editors)
23:04:40 [wendy]
ack yvette
23:04:58 [wendy]
yh: like the round robin approach. nice to hear more ppl's opinions than usual.
23:05:06 [wendy]
yh: like to hear from everyone.
23:05:29 [wendy]
gv: we'll use the technique for big issues. in general, try to focus on ppl preparing info in advance.
23:05:29 [Zakim]
23:06:39 [Zakim]
23:06:41 [Zakim]
23:06:44 [Zakim]
23:06:45 [Zakim]
23:06:45 [Zakim]
23:06:47 [Zakim]
23:06:48 [Zakim]
23:06:50 [Zakim]
23:06:51 [Zakim]
23:06:52 [Zakim]
23:06:53 [Zakim]
23:06:53 [Zakim]
23:06:55 [Zakim]
23:07:05 [bengt]
bengt has left #wai-wcag
23:07:11 [ben]
ben has left #wai-wcag
23:07:16 [Zakim]
23:07:17 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
23:07:18 [Zakim]
Attendees were Bengt_Farre, Makoto, Wendy, Ben_and_Gregg, Michael_Cooper, John_Slatin, Dave_MacDonald, Yvette_Hoitink, Matt, Neil_Soiffer, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Becky_Gibson, Andi,
23:07:20 [Zakim]
... [IPcaller], Doyle_Burnett, Takayuki, Mike, JasonWhite, +1.214.855.aaaa
23:08:34 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make log world
23:08:40 [wendy]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
23:08:40 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate wendy
23:09:36 [nabe]
nabe has left #wai-wcag
23:14:35 [Andi]
Andi has left #wai-wcag
23:24:06 [wendy]
zakim, bye
23:24:06 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
23:24:10 [wendy]
RRSAgent, bye
23:24:10 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items:
23:24:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ben to send some "for example" recommended baselines to list for discussion [1]
23:24:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:24:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ben, becky, michael sort techniques. send something to list by tuesday 5 april [2]
23:24:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
23:24:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wendy research proposals on profiles that have been mentioned before. [3]
23:24:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in