IRC log of wai-wcag on 2005-04-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:01:17 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
20:01:17 [RRSAgent]
logging to
20:01:24 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make log world
20:01:28 [Zakim]
20:01:33 [Makoto]
zakim, ??P8 is Makoto
20:01:33 [Zakim]
+Makoto; got it
20:01:38 [Zakim]
20:01:42 [mcmay]
mcmay has joined #wai-wcag
20:02:08 [Zakim]
20:02:10 [wendy]
20:02:13 [Zakim]
20:02:19 [wendy]
20:02:23 [wendy]
agenda+ TTF summary
20:02:26 [Zakim]
20:02:31 [wendy]
agenda+ Agenda overview
20:02:34 [Zakim]
20:02:37 [wendy]
agenda+ Guide Doc and Structure proposals
20:02:43 [wendy]
agenda+ Update on 4.2 and conformance
20:02:48 [bengt]
zakim, Sebastiano_Nutarelli is Bengt_Farre
20:02:48 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
20:02:49 [wendy]
agenda+ Looking ahead: Work Plan and scheduling next F2F
20:02:50 [Yvette]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:02:51 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Mike, Yvette_Hoitink, John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben, Wendy, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Becky_Gibson, Christophe_Strobe, Matt, Bengt_Farre, [Microsoft]
20:02:53 [bengt]
zakim, I am Bengt_Farre
20:02:53 [Zakim]
ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
20:03:03 [wendy]
agenda+ review of baseline issues and attempt to close those that seem ready to close
20:03:15 [Zakim]
20:03:16 [Makoto]
zakim, ??P9 is Makoto
20:03:16 [Zakim]
+Makoto; got it
20:04:04 [Makoto]
zakim, mute me.
20:04:04 [Zakim]
sorry, Makoto, I do not see a party named 'me.'
20:05:14 [wendy]
Regrets: Sebastiano Nutarelli, Roberto Ellero, Roberto Castaldo, Roberto Scano, WATANABE Takayuki, Andi Snow-Weaver, Neil Soiffer, Tim Boland
20:05:23 [wendy]
Chair: John and Gregg
20:05:37 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 2
20:05:37 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Agenda overview" taken up [from wendy]
20:06:30 [wendy]
zakim, close item 2
20:06:30 [Zakim]
agendum 2 closed
20:06:31 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
20:06:32 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 1
20:06:33 [Zakim]
1. TTF summary [from wendy]
20:06:34 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "TTF summary" taken up [from wendy]
20:06:39 [wendy]
20:06:50 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
20:06:50 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
20:06:51 [Zakim]
20:06:55 [Zakim]
20:07:14 [Yvette]
20:07:16 [Becky_Gibson]
TTF looked at proposal from UAAG and PF
20:07:21 [Yvette]
a, ok :-)
20:07:37 [Becky_Gibson]
prototyping how to use rel and link for in page navigation
20:07:52 [ben]
scribe: Becky_Gibson
20:08:15 [Becky_Gibson]
discussed our concerns; Wendy has action item to bring this to xtech group
20:08:47 [Becky_Gibson]
looked at DM's review of object test files; action for WC, CR, DM, MC to look at object test files
20:09:15 [Becky_Gibson]
BG and DM tooked at some test files with respect to baseline and determining UA support
20:09:42 [Becky_Gibson]
JA took action to update UA matrix; JS will be looking at different AT support - and see what info they can provide
20:09:52 [Zakim]
20:09:56 [Becky_Gibson]
JS will raise issue about object support with PF group
20:10:17 [Becky_Gibson]
JS had an idea about dividing techs into chapters and has sent summary
20:10:37 [Becky_Gibson]
CR took action item to review test files
20:11:25 [wendy]
john's email:
20:12:53 [Becky_Gibson]
js: MC had suggested talking about req. documents - but decided to wait until today's guide doc discussion for more input
20:12:59 [wendy]
becky? please type a colon after the speaker's initials (the clean-up script then can pick that out as the speaker)
20:13:03 [wendy]
ya - like that. ;)
20:13:14 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
20:13:14 [Zakim]
agendum 1 closed
20:13:15 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
20:13:17 [Zakim]
3. Guide Doc and Structure proposals [from wendy]
20:13:34 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 3
20:13:34 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Guide Doc and Structure proposals" taken up [from wendy]
20:14:11 [Becky_Gibson]
js: want feedback on Guide Doc draft - questions, concerns, info to help us clarify and determine how to move forward
20:14:36 [Becky_Gibson]
js: at LA F2F attendees decided need a doc to provide stronger bridge betwn guidelines and techs
20:14:46 [wendy]
20:14:53 [Becky_Gibson]
js: want to provide more info than envisiones for techs doc
20:15:30 [Becky_Gibson]
js: provide rationale for SC; so understand what it says and why; statements of benefits of SC; plus gen techs
20:15:42 [Becky_Gibson]
JS: and links to specific techs
20:16:03 [Becky_Gibson]
js: JS mocked up sample outline and sent to subgroup for comments on the outline
20:16:31 [Becky_Gibson]
js: once outline agreed upon sent it to folks in group to work on specific SC
20:16:56 [Becky_Gibson]
js: also sent outline to non-WCAG members to see if headings and descriptions made sense
20:17:49 [Becky_Gibson]
js: group members filled in the outline for specific SC - these have been sent to the list
20:18:50 [Yvette]
20:18:59 [Becky_Gibson]
js: each group member took a slightly different track - and raised diff. issues
20:19:27 [Becky_Gibson]
js: how to define terms, do the Guide docs do what we need to do? what do we say in certain sections
20:19:56 [Becky_Gibson]
js: consistent feedback from group that received sample outline
20:20:21 [Becky_Gibson]
js: every user had a completely diff. notion of what would fit under "Technology Independent Techniques"
20:20:36 [Becky_Gibson]
js: and all were diff. from this group's notion of general techs
20:20:44 [Zakim]
20:20:59 [Becky_Gibson]
js: intent and benefits sections also caused confusion; also diff. between techs and samples
20:21:10 [Yvette]
20:21:10 [rscano]
rscano has joined #wai-wcag
20:21:15 [Yvette]
ack y
20:21:38 [Zakim]
20:21:47 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: devil's advocate: understand by Guide docs prepared but worried that we are throwing more work at the problem
20:22:25 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: we seem to solve problems by trying to get more info; concerned readers of WCAG will contain too much information
20:22:34 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: and people won't find info they really need
20:22:44 [gregg]
20:22:52 [wendy]
zakim, IPcaller is Makoto
20:22:52 [Zakim]
+Makoto; got it
20:22:55 [ben]
ack gregg
20:23:31 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: as we write we need to not repeat things that have already been said/written
20:23:45 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: need to focus on consiceness (sp?)
20:24:03 [Zakim]
20:24:25 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: don't try to make a tutorial; should help people knowledgable in the area understand our intent
20:25:02 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: wants to put in a vote for modularity idea - cite general techs by name that can be expanded as needed
20:25:20 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: worried that whole doc is getting very big - too big to comprehend or look at
20:25:26 [wendy]
ack j
20:25:30 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
20:25:30 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
20:26:05 [Becky_Gibson]
js: surprised to hear you say we are addressing this to audience that already has some understanding
20:26:23 [David]
David has joined #wai-wcag
20:26:24 [Becky_Gibson]
js: from F2F thought it was to help people understand better than don't already have knowledge?
20:26:32 [David]
was me who joined late
20:26:46 [Becky_Gibson]
js: if trying to provide overview for people who aren't familiar than think this is helpful
20:27:00 [Becky_Gibson]
js: we need to clarify the audience served by the guide doc
20:27:40 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: need info for those not familiar with WCAG 2.0 but need to assume audience is familiar with web tech
20:27:49 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: don't want to repeat what EO is doing
20:28:11 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: but don't repeat info that is already in the techs
20:28:28 [rscano]
there are other working groups that has done similar initiatice?
20:28:40 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: audience should be able to read and understand techs without it being tutorial
20:29:01 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: want to cover broad range of audiences but don't want too verbose and overlap with EO
20:29:23 [Becky_Gibson]
js: that is why we wrote the drafts so we have something to look at and discuss
20:29:55 [Becky_Gibson]
js: another idea discussed at F2F was that this doc would swallow up the gen. techs doc
20:30:40 [Becky_Gibson]
js: for 1.1 L3 SC 1 - BC took existing content from gen. techs and put it into the guide doc;
20:31:12 [Becky_Gibson]
js: then gen techs doc wouldn't need to exist separately OR guide doc would contain links to general techs
20:31:28 [Becky_Gibson]
js: guide doc begins to act as traffic cop for navigation
20:31:57 [Becky_Gibson]
js: also discussed if benefits should be in GL or be moved to the Guide doc?
20:32:15 [Becky_Gibson]
js: hope the examples will help us understand the issues and resolve these questions
20:32:37 [Becky_Gibson]
js: do Examples and benefits belong in GL? in Guide Doc? is it an either or?
20:33:07 [Becky_Gibson]
js: GL can have brief benefits that get expanded in GD (guide doc)
20:33:21 [Becky_Gibson]
js: do gen techs get subsummed into the GD?
20:33:37 [Becky_Gibson]
js: looking for feedback from the group......
20:33:43 [David]
20:34:16 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: like the distinction of not overlapping with EO - imp. issue I hadn't thought of
20:34:36 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: like techs to be in a separate document - think the audience will be different
20:34:55 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: policy makers looking more at guide doc; devs and techs
20:35:02 [wendy]
ack dav
20:35:04 [wendy]
ack john
20:35:19 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: scribe correction: devs looking at techs
20:36:05 [Becky_Gibson]
js: no one outside of WCAG seems to think of gen. techs as a place to look for how to write good alt text
20:36:05 [gregg]
20:36:30 [Becky_Gibson]
js: think of techs as code samples then get confused betwn gen and tech specific
20:36:57 [wendy]
20:37:04 [Becky_Gibson]
js: still looking for a good name for general techs to make distincion clearer
20:37:05 [wendy]
ack gregg
20:37:50 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: what if we list techniques by a single sentence name
20:38:11 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: writing alt text so it is x y z....
20:38:55 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: each sentence has "ing" action word - each is a link to the specific technique document
20:39:29 [Yvette]
q+ to say "What about other technologies?"
20:39:32 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: BC suggested links to all techniques without specifying general or specific
20:39:45 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: which is what I did in my mock up
20:40:15 [jslatin]
20:40:15 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: goal is to read document and if don't understand can click on a link for more information
20:41:33 [wendy]
wac reads the text from:
20:41:41 [wendy]
ack wendy
20:42:00 [wendy]
ack ja
20:42:30 [Becky_Gibson]
jw: if believe need benefits, examples, more info -then GD is a good idea; agree with JS that combine gen techs into GD
20:42:35 [ben]
20:43:02 [Becky_Gibson]
jw: imp that GL doc be as self contained as possible; user should be able to read and understand SC and purpose
20:43:08 [Yvette]
ack y
20:43:09 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "What about other technologies?"
20:43:11 [cs]
cs has joined #wai-wcag
20:43:14 [Becky_Gibson]
jw: so don't want to see benefits and examples taken out of GL doc
20:43:46 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: was suggested that could link from GD to tech specific techs - but have concerns because
20:44:17 [gregg]
20:44:22 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: but as new techs docs for additional technologies occur then have to update GD
20:44:24 [gregg]
ack j
20:44:38 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
20:44:38 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
20:44:58 [Becky_Gibson]
js: currently examples offered are just descriptions but don't link to any specific site
20:45:30 [Becky_Gibson]
js: when asked outside group - they expected examples to be live links to examples on the web
20:46:06 [Becky_Gibson]
js: can we do this as we move to candidate rec. since we have to prove viability with real examples
20:46:27 [rscano]
i think that user are usually served with guideline + techniques: more docs means more problems. why don't set guidelines + techniques with example?
20:46:44 [Becky_Gibson]
js: much of what we write in GD might go back into GL as informative material
20:46:56 [wendy]
ack ben
20:47:06 [rscano]
(sorry only irc tonight)
20:47:53 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: imp. to sep gen tech from GD - if include all the gen tech in the GD get too much info so other info about SC gets lost
20:48:23 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: when look at benefits and ex. in GL it can be difficult to know which ex. goes with which SC
20:48:32 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: GD really helps with this
20:48:38 [wendy]
ack gregg
20:49:27 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: each tech in a separate doc has raised some ques. do we include gen in each technology specific doc?
20:49:42 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: also issues when use multiple techs ex: html & css
20:50:02 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: we understand that new techs will have to be added; that is why GD is non-normative so
20:50:10 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: it can be refreshed as needed
20:50:59 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: worry about issue when need multiple techs working together - worry if each of those techs are on separate pages will lose some context for problem being sovled
20:51:17 [jslatin]
20:51:30 [Zakim]
20:51:50 [wendy]
ack js
20:51:50 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: links for examples is good idea for GD and techs but not in GL; can't have links to real sites in normative GL
20:52:31 [Becky_Gibson]
js: maybe that is one way for GD to differentiate itself; try to make short ex. descriptions in GL related to real ex. links in GD
20:53:11 [David]
20:53:14 [Becky_Gibson]
js: suggest group working on these examples get back together to review the issues raised today
20:53:42 [wendy]
zakim, ??P11 is Joe
20:53:42 [Zakim]
+Joe; got it
20:53:47 [Becky_Gibson]
js: would like to hear from others not as closely involved in the GD
20:53:47 [wendy]
ack dav
20:54:05 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: have GL 1.0 open and it does link to techniques
20:54:24 [Becky_Gibson]
js: can link to our own docs but not outside of our doc
20:54:52 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: any more comments?
20:55:18 [wendy]
action: js, bc, wac, et al, continue work on guide doc
20:55:22 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
20:55:22 [Zakim]
agendum 3 closed
20:55:23 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
20:55:24 [Zakim]
4. Update on 4.2 and conformance [from wendy]
20:55:26 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 4
20:55:26 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Update on 4.2 and conformance" taken up [from wendy]
20:56:10 [Becky_Gibson]
js: LG, JC, WC and DM? on call yesterday about 4.2; Loretta please update us on 4.2
20:56:25 [Becky_Gibson]
lg: trying to understand web apps and what is role of UUAG and ATAG relative to them
20:56:43 [Becky_Gibson]
lr: wc wrote up a summary to try and define UA and web app
20:57:04 [Becky_Gibson]
lg: looks like we will need to selectively ref. parts of ATAG and perhaps UAAG
20:57:52 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: you are seeing the need for a 4.2 and would apply to interface delivered as content?
20:58:19 [Becky_Gibson]
lg: not sure we need 4.2 but maybe more specifcs in other GL. ex. GL 1.3 would require that
20:58:28 [Becky_Gibson]
lg: state info should be exposed
20:58:47 [joeclark]
20:58:54 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
20:59:04 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: John_Slatin (2%), Gregg_and_Ben (15%), Christophe_Strobe (19%)
20:59:15 [wendy]
zakim, must Christophe
20:59:15 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'must Christophe', wendy
20:59:23 [wendy]
zakim, mute Christophe
20:59:23 [Zakim]
Christophe_Strobe should now be muted
20:59:27 [Becky_Gibson]
js: issues of struct and func. lead to discussion of what is diff. between UA and web app
20:59:44 [joeclark]
q+ to make a quickie clarification
21:00:02 [gregg]
21:00:05 [Becky_Gibson]
js: result from yesterday was better understanding of questions that need to be asked
21:00:28 [Becky_Gibson]
js: for ex. what do authors need to do to allow UA to render info in a more accessible way
21:00:29 [Zakim]
21:00:54 [wendy]
ack joe
21:00:54 [Zakim]
joeclark, you wanted to make a quickie clarification
21:00:57 [Becky_Gibson]
js: action to map GL to checkpoints in UA - not sure anyone has taken it up
21:01:34 [Becky_Gibson]
jc: GL 1.3 does say .....separable from presentation; should be structure, presentation and behavior
21:01:44 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
21:01:44 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
21:02:04 [Becky_Gibson]
jc: structure==html; presentation==css; behavior==javascript (as exmaples) should use this format
21:02:11 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: where is information?
21:02:33 [Becky_Gibson]
jc: no one will create empty document with just <p></p> - no web pages with no content
21:02:58 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: is important to say that info is separate from presentation - that is intent of the GL
21:03:20 [Becky_Gibson]
jc: can use CSS to add content - but existing wording is problematic
21:03:36 [Yvette]
q+ to ask "1.3 summary"
21:03:50 [Becky_Gibson]
js: JC to take action to explain this better
21:03:50 [wendy]
action: joe write proposal for rewording on guideline 1.3 ala structure, presentation, behavior and explanation how it address gv's concern about separating out information.
21:04:20 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: remember that orig inspiration of 1.3 was to maintain original information in alternate presentations
21:04:27 [wendy]
ack gregg
21:04:29 [jslatin]
intent of 1.3 to ensure that info is preserved when presentation format changes
21:05:05 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: if content acts as UA follow UAAG; if authors content follow ATAG was suggested last week
21:05:46 [wendy]
do we want to solve this now or is this what the group should be doing on our call tomorrow?
21:05:50 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: sometimes UA separately, somtimes get with something else
21:06:29 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: same rules for shipping UA separately and as part of content
21:06:43 [wendy]
q+ to say that content doesnt' function as a UA
21:06:56 [Yvette]
ack y
21:06:56 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to ask "1.3 summary"
21:07:00 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: also helps to cross link the guidelines
21:07:37 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: back to 1.3 comment from JC - was going to 1.3 summary for next week - should I do 2.4 next week so can incorporate JC's proposal
21:07:57 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: or better to do my 1.3 summary and have it to discuss with JC's 1.3 proposal
21:08:39 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: have JC to issue summary for 1.3 as well; YH does 2.4
21:08:44 [ben]
1.3 issues:
21:08:55 [Becky_Gibson]
js: can JC take on that extra work?
21:09:06 [Becky_Gibson]
jc: yes
21:09:26 [wendy]
action: joe do the issue summary for 1.3 and as part of incorporate proposal for new 1.3
21:09:43 [wendy]
action: yvette issue summary for 2.4 by next tuesday
21:09:58 [Becky_Gibson]
lg: suggesting GV join 4.2 group since complexity of his proposal is what is perplexing the group
21:10:01 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: will try
21:10:15 [Becky_Gibson]
21:11:00 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: 4.2 has been perplexing us for awhile
21:12:06 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: issue with sites that allow others to post
21:12:14 [wendy]
ack loretta
21:12:16 [wendy]
ack jason
21:12:37 [Becky_Gibson]
jw: authoring tools dependency was discussed in the meeting; UA issue is more problematic-
21:13:11 [gregg]
21:13:12 [Becky_Gibson]
jw: content acting as UA generally isn't something that you can't apply UAAG to
21:13:20 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
21:13:20 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:13:27 [Becky_Gibson]
jw: so should add more specifics to our GL for that
21:13:51 [wendy]
ack wendy
21:13:51 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say that content doesnt' function as a UA
21:14:17 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: propose that working group be given more time before we keep discussing in larger group
21:14:31 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: then can perhaps provide a proposal
21:14:42 [wendy]
ack becky
21:14:50 [ben]
bg: concerns about expecting embedded content to meet ATAG or UAAG - hard to do
21:14:59 [Becky_Gibson]
bg: concerns about req. A
21:15:36 [Becky_Gibson]
bg: meeting ATAG and UAAG for tools embedded in content - will wait for more from the group
21:15:48 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
21:15:48 [Zakim]
agendum 4 closed
21:15:49 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
21:15:50 [Zakim]
5. Looking ahead: Work Plan and scheduling next F2F [from wendy]
21:16:25 [Becky_Gibson]
js: two issues - WC and others have been working to create detailed plan to get us to last call and candidate rec. etc
21:16:49 [Becky_Gibson]
js: not ready for distrib. to list yet but lots of progress being made
21:16:59 [Becky_Gibson]
js: will help us set the agenda for future calls
21:17:25 [Becky_Gibson]
js:quickly need to figure out next F2F in June
21:17:44 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: week of June 13 for F2F seems preferable
21:18:35 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: have been dividing up GL for each week; 3 GL proposals per week with two weeks to discuss then resolve
21:19:20 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: also scoping out techs; want to have ttf shadow the GL WG; techs would work on GL in the week following its dicussion at the WG Thursdya meeting
21:19:50 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: F2F in Europe; 1st day open to public -then 2 days of techs and 2 days of gl
21:20:00 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: propose techs before GL
21:20:34 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: 13th June - public day; 14-15 - techs; 16-17 GL
21:20:40 [Yvette]
q+ to ask "where?"
21:20:50 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: do those dates work for people?
21:20:51 [David]
zakim, mute me
21:20:51 [Zakim]
sorry, David, I do not see a party named 'David'
21:21:05 [David]
zakim, mute me
21:21:05 [Zakim]
sorry, David, I do not see a party named 'David'
21:21:06 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: would like regular WG to also participate in techs meetings
21:21:52 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: so don't have to do a recap of everything for full WG and can help the techs groups
21:22:05 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
21:22:05 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
21:22:09 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: so if can come would be good to come for at least 4 days
21:22:44 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: where?
21:23:05 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: possibilities are Venice, Spain, Germany
21:23:13 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: probably can't make unless in Germany
21:23:41 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: any issues with the dates? silence - so assume date is ok
21:23:58 [Yvette]
q+ to ask "levels"
21:24:27 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: playing with different schedules;
21:25:11 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: one shows Last call with no new Working draft; another shows sched. hit of another public Working draft
21:25:25 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: sched. actually shows internal drafts each two weeks as issues are closed
21:25:37 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: need to check with editors on hit of drafts every 2 weeks
21:26:25 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: need to coordinate with people's schedules based on vacations and issues at work since we need everyone to be taking up and working on action items
21:26:43 [Becky_Gibson]
js: heads up that you will be getting email or call from Wendy to do an issue summary by a certain date
21:27:34 [Becky_Gibson]
js: please be honest when you commit to doing the work - it needs to get done on time
21:27:57 [Becky_Gibson]
js: better to decline the work if you know you can't complete it; but we need everyone to take actions
21:28:02 [Yvette]
21:28:10 [wendy]
ack yvet
21:28:10 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to ask "where?" and to ask "levels"
21:28:39 [joeclark]
21:28:45 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: still need to address how many levels we are going to have - a year ago we picked 3 but did we ever make a firm decision
21:29:10 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: we have assumed that no one will do everything in level 3 - need to decide what we will do with level 3
21:29:47 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: bugzilla has 13 GL as components but also have others; conformance, etc. all of these components need issue summaries
21:30:01 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: conformance needs to be done sooner rather than later due to baseline issues
21:30:14 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
21:30:14 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:30:27 [gregg]
ack g
21:30:28 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: in sched. on some weeks might address 3 GL and another component
21:31:02 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: interesting to see how missing something by one week can really affect the sched. esp in summer months when don't have as many people (due to vacation)
21:31:47 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: need to balance getting a quality doc out and getting things done quickly
21:32:16 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: need to mentally stay focused
21:33:01 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: if do addn working draft before last call will add 2 months to sched
21:33:17 [joeclark]
21:33:19 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: need to push forward as fast as we can and resolve key issues
21:34:04 [Becky_Gibson]
jc: been making printouts of WCAG 2.0; went through each GL to find ones that do not have
21:34:44 [wendy]
action: joe send summary of analysis re: 2 levels of conformance
21:34:45 [Becky_Gibson]
levels 1,2 and 3; my preference is for only 2 levels (as has been stated before)
21:35:49 [Becky_Gibson]
js: wc, bc, and asw have already been working on conformance issues; who took conformance issue summary at dublin meeting?
21:35:53 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: gv
21:36:02 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: but still 18 issues open
21:36:16 [Becky_Gibson]
js: want to see that issue summary rolled into conformance discussions
21:36:33 [wendy]
action: wac, bc, et al consider conformance issues issue summary in work on conformance claims
21:36:50 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
21:36:50 [Zakim]
I do not know what agendum had been taken up, wendy
21:37:18 [Becky_Gibson]
js: want to look at what issues might be candidates for closure but didn't get summary out to list on time
21:37:23 [wendy]
zakim, close item 5
21:37:23 [Zakim]
agendum 5 closed
21:37:24 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
21:37:25 [Zakim]
6. review of baseline issues and attempt to close those that seem ready to close [from wendy]
21:37:39 [Becky_Gibson]
js: prospose adjourning
21:37:41 [wendy]
zakim, close item 6
21:37:41 [Zakim]
agendum 6 closed
21:37:42 [Zakim]
I see nothing remaining on the agenda
21:38:11 [wendy]
action: js, gv, wac go through summary of issues to determine what can be sent to list to close.
21:38:39 [Becky_Gibson]
lg: need to coordinate 4.2 w
21:38:48 [Becky_Gibson]
lg: working group tomorrow
21:39:52 [Zakim]
21:39:53 [Zakim]
21:39:54 [Zakim]
21:39:55 [Zakim]
21:39:56 [Zakim]
21:39:58 [Zakim]
21:39:59 [Zakim]
21:40:00 [Zakim]
21:40:01 [Zakim]
21:40:02 [Zakim]
21:40:04 [Zakim]
21:40:05 [Zakim]
21:40:07 [Zakim]
21:40:07 [Yvette]
21:40:09 [Zakim]
21:40:11 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
21:40:11 [wendy]
21:40:13 [Zakim]
Attendees were Bengt_Farre, John_Slatin, Yvette_Hoitink, Gregg_and_Ben, Wendy, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Becky_Gibson, Mike, Christophe_Strobe, Makoto, Matt, [Microsoft], JasonWhite,
21:40:16 [Zakim]
... [IPcaller], Dave_MacDonald, Joe
21:40:20 [joeclark]
joeclark has left #wai-wcag
21:40:21 [bengt]
bengt has left #wai-wcag
21:40:39 [cs]
cs has left #wai-wcag
21:53:23 [ben]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
21:53:23 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ben
21:54:11 [ben]
Meeting: WCAG Weekly Telecon
21:54:21 [ben]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
21:54:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ben
21:55:27 [ben]
RRSAgent, bye
21:55:27 [RRSAgent]
I see 7 open action items:
21:55:27 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: js, bc, wac, et al, continue work on guide doc [1]
21:55:27 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:55:27 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: joe write proposal for rewording on guideline 1.3 ala structure, presentation, behavior and explanation how it address gv's concern about separating out information. [2]
21:55:27 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:55:27 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: joe do the issue summary for 1.3 and as part of incorporate proposal for new 1.3 [3]
21:55:27 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:55:27 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: yvette issue summary for 2.4 by next tuesday [4]
21:55:27 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:55:27 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: joe send summary of analysis re: 2 levels of conformance [5]
21:55:27 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:55:27 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wac, bc, et al consider conformance issues issue summary in work on conformance claims [6]
21:55:27 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:55:27 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: js, gv, wac go through summary of issues to determine what can be sent to list to close. [7]
21:55:27 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:55:34 [ben]
zakim, bye
21:55:34 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag