IRC log of wai-wcag on 2005-04-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:57:17 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag

13:57:17 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/04/06-wai-wcag-irc

13:59:00 [Becky_Gibson]

Becky_Gibson has joined #wai-wcag

13:59:12 [Zakim]

WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has now started

13:59:19 [Zakim]

+Becky_Gibson

13:59:55 [Zakim]

+??P20

14:00:00 [ben]

zakim, ??P20 is Ben

14:00:00 [Zakim]

+Ben; got it

14:00:30 [ben]

Chair: Michael_Cooper

14:00:32 [Zakim]

+Michael_Cooper

14:01:17 [ChrisR]

ChrisR has joined #wai-wcag

14:01:26 [Zakim]

+Don_Evans

14:02:13 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller]

14:02:29 [Michael]

zakim, ipcaller is Chris_Ridpath

14:02:29 [Zakim]

+Chris_Ridpath; got it

14:03:01 [Zakim]

+Dave_MacDonald

14:04:10 [David]

David has joined #wai-wcag

14:04:20 [David]

test

14:05:11 [David]

zakim, who's on the call

14:05:11 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'who's on the call', David

14:05:28 [ben]

zakim, I am Ben

14:05:28 [Zakim]

ok, ben, I now associate you with Ben

14:05:33 [ben]

scribe: Ben

14:05:54 [ben]

mc: agenda for today:

14:06:07 [ben]

agenda + Impact of externalized baseline on Techniques

14:06:21 [ben]

agenda + Impact of externalized baseline on Requirements

14:06:26 [Zakim]

+Tim_Boland

14:06:30 [ben]

agenda + Need to agree on matrix of UA for which we provide support information

14:06:40 [ben]

agenda + Test file reviews (if time)

14:07:06 [ben]

mc: re: test files - need to follow up with people on assignments and make new assignments

14:07:18 [ben]

zakim, who is here?

14:07:18 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Becky_Gibson, Ben, Michael_Cooper, Don_Evans, Chris_Ridpath, Dave_MacDonald, Tim_Boland

14:07:20 [Zakim]

On IRC I see David, ChrisR, Becky_Gibson, RRSAgent, Zakim, Michael, ben

14:07:44 [ben]

zakim, next agendum

14:07:44 [Zakim]

agendum 1. "Impact of externalized baseline on Techniques" taken up [from ben]

14:08:03 [ben]

message summarizing topic: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0010.html

14:08:25 [ben]

mc: three generic baselines proposed, a modern-day mainstream baseline and a future/perfect world baseline

14:09:15 [ben]

mc: then looked at how each technique applies to these baselines - conclusion was that things don't really break across baselines (it is possible to follow techniques to meet needs of both basic and mainstream)

14:09:49 [ben]

mc: big hole is that techniques for scripting currently assume need for alternatives

14:09:59 [ben]

tb: what's relationship between 3 hypothetical baselines?

14:10:26 [ben]

mc: one assumes you support HTML with caveats for things like accesskey (support HTML, but provide fallbacks for everythine else)

14:10:44 [ben]

mc: mainstream was that you support HTML, CSS, Javascript and accessibility features of plugins

14:11:01 [ben]

mc: didn't break it down into particular versions of the technologies

14:11:18 [ben]

mc: future was that whatever tech you're using, features are supported by user agents world-wide.

14:12:17 [ben]

mc: in general, a lot of techniques become optional the further forward we go, but the further backward we go, the more techniques are in the category of "repair"

14:13:22 [ben]

tb: in terms of testing, is there widespread coverage of techniques that are sufficient?

14:13:47 [ben]

mc: didn't analyze that out fullly - think that if we accept baseline, we'll need to look for holes in techniques

14:14:58 [ben]

bc: sense is that we don't have real good coverage of sufficient techniques

14:15:47 [ben]

tb: so should those guidelines/sc be included if we dont' have sufficient techniques?

14:16:07 [ben]

bc: think it's more that we still need to write sufficient techniques

14:17:31 [ben]

mc: graceful degredation (last paragraph of summary) - there are some examples where if technology is not supported (ex. CSS is off) do we then make up for that in the baseline supported technology (fallbacks that recommend table layouts or font tags)??

14:18:11 [ben]

mc: if we recommend using CSS to expose semantic structure or make things more understandable, some of the understandability goes away if CSS if not enabled.

14:18:34 [ben]

dm: slippery slope to make old technology that has been deprecated make up for this.

14:18:49 [ben]

mc: also breaks the idea that we could have a union set of techniques that addresses multiple baselines

14:20:24 [ben]

bc: in CSS, design principle is that this can be turned off, so recc. that we not create HTML-only techniques around table-layout or font elements.

14:21:02 [ben]

mc: what about scripts? would we care about scripts failing gracefully in a graphical browser baseline?

14:21:30 [ben]

bg: to me that's why you have that baseline, assume your audience supports it and go from there

14:22:11 [ben]

dm: degrade gracefully came up with 4.2 discussions, but it started to fall apart in some ways.

14:22:57 [ben]

bg: in today's world, if you know your audience, you should be able to use javascript without creating an alternative (given that you're targeting a US audience...)

14:23:19 [ben]

mc: are we willing to make a recomendation that the concept of degrading gracefully disappears?

14:23:27 [ben]

bg: in certain baselines, yes

14:24:45 [ben]

dm: instead of saying degrade gracefully, we talked about technologies above your baseline and that content would still be accessible without the tech above the baseline

14:25:02 [ben]

mc: do we need to define "degrade gracefully"?

14:25:49 [ben]

bc: what was it in WCAG 1.0?

14:26:13 [ben]

mc: was "transform gracefully" in WCAG 1.0

14:27:14 [ben]

dm: need to define it in a testable way

14:27:42 [ben]

dm: if you use something beyond your baseline, you'll be able to access content even if you don't have access to that tech. beyond baseline

14:28:00 [ben]

mc: most general technique is either transform gracfully or provide a fallback

14:29:42 [ben]

bc: consistent with conformance summary wendy and I did (required technolgoies vs. used technologies)

14:30:39 [ben]

action: michael - define term "tranform gracefully" and put it into context of why we wanted to define it.

14:31:33 [ben]

mc: seems that we're going back to the group with a recommendation to continue working with the baseline assumptions we've been headed toward

14:31:42 [ben]

zakim, next agendum

14:31:42 [Zakim]

agendum 2. "Impact of externalized baseline on Requirements" taken up [from ben]

14:31:52 [ben]

zakim, take up agendum 2

14:31:52 [Zakim]

agendum 2. "Impact of externalized baseline on Requirements" taken up [from ben]

14:32:45 [ben]

mc: Guide document and general techniques

14:33:51 [ben]

dm: concerns about guide document - people looking for techniques will mostly not be interested in rationale, etc. (thing we're planning for the Guide Document). In gerenal, the guide document seems to be directed at people interested in guidelines (policy and high-level understanding people )

14:34:50 [ben]

mc: can this be summarized by saying that we still need a traffic cop (independent of the guide document)?

14:35:05 [ben]

dm: yes, anything that includes techniques needs to include general techniques

14:35:26 [ben]

mc: not clear if what we've been talking about is including the general techniques in the guide docuemtn or not

14:35:56 [ben]

dm: we need a way for people who are working on the code to have easy access to general techniques without having it sloshed around in the rationale, etc.

14:36:16 [ben]

dm: technical nature of techniques should not put too much cognitive load on the webmaster

14:36:28 [ben]

bg: probably a way we can pull them out into a separate document.

14:37:00 [ben]

dm: no problem with that, would like to see them married to techniques vs. guidelines

14:37:16 [ben]

tb: depends on how content developers will access the WCAG documents

14:37:36 [ben]

dm: what I'm saying is that technical people will go into techniques themselves

14:37:50 [ben]

mc: inclined to think each of us has diff. assumptions about how people will use these docs

14:39:12 [ben]

mc: at CSUN, someone mentioned that it's possible that few will actually read the guidelines, but it's the framework under which the rest of this exists.

14:40:27 [ben]

bc: prototypes for what the guide doc might look like coming next week (with content) - might be something to bring up again when we've seen those

14:41:19 [ben]

mc: let's keep that on the table, are there other impacts on techniques for externalized baseline?

14:41:46 [ben]

mc: obvious one is that techs need to indicate whether it's a technique for making a technology accessible or it's a technique for providing a fallback.

14:44:00 [ben]

bc: challenge for techniques around grouping - think that what we want is to provide info so authors know if a technique applies to the baseline they're using. if they don't have a baseline, then they need to be able to derive a good one from the pro/con info we provide in techniques.

14:45:53 [ben]

bc: not sure how it works, seems to be a need to talk about techniques as groups - (ex. if you're using baseline X, look at techniques 1, 3, and 8, if you're using baseline Y, look at 2, 4, etc.)

14:47:18 [ben]

mc: a number of ways we might deal with this, ex. levels of techniques

14:48:25 [ben]

bc: seems like an end-to-end type thing - ex. i18n has "pros" "cons" "discussion" in their techniques.

14:49:02 [ben]

mc: seems like prototyping for a couple technques would be good to get started on.

14:49:39 [ben]

bg: could each take some techniques and work on them

14:52:07 [ben]

bc: 2 things (1) what to include in techniques to see what baseline the technique applies to and (2) pros/cons/discussion such that an author can make a baseline decision based on available techniques

14:55:00 [ben]

action: bg, bc, dm, de - take 2 techniques (HTML or CSS) and revise to include baseline info (to list by April 11)

14:56:20 [ben]

mc: that action should help us to work on requrements as well - other minor requirements changes needed as well

14:56:53 [ben]

dm: are we assuming the 3 baselines from summary?

14:57:27 [ben]

mc: more about covering baseline issues and how does use of a technique relate to an authors baseline?

14:57:50 [ben]

zakim, agenda?

14:57:50 [Zakim]

I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:

14:57:52 [Zakim]

2. Impact of externalized baseline on Requirements [from ben]

14:57:53 [Zakim]

3. Need to agree on matrix of UA for which we provide support information [from ben]

14:57:55 [Zakim]

4. Test file reviews (if time) [from ben]

14:58:04 [ben]

zakim, next agendum

14:58:04 [Zakim]

agendum 3. "Need to agree on matrix of UA for which we provide support information" taken up [from ben]

14:58:19 [Michael]

zakim, ping in 5 minutes

14:58:19 [Zakim]

ok, Michael

14:58:20 [Zakim]

-Tim_Boland

14:58:25 [Zakim]

-Dave_MacDonald

14:58:35 [ben]

---- 5 minute break ----

15:03:19 [Zakim]

Michael, you asked to be pinged at this time

15:03:47 [Zakim]

+Dave_MacDonald

15:04:09 [ben]

zakim, agenda?

15:04:09 [Zakim]

I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:

15:04:11 [Zakim]

3. Need to agree on matrix of UA for which we provide support information [from ben]

15:04:12 [Zakim]

4. Test file reviews (if time) [from ben]

15:04:25 [David]

quarum

15:04:45 [ben]

zakim, take up agendum 3

15:04:45 [Zakim]

agendum 3. "Need to agree on matrix of UA for which we provide support information" taken up [from ben]

15:05:10 [ben]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JanMar/att-0667/draft_test_matrix_v2.html

15:05:44 [ben]

mc: need to define which UA we want to provide support information for

15:06:21 [ben]

bg: clarification on priorities?

15:06:36 [ben]

mc: priorities for us, not related to priorities in guidelines

15:08:53 [David]

MC: firefox 1.0 no AT, FF 1.1 with Jaws and/or Window Eyes

15:09:26 [David]

lynx

15:09:35 [David]

i.e 6 with AT

15:09:39 [David]

HPR

15:09:53 [David]

HPR 3.04

15:10:36 [David]

opera (level 2, firefox level 2)

15:11:22 [ben]

slightly newer version: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JanMar/att-0667/draft_test_matrix_v2.html

15:16:11 [Zakim]

+Tim_Boland

15:16:50 [David]

AT Jaws, window eyes, daulphin, latest versions

15:16:55 [David]

zoomtext

15:21:31 [ben]

dm: can get some help with testing magnification software

15:21:53 [ben]

dm: should we include voice navigation?

15:22:30 [ben]

dm: scansoft is about the only one in the mkt. these days

15:23:06 [ben]

mc: scansoft = dragon

15:23:28 [ben]

bc: what would we be testing?

15:24:01 [ben]

mc: ex. form labels - "click first name" could put focus in appropriate field (buttons and hyperlinks primarily)

15:24:51 [ben]

de: what if someone wants to include a new product or is angry that we haven't included theirs?

15:25:25 [ben]

mc: could say we chose these tools to get a reasonable sample, if you'd like your sincluded, we're happy to include the results and you'll have to do the testing

15:25:43 [ben]

bc: do we even have the resources to include the results of their testing?

15:26:02 [ben]

dm: we'll be more critical of things than a company might.

15:26:09 [ben]

mc: maybe cross that bridge when we come to it.

15:27:26 [ben]

bc: might be able to include info on some only for certain techniques (ex. dragon on forms and links, but not other techniques)

15:27:42 [ben]

mc: good idea to try to scope what we test, especially ATs

15:28:15 [ben]

mc: what about linux and mac?

15:30:25 [Michael]

oFirefox 1.0

15:30:27 [Michael]

oIE 6 plus AT

15:30:29 [Michael]

oHPR

15:30:30 [Michael]

oLynx

15:30:32 [Michael]

oFirefox 1.1 plus AT if available (p2)

15:30:33 [Michael]

oOpera (p2)

15:30:35 [Michael]

oATs:

15:30:36 [Michael]

·JAWS

15:30:38 [Michael]

·WindowsEyes

15:30:40 [Michael]

·ZoomText

15:30:41 [Michael]

·Dolphin

15:30:43 [Michael]

·Dragon

15:31:05 [ben]

zakim, next agendum

15:31:05 [Zakim]

agendum 4. "Test file reviews (if time)" taken up [from ben]

15:31:42 [ben]

mc: defined batches of 5-10 and assigned action items

15:32:31 [ben]

mc: please complete assigned tests by next week

15:34:49 [ben]

mc: ready for assignments of second batch?

15:35:26 [ben]

action: michael to assign some additional test reviews

15:38:59 [ben]

zakim, agenda?

15:38:59 [Zakim]

I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:

15:39:00 [Zakim]

4. Test file reviews (if time) [from ben]

15:39:08 [ben]

zakim, close agendum 4

15:39:08 [Zakim]

agendum 4 closed

15:39:09 [Zakim]

I see nothing remaining on the agenda

15:39:38 [Zakim]

-Tim_Boland

15:39:39 [Zakim]

-Michael_Cooper

15:39:40 [Zakim]

-Becky_Gibson

15:39:41 [ChrisR]

ChrisR has left #wai-wcag

15:39:42 [Zakim]

-Chris_Ridpath

15:39:43 [Zakim]

-Dave_MacDonald

15:39:46 [Zakim]

-Ben

15:40:00 [ben]

RRSAgent, generate minutes

15:40:00 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/04/06-wai-wcag-minutes.html ben

15:42:13 [Zakim]

-Don_Evans

15:42:14 [Zakim]

WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has ended

15:42:15 [Zakim]

Attendees were Becky_Gibson, Ben, Michael_Cooper, Don_Evans, [IPcaller], Chris_Ridpath, Dave_MacDonald, Tim_Boland

15:42:39 [ben]

Present: Becky_Gibson, Chris_Ridpath, David_MacDonald, Don_Evans, Michael ichael_Cooper, Ben_Caldwell, Tim_Boland

15:42:59 [ben]

Meeting: WCAG Techniques

15:43:27 [ben]

RRSAgent, generate minutes

15:43:27 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/04/06-wai-wcag-minutes.html ben

15:45:56 [ben]

RRSAgent, bye

15:45:56 [RRSAgent]

I see 3 open action items:

15:45:56 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: michael - define term "tranform gracefully" and put it into context of why we wanted to define it. [1]

15:45:56 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/06-wai-wcag-irc#T14-30-39

15:45:56 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: bg, bc, dm, de - take 2 techniques (HTML or CSS) and revise to include baseline info (to list by April 11) [2]

15:45:56 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/06-wai-wcag-irc#T14-55-00

15:45:56 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: michael to assign some additional test reviews [3]

15:45:56 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/06-wai-wcag-irc#T15-35-26