IRC log of wai-wcag on 2005-04-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:59:16 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
19:59:16 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:59:21 [wendy]
RRSAGent, make log world
19:59:46 [wendy]
19:59:49 [wendy]
Chair: John
19:59:53 [wendy]
Meeting: WCAG WG weekly
20:00:02 [wendy]
agenda+ Agenda Review (John - 5 minutes)
20:00:09 [wendy]
agenda+ TTF Update (Wendy - 5 min.)
20:00:19 [wendy]
agenda+ issue summary on guideline 2.4 (Yvette- 25 min.)
20:00:26 [wendy]
agenda+ issue summary on guideline 1.3 (Joe- 25 min.)
20:00:32 [bengt]
bengt has joined #wai-wcag
20:00:33 [wendy]
agenda+ 4.2/UAAG summary and issues (Loretta- 25 min.)
20:00:35 [Zakim]
20:00:44 [wendy]
agenda+ issue summary on guideline 1.1 (Wendy- 25 min.)
20:00:51 [wendy]
agenda+ Looking ahead: Proposed planning framework
20:00:52 [ben_]
ben_ has joined #wai-wcag
20:01:16 [Zakim]
20:01:50 [Zakim]
20:01:58 [ChristopheStrobbe]
ChristopheStrobbe has joined #wai-wcag
20:02:16 [Zakim]
20:02:16 [Becky_Gibson]
Becky_Gibson has joined #wai-wcag
20:02:19 [bengt]
zakim, ??P5 is Bengt_Farre
20:02:19 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
20:02:32 [Zakim]
20:02:46 [Zakim]
20:03:12 [Michael]
zakim, mute me
20:03:12 [Zakim]
Michael_Cooper should now be muted
20:03:36 [Zakim]
20:03:56 [Zakim]
20:04:04 [Zakim]
20:04:13 [ben_]
zakim, ??P12 is Gregg_and_Ben
20:04:13 [Zakim]
+Gregg_and_Ben; got it
20:04:19 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:04:19 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Michael_Cooper, John_Slatin, Yvette_Hoitink, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Wendy, Bengt_Farre, Matt, Christophe_Strobbe, Becky_Gibson, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Tim_Boland,
20:04:23 [Zakim]
... Gregg_and_Ben
20:04:31 [Zakim]
20:04:35 [Tim]
Tim has joined #wai-wcag
20:05:29 [wendy]
scribe: Michael
20:05:36 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 1
20:05:36 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Agenda Review (John - 5 minutes)" taken up [from wendy]
20:05:43 [gregg]
gregg has joined #wai-wcag
20:07:13 [Michael]
js: harvest feedback on issue summaries of 2.4, 1.3, 4.2, 1.1
20:07:36 [Michael]
js: get stuff on table for people to incorporate into revised proposals
20:07:49 [Michael]
js: then look at planning framework
20:08:08 [Michael]
zakim, close this item
20:08:08 [Zakim]
agendum 1 closed
20:08:09 [Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
20:08:10 [Zakim]
2. TTF Update (Wendy - 5 min.) [from wendy]
20:08:13 [Michael]
zakim, take up item 2
20:08:13 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "TTF Update (Wendy - 5 min.)" taken up [from wendy]
20:08:20 [wendy]
20:08:38 [Michael]
wac: discussed Becky's categories of scripting techniques
20:09:01 [RylaDog]
RylaDog has joined #wai-wcag
20:09:12 [Michael]
wac: Becky has more action items
20:09:20 [Michael]
wac: discussed planning framework
20:09:34 [Zakim]
20:09:52 [Michael]
wac: actions to work out details
20:10:17 [Michael]
wac: assignment templates - for people to use as they work on proposals
20:10:25 [Michael]
wac: discussions on <object> issues
20:10:44 [Michael]
wac: technique using <link> from PF group (based on DHTML roadmap)
20:10:56 [Michael]
wac: more action items to investigate
20:10:58 [bengt]
bengt has joined #wai-wcag
20:11:19 [Michael]
wac: discussed structure of guide doc, re proposals sent last week
20:11:39 [Michael]
wac: more work to do on those to harmonize and re-propose
20:11:43 [wendy]
20:12:31 [Michael]
zakim, close this item
20:12:31 [Zakim]
agendum 2 closed
20:12:32 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
20:12:33 [Zakim]
3. issue summary on guideline 2.4 (Yvette- 25 min.) [from wendy]
20:12:37 [Michael]
zakim, take up item 3
20:12:37 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "issue summary on guideline 2.4 (Yvette- 25 min.)" taken up [from wendy]
20:13:19 [Michael]
js: reminder, just take questions, and take comments and responses, goal not to close today
20:14:16 [Zakim]
20:14:21 [bengt]
zakim, ??P5 is Bengt_Farre
20:14:21 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
20:14:49 [Michael]
yph: found items to close, some that need small amount of discussion, some proposals for new SC, and some proposals for deletions
20:15:03 [Michael]
yph: a major problem is overlap between 2.4 and 1.3
20:15:37 [Michael]
1.3 is separate structure from presentation (or behaviour), 2.4 is structural stuff for navigation
20:15:56 [Michael]
yph: 434 propose to close
20:16:07 [ben_]
20:16:14 [Michael]
ack ben
20:16:49 [Michael]
bbc: fact we have a level 1 SC doesn't necessarily deal with overlap with 1.3
20:17:08 [Michael]
yph: some suggestions to make L3 items L1, propose to postpone until those are handled
20:17:27 [wendy]
zakim, ping me in 20 minutes
20:17:27 [Zakim]
ok, wendy
20:18:03 [Michael]
gv: artifact from back when we designated as Core or not, therefore can close this as overcome by events
20:18:17 [Michael]
bbc: not opposed to closing issue, just want to be sure of rationale
20:18:44 [Michael]
js: objection to closing on above rationale?
20:18:51 [Michael]
20:19:30 [Michael]
yph: 829 move linear reading order to L1
20:19:50 [Michael]
yph: now reworded as re sequence
20:20:12 [Michael]
yph: related item we might want to delete - issue 1441
20:20:37 [Michael]
yph: can't test if sequence matters (author decision), and also covered by 1.3, therefore remove SC
20:20:52 [gregg]
20:21:08 [wendy]
20:21:31 [Michael]
js: 1 proposal to promote, 1 to delete, discuss
20:22:07 [Michael]
gv: current wording doesn't make sense, not sure why necessary
20:22:30 [Michael]
gv: need to be sure whatever we do is conditional re sequence, because much content can be read in many correct ways
20:23:04 [Michael]
ack gregg
20:23:06 [Michael]
ack wendy
20:23:17 [Michael]
wc: relates to 1214 and 1391
20:23:48 [Michael]
wc: 1391 is programatic determination of sequence is too vague, maybe needs to be always programatically determined
20:24:00 [Michael]
wac: perhaps sensible keyboard navigaiton overlaps
20:24:30 [Michael]
wac; 1214 is skipping groups of links, also relates to order making sense
20:24:42 [Michael]
wac: we need something at level 1 but could make it more broad
20:24:44 [Michael]
ack john
20:25:27 [Michael]
js: example of online newspaper with sidebars etc. in general techniques
20:26:03 [Michael]
js: intent not to assume all conditions but to deal with when screen readers make gobbledegook
20:26:26 [Michael]
js: perhaps wording to clarify that needed
20:26:55 [Michael]
tb: concern of objectivity of "meaningful" - author and user may disagree
20:27:13 [Michael]
tb: can it be objectively evaluated?
20:27:21 [Michael]
js: can be evaluated by human
20:28:11 [Michael]
yph: 1214 promote to L1 for harmonizing with Section 508
20:28:23 [Michael]
yph: is harmonizing something we want to consider?
20:28:27 [wendy]
20:28:57 [Michael]
gv: propose we hold off because one of the WAI metagroups is discussing
20:29:35 [wendy]
ack wend
20:30:10 [Michael]
wac: if we agree to move navigating items in sequence to level 1, this really just falls into techniques so we can remove SC
20:30:27 [Michael]
wac: need to be sure we discuss grouping things, then discuss navigating in sequence
20:31:05 [wendy]
ack john
20:31:14 [Michael]
wac: some ohter changes outlined in a post re this
20:31:36 [Michael]
js: discussion of <link> to provide such features another technique, supporting Wendy's position
20:32:23 [Michael]
gv: not clear on Wendy's proposal
20:32:30 [Michael]
js: discuss on list
20:33:15 [Michael]
yph: progressive complexity - easy to understand summary, then other stuff
20:33:57 [Michael]
yph: was proposed to go under 2.4
20:34:03 [Michael]
yph: bug 1132
20:34:05 [ben_]
20:34:09 [wendy]
ack john
20:34:28 [Michael]
js: should be addressed by a proposal working on
20:34:28 [bengt_]
bengt_ has joined #wai-wcag
20:34:55 [Zakim]
20:35:08 [Michael]
yph: 1137 increase prioirty of divide blocks of information in to manageable units
20:35:14 [Zakim]
20:35:17 [bengt]
zakim, ??P5 is Bengt_Farre
20:35:17 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
20:35:23 [Michael]
yph: 2 SC for this - text as paragraphs and hierarchical sections
20:35:25 [ben_]
20:35:32 [Michael]
yph: perhaps we should have a more generic version
20:36:19 [Michael]
yph: re need to divide blocks of info into manageable units
20:36:55 [Michael]
gv: recursive - when you divide blocks you still have blocks that need to divide. Need a divide when "too large" and how do you define threshold.
20:37:16 [Michael]
ack j
20:37:27 [Zakim]
wendy, you asked to be pinged at this time
20:37:37 [Michael]
js: work on 3.1 might be relevant
20:37:52 [Michael]
js: relative to size of task user has
20:38:06 [Michael]
js: exist generally accepted ways of discussing that stuff, will send to list
20:38:27 [Michael]
js: may be advisory too
20:38:43 [Michael]
gv: many of the things we look at we "harvest out" into advisory techs
20:39:09 [Michael]
ack l
20:39:25 [Zakim]
20:39:36 [Michael]
lgr: agree not only text that needs structure, but concerned re house example
20:39:49 [gregg]
20:39:54 [Michael]
lgr: zoom in vs explore
20:40:02 [Zakim]
20:40:21 [Michael]
yph: yes, need manageable
20:40:45 [Michael]
js: yvette should write up as functional outcome, then we can look at techniques to achieve, e.g., separate steps, zooming, etc.
20:41:02 [Michael]
zakim, close this item
20:41:02 [Zakim]
agendum 3 closed
20:41:03 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
20:41:05 [Zakim]
4. issue summary on guideline 1.3 (Joe- 25 min.) [from wendy]
20:41:21 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 5
20:41:21 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "4.2/UAAG summary and issues (Loretta- 25 min.)" taken up [from wendy]
20:42:05 [bengt_]
bengt_ has joined #wai-wcag
20:42:51 [Zakim]
20:42:54 [bengt]
zakim, ??P5 is Bengt_Farre
20:42:54 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
20:43:16 [Michael]
js: process pause - we want to get to a proposal, which should allow us to close bugs
20:43:52 [RylaDog]
RylaDog has joined #wai-wcag
20:44:52 [Michael]
gv: may need to modify proposals for some things based on discussion, things too controversial might need to be re-raised
20:44:54 [Michael]
zakim, mute me
20:44:54 [Zakim]
Michael_Cooper should now be muted
20:45:54 [Yvette]
I'll take over
20:45:56 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:45:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Michael_Cooper (muted), John_Slatin, Yvette_Hoitink, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Wendy, Matt, Christophe_Strobbe, Becky_Gibson, Katie_Haritos-Shea (muted), Tim_Boland,
20:45:58 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
20:45:59 [Zakim]
... Gregg_and_Ben, JasonWhite, Mike_Barta (muted), Bengt_Farre
20:46:00 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
20:46:12 [Yvette]
js: Since Joe's not here, let's go on with Loretta's item
20:46:24 [Yvette]
scribe: Yvette
20:46:29 [Yvette]
lgr: 4.2
20:46:46 [Yvette]
lgr: summary from subgroup work in overview message
20:46:55 [Yvette]
lgr: difference between web application and user agent
20:47:35 [Yvette]
lgr: based on that distinction that Wendy wrote, we tried to walk through UAAG level 1 to see what was involved and see if WCAG already covered that or things needed to be added
20:47:44 [Yvette]
lgr: feedback anyone?
20:48:15 [Yvette]
gvdh: is the distinction in the post?
20:48:42 [Yvette]
js: listed in the agenda, includes Wendy's message with distinction between web application and user agent
20:48:46 [wendy]
20:49:10 [Yvette]
js: sorry for the URL mix up, wrong URL was in the agenda
20:50:05 [Yvette]
lgr: is definition of web application appropriate for what we want with this guideline?
20:50:36 [Yvette]
js: that's two questions: 1. definition of web application clear and accurate? 2. is this appropriate for our purposes?
20:50:48 [Yvette]
js: anyone have a different definition for web app?
20:51:17 [Zakim]
20:51:35 [Yvette]
gvdh: do web applications have interface controls? 4.2 is meant to handle the included interface. Example: flash
20:51:39 [bengt_]
bengt_ has joined #wai-wcag
20:51:48 [wendy]
q+ to say "interface covered by other WCAG guidelines"
20:52:15 [Yvette]
gvdh: we never said that it _was_ a user agent, just that it has interface controls so we said rather than make our own rules we refer to UAAG
20:52:27 [wendy]
ack q
20:52:35 [Michael]
ack w
20:52:35 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say "interface covered by other WCAG guidelines"
20:52:49 [Zakim]
20:52:56 [bengt]
zakim, ??P5 is Bengt_Farre
20:52:56 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
20:53:05 [Yvette]
wc: we were looking at UAAG because we were looking at interface. However if you look at our guidelines, we actually cover interfaces pretty well in our guidelines
20:53:37 [Yvette]
wc: main issues: name widgets, make sure widgets can be accessed, provide role and state information
20:53:51 [Zakim]
20:54:14 [Yvette]
wc: we matched all the UAAG to WCAG 2 criteria and realized that there are places where authors need to provide the input the user agent needs to provide the interface
20:54:16 [Zakim]
20:54:22 [Becky_Gibson]
20:54:33 [Yvette]
wc: there are some additions we need to make, without re-inventing the wheel of UAAG.
20:54:43 [Yvette]
wc: interface _is_ covered by our guidelines, with some possible additions
20:55:09 [RylaDog]
RylaDog has joined #wai-wcag
20:55:15 [wendy]
ack john
20:55:17 [Yvette]
js: confirm what wc said
20:55:39 [Yvette]
js: there are analyses of how UAAG relates to WCAG
20:55:50 [wendy]
ack becky
20:56:06 [Yvette]
bg: Questions about Wendy's message about web app and user agent
20:56:14 [Yvette]
bg: I'll get back to that later
20:56:22 [wendy]
ack jason
20:56:24 [Yvette]
jw: Agree with wc
20:56:40 [Yvette]
jw: in analysis it became clear we couldn't just refer to UAAG
20:57:06 [Yvette]
jw: it's not possible to conform to UAAG with web content
20:57:34 [Yvette]
jw: we need to find out what's missing from the guidelines for user agents to work with
20:57:36 [wendy]
zakim, ping me in 10 minutes
20:57:36 [Zakim]
ok, wendy
20:57:56 [Yvette]
bg: I didn't get some of the examples Wendy gave like the Javascript one.
20:58:18 [Yvette]
wc: examples were to illustrate web applications that were not user agents
20:58:26 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
20:58:26 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
20:59:25 [wendy]
what the author needs to provide in the delivery unit so that the user agent can generate an accessible perceivable unit
21:00:10 [Yvette]
gvdh: if I understand correctly, most of that is already in our guidelines
21:00:23 [Yvette]
gvdh: so rather than sending people off to UAAG, just include what's missing in our guidelines
21:00:39 [ben_]
21:00:40 [Yvette]
gvdh: so we suspend the reference to UAAG until we figure out what's missing
21:00:45 [Zakim]
21:01:53 [Yvette]
gvdh: need to make sure people creating web applications put the right stuff in so they're accessible
21:01:55 [Zakim]
21:02:06 [Yvette]
gvdh: make sure all the information is available to screen readers
21:02:11 [Zakim]
21:02:17 [bengt_]
bengt_ has joined #wai-wcag
21:02:22 [Yvette]
js: that's exactly what the analysis calls for
21:02:31 [Yvette]
js: analysis tells where in our guidelines we need to specify that
21:03:27 [Yvette]
21:03:40 [wendy]
ack ben
21:04:09 [Yvette]
bc: In the UAAG analysis there are examples that talk about requiring that things be available programatically
21:04:15 [Zakim]
21:04:36 [Yvette]
bc: confused by what was meant by some of those f.e. "require to determine background images programatically"
21:04:45 [Becky_Gibson]
21:05:08 [Yvette]
lgr: the idea is to make sure that no matter the form, the user agent will be able to get at the information
21:05:22 [Yvette]
lgr: if it's HTML source, that's programatically available to the UA
21:05:36 [Yvette]
lgr: it's a way to say that the source expresses the information about these relationships.
21:06:02 [Yvette]
bc: that helps a bit, I can see that there are cases where it's more difficult to distuinguish between foreground and background
21:06:08 [Yvette]
bc: I can see where you're going
21:06:13 [wendy]
ack becky
21:06:26 [wendy]
21:06:49 [Yvette]
bg: Issue I have with this (will post) is about requiring ATAG for web apps that allows content generation
21:07:27 [Yvette]
bg: for example: mail input web app that would require asking for alt-text
21:07:29 [wendy]
ack wendy
21:07:37 [Zakim]
wendy, you asked to be pinged at this time
21:07:42 [Yvette]
bg: scares me as web app developer
21:08:04 [Yvette]
wc: only web apps that involve creating content that is meant for the web would need to conform to ATAG
21:08:45 [Yvette]
wc: hairy issue: for example, our IRC client logs to the web, so would our IRC program have to confrom to ATAG?
21:09:01 [bengt_]
bengt_ has joined #wai-wcag
21:09:04 [Yvette]
wc: we could say "if your app generates web content, go to ATAG"
21:09:18 [Yvette]
wc: doesn't clarify when web content needs ATAG or WCAG
21:09:30 [bengt]
zakim, drop bengt_farre
21:09:30 [Zakim]
sorry, bengt, I do not see a party named 'bengt_farre'
21:09:36 [Zakim]
21:09:38 [Yvette]
bg: an e-mail application could generate web content too, but you mean specifically web content generating applications?
21:09:45 [Yvette]
wc: Yes, blogger for example
21:09:55 [Zakim]
21:09:57 [bengt]
zakim, ??P5 is Bengt_Farre
21:09:57 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
21:10:13 [Yvette]
bg: I'll post my example to the list
21:10:29 [Yvette]
tb: ATAG meeting next week. I'll take it to that group.
21:11:08 [Yvette]
mm: from the ATAG perspective everything is well defined already. I'm missing what the grey area is
21:11:58 [Yvette]
wc: the current def of AT doesn't exclude content that isn't necessarily meant for the web
21:12:12 [Yvette]
wc: when we participate in mailing list, we are generating web content
21:12:43 [Yvette]
mm: not true, the W3C tools are creating web content. They are taking content not meant as such and creating web content from it. IRC client is not an authoring tool
21:13:06 [Yvette]
js: Loretta, can you make 4.2 proposal by Tuesday?
21:13:11 [Yvette]
lgr: SURE!
21:13:36 [Yvette]
js: There's a number of important messages about 4.2. PLEASE READ THEM
21:14:10 [Yvette]
lgr: Would like comments by end of day Monday
21:15:00 [wendy]
scribe: Becky_Gibson
21:15:10 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
21:15:10 [Zakim]
agendum 5 closed
21:15:11 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
21:15:12 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
21:15:13 [Zakim]
4. issue summary on guideline 1.3 (Joe- 25 min.) [from wendy]
21:15:14 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:15:19 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 6
21:15:19 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "issue summary on guideline 1.1 (Wendy- 25 min.)" taken up [from wendy]
21:15:26 [wendy]
21:15:43 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: when started 1.1 revies serveral issues about definitions
21:16:01 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: depending on defs. SC can mean very different things
21:16:43 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: started with definitions to get grounded and felt first SC is most contentious and affects baseline
21:18:01 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: main ques. is if we define text content as ...... and functional text content as ..... (see post)
21:18:39 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: also proposed defs for content
21:18:59 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: don't want 4.2 to morph into just how to label widgets
21:19:42 [Tim]
Tim has left #wai-wcag
21:19:48 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: separate out non-text content is anything not rep. via unicode characters - feels like good def - are there any concerns?
21:19:56 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: what about ascii art?
21:20:24 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
21:20:24 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
21:20:24 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: is ascii art represented as string of unicode characters?
21:20:33 [bengt_]
bengt_ has joined #wai-wcag
21:20:48 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: going to need a sub def for each type on non text content
21:20:54 [bengt_]
zakim, drop bengt_farre
21:20:54 [Zakim]
Bengt_Farre is being disconnected
21:20:55 [Zakim]
21:21:07 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: functional non-text, non-text to create a sensory info and .....
21:21:10 [Zakim]
21:21:24 [bengt]
zakim, Luca_Mascaro is Bengt_Farre
21:21:24 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
21:21:25 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: ascii art is used to convey info so I think def holds
21:21:26 [Zakim]
21:21:34 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
21:21:34 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:22:07 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: 3 text def: functional non-text, not-text to convey info; and to convey sensory exp.
21:22:17 [wendy]
21:22:51 [ChristopheStrobbe]
21:23:01 [wendy]
ack jason
21:23:08 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: have to consider spatial arrangement - will post a def
21:24:03 [Becky_Gibson]
jw: issue of meaning of content; ordinarily content in delivered unit is considered content; it is not always a stream of ordered unicode characters
21:24:25 [Becky_Gibson]
jw: not all of those may be presented - we need to make a disctinction about what is content that is presented to the user
21:24:42 [Becky_Gibson]
jw: need to be specific as to what content wcag applies
21:25:22 [Becky_Gibson]
jw: example is a pdf file structure of the document is not represneted as seq. of unicode characters even though the text is
21:25:27 [wendy]
q+ to say non-text content refers to perceivable unit. content refers to delivery unit.
21:25:41 [Becky_Gibson]
jw: don't want to req. the structure to require text alternative
21:25:48 [gregg]
21:25:54 [wendy]
ack chris
21:26:14 [Becky_Gibson]
cs: concerned that req. unicode is controversial
21:26:31 [Becky_Gibson]
cs: issues with Japanese and chinese in particular
21:26:57 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: to address CS will take action to check with WT and Makoto
21:27:10 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: but thinks unicode should cover
21:27:18 [Becky_Gibson]
js: but we are not req. unicode, right?
21:28:02 [wendy]
action: wendy to check with makoto and takayuki other w3c people.
21:28:07 [wendy]
ack wendy
21:28:07 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say non-text content refers to perceivable unit. content refers to delivery unit.
21:28:12 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: correct; document does not have to be documented in unicode but must represent unicode character
21:28:34 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: non text content refers to what is in perceivable unit; content refers to what is in delivery unit
21:28:40 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: will tweak defs
21:28:42 [wendy]
ack gregg
21:28:56 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: I think we are req. unicode- if not what else are we req text to be in?
21:29:08 [wendy]
q+ to say "unicode does not require utf8 - that's just one encoding"
21:29:18 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: if not req. unicode then what is our def. of text?
21:29:45 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: jason's pt is excellent - talked about separating structure of info from the info
21:30:11 [wendy]
zakim, ping me in 5 minutes
21:30:11 [Zakim]
ok, wendy
21:30:12 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: structure is content so can't define all next content to incude;
21:30:26 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: what do we call content that is not part of structure?
21:30:29 [mcmay]
mcmay has joined #wai-wcag
21:30:36 [mcmay]
q+ structure is metainformation
21:30:44 [mcmay]
q+ to say structure is metainformation
21:30:46 [wendy]
ack lor
21:30:54 [bengt_]
bengt_ has joined #wai-wcag
21:30:55 [Zakim]
21:31:04 [Becky_Gibson]
lgr: i think we are saying that unicode rep of text should be programmatically determined
21:31:14 [bengt_]
zakim, drop bengt_farre
21:31:14 [Zakim]
Bengt_Farre is being disconnected
21:31:15 [Zakim]
21:31:30 [Zakim]
21:31:32 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: want it to be in unicode when AT accesses it; can be encrypted, compressed and UA would pull it out
21:31:42 [ChristopheStrobbe]
q+ to say that 'text' is unicode or other character set / character encoding scheme defined by a standardization org
21:31:47 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: has to be in fashion that when it goes thru UA it gets presented as unicode
21:32:06 [Zakim]
21:32:40 [Becky_Gibson]
lgr: thinks wendy's def that talks about any encoding can be used but must be able to be mapped into unicode
21:33:00 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: but mapping is issue - are we req. all UA to convert everything to unicode
21:33:13 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: have Vander
21:33:34 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: have VanderEncryption so now UA is req. to map that to unicode?
21:33:40 [Becky_Gibson]
lgr: you must provide mapping/apis
21:33:47 [Yvette]
q+ to say "How is unicode an accessibility issue?"
21:34:07 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: unicode is very "general" term - there are several encodings you can use to get to unicode characters
21:34:24 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: but lgr was going further saying any coding
21:34:38 [Becky_Gibson]
lgr: think misinterpretting programmatically determinable
21:34:50 [ChristopheStrobbe]
q- will follow up on mailing list
21:34:54 [ben_]
21:34:54 [Becky_Gibson]
lgr: suggest taking off list
21:34:54 [wendy]
ack wendy
21:34:56 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say "unicode does not require utf8 - that's just one encoding"
21:35:05 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: wendy has discovered imp. whole
21:35:11 [Zakim]
wendy, you asked to be pinged at this time
21:35:23 [Yvette]
21:35:48 [ChristopheStrobbe]
21:35:55 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: think some of issues we are discussing with tweaks from JW that defs proposed are still heading in right direction
21:36:14 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: see Jason's issues as biggest - use of word content
21:36:28 [wendy]
ack mc
21:36:28 [Zakim]
mcmay, you wanted to say structure is metainformation
21:36:30 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: we can use what is in delivery unit vs perceivable unit to help clarify
21:36:44 [Becky_Gibson]
mm: disagree that structure is info - structure is meta info.
21:37:01 [Becky_Gibson]
mm: if have a doc with only structure there is no info being conveyed
21:37:15 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: structure is not information
21:37:29 [wendy]
ack john
21:38:01 [Becky_Gibson]
js: markup is information about the document - that is one kind of info we are trying to preserve across changes in presentation
21:38:35 [Becky_Gibson]
js: markup is meta info about the content and how it is organized so we need to be able to talk about both that and the material that is not pure structure
21:38:52 [Becky_Gibson]
js: but is presenting substance of what we want users to interact with
21:39:03 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: want to ask about the labeling and flickr app
21:39:25 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: curious of how baseline ques. fit in - right approach to force labels for each function
21:39:26 [Zakim]
21:39:39 [bengt_]
bengt_ has joined #wai-wcag
21:39:44 [wendy]
q+ to say, "not description of each. label of each for one baseline, otherwise functionality of each"
21:39:45 [bengt]
zakim, drop bengt_farre
21:39:46 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: if my baseline includes support for flash I assume flash player deals with desc. of information
21:39:46 [Zakim]
sorry, bengt, I do not see a party named 'bengt_farre'
21:39:47 [wendy]
ack ben
21:39:55 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: with it
21:39:58 [wendy]
ack wendy
21:39:58 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say, "not description of each. label of each for one baseline, otherwise functionality of each"
21:40:04 [gregg]
21:40:12 [Zakim]
21:40:19 [bengt]
zakim, ??P5 is Bengt_Farre
21:40:19 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
21:40:40 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: each widget must be labeled for the baseline that assumes web apps; for lower baseline would provide the alternative mech to provide functionality
21:41:21 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: if have flash that has controls and exposes them to screen rdr then they would have labels
21:41:42 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: if controls are not exposed to screen reader then would have alternatives
21:42:25 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: all the way down to the widget level there is text
21:42:31 [Zakim]
21:43:00 [wendy]
ack gregg
21:43:02 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: describe the widget at the level that it occurs (editor didn't capture this very well - sorry)
21:43:17 [Zakim]
21:43:44 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: thinking that role and state stuff fits under 1.3
21:44:13 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: 1.1 labelling the function, - keyboard access; 1.3 - behavior
21:45:12 [Becky_Gibson]
js: please read and respond to Joe Clarks issue summary - deals with GL and not SC so will ask him to address SC in relation to issues he summarized
21:45:40 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: can you post what you just said about 1.3 and role and state
21:46:02 [wendy]
action: wendy suggest role/state as part of new 1.3 (ala joe's proposal)
21:46:41 [Becky_Gibson]
js: more comments or concerns about info already discussed?
21:46:46 [Zakim]
21:46:53 [Becky_Gibson]
js: any objections to Wendy pursuing her approach on 1.1?
21:47:17 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: think it is good as it is exposing old issues - so think it is worthwhile continuing the exploration
21:47:59 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: but a bit worried about combining 4.2 into other places things will be too confusing - only a mathematician can understand
21:48:18 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: don't want it to be too confusing because defs are so precise- may need plainer language
21:48:46 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
21:48:46 [Zakim]
agendum 6 closed
21:48:47 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
21:48:48 [Zakim]
4. issue summary on guideline 1.3 (Joe- 25 min.) [from wendy]
21:48:53 [wendy]
zakim, close item 4
21:48:53 [Zakim]
agendum 4 closed
21:48:54 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
21:48:55 [Zakim]
7. Looking ahead: Proposed planning framework [from wendy]
21:49:08 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 7
21:49:08 [Zakim]
agendum 7. "Looking ahead: Proposed planning framework" taken up [from wendy]
21:49:16 [Becky_Gibson]
js: each thurs call will discuss 4 issue summaries and/or proposals
21:49:35 [Becky_Gibson]
js: 2 step seq. first call will discuss and raise concerns about proposals sent to list two days earlier
21:49:50 [wendy]
21:49:52 [Becky_Gibson]
js: discussion will feed revised proposals and issues summaries to be sent to list on following tues
21:49:55 [Zakim]
21:50:09 [Becky_Gibson]
js: for hopeful resolution /consensus on following thurs
21:50:34 [Becky_Gibson]
js: WC is putting this into an app and will be posting the calendar into planning section of WG site
21:50:57 [Becky_Gibson]
js: is dynamic plan so we can get clear representation of what happens when we fall behind
21:51:19 [Becky_Gibson]
js: hope this keeps us mindful of role we play and implications of missing deadlines
21:51:44 [Becky_Gibson]
js: so as soon as you know you are going to miss a deadline please let someone know so we can plan and adjust
21:51:57 [Becky_Gibson]
js: know this sounds very corporate but needs to be said
21:52:09 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
21:52:09 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
21:52:11 [Becky_Gibson]
js: want to thank all who are working hard and participating
21:52:24 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: if any hope ot getting to end need to operate in such a fashions
21:52:48 [Becky_Gibson]
gv: need to continue momentum to keep making progress - reiterates thanks
21:52:53 [Zakim]
21:52:55 [Zakim]
21:52:56 [Zakim]
21:52:57 [Zakim]
21:52:58 [Zakim]
21:53:00 [Zakim]
21:53:01 [Zakim]
21:53:03 [Zakim]
21:53:42 [ben_]
ben_ has left #wai-wcag
21:54:37 [Zakim]
21:54:38 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
21:54:40 [Zakim]
Attendees were Michael_Cooper, John_Slatin, Yvette_Hoitink, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Wendy, Matt, Bengt_Farre, Christophe_Strobbe, Becky_Gibson, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Tim_Boland,
21:54:43 [Zakim]
... Gregg_and_Ben, JasonWhite, Mike_Barta
21:54:53 [wendy]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
21:54:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate wendy
21:58:48 [mcmay]
mcmay has left #wai-wcag
22:00:53 [joeclark]
joeclark has joined #wai-wcag
22:01:11 [jslatin]
8Hi, Joe!
22:01:33 [jslatin]
We just finished the call...
22:02:12 [jslatin]
There should be minutes in a couple of days (that sounds odd).
22:02:29 [jslatin]
We didn't discuss your 1.3 messages since you weren't available.
22:02:44 [jslatin]
I did ask that people review your messages carefully and respond.
22:03:03 [jslatin]
Also, I'll ask that you go one more step
22:03:38 [jslatin]
and propose success criteria for 1.3 that (a) provide testable ways to implement the guideline as you propose it and
22:03:53 [jslatin]
(b) address as many of the issues in your summary as possible;
22:04:02 [jslatin]
and (c) address any concerns raised on the list.
22:04:18 [jslatin]
Then we can go through it on Thursday's call next week.
22:04:50 [jslatin]
I'll send email about this too.
22:05:01 [jslatin]
Great minds think alike.
22:05:44 [ChristopheStrobbe]
ChristopheStrobbe has left #wai-wcag
22:05:49 [jslatin]
Also, Wendy is going to send something related to 1.3, so watch for that one too.
22:06:06 [jslatin]
I'm heading home. Long day. I'll send mail.
22:16:55 [ben]
ben has joined #wai-wcag
22:27:44 [ben]
ben has left #wai-wcag
22:31:25 [joeclark]
joeclark has left #wai-wcag
22:52:08 [wendy]
zakim, bye
22:52:08 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
22:52:13 [wendy]
RRSAgent, bye
22:52:13 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items:
22:52:13 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wendy to check with makoto and takayuki other w3c people. [1]
22:52:13 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
22:52:13 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wendy suggest role/state as part of new 1.3 (ala joe's proposal) [2]
22:52:13 [RRSAgent]
recorded in