IRC log of wai-wcag on 2005-04-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:52:46 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
13:52:46 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:52:50 [Michael]
rrsagent, make log world
13:58:41 [Becky_Gibson]
Becky_Gibson has joined #wai-wcag
13:58:54 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has joined #wai-wcag
13:59:06 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has now started
13:59:13 [Zakim]
14:00:49 [Zakim]
14:02:21 [Zakim]
14:02:50 [jslatin]
jslatin has joined #wai-wcag
14:03:21 [Zakim]
14:04:18 [Zakim]
14:04:44 [wendy]
wendy has joined #wai-wcag
14:04:52 [wendy]
14:05:12 [David_]
David_ has joined #wai-wcag
14:05:20 [David_]
14:05:28 [wendy]
14:05:32 [wendy]
Chair: Michael
14:05:54 [wendy]
agenda+ Plan for addressing techniques and test suites for 1.1, 1.3, 2.4, 4.2
14:06:05 [wendy]
agenda+ Requirements for Checklists and Techniques
14:06:12 [wendy]
agenda+ Mapping of script techniques to guidelines
14:07:17 [wendy]
Meeting: Techniques Task Force of the WCAG WG Telecon
14:07:39 [David_]
14:07:45 [David_]
scribe: David
14:08:08 [David_]
scribe: David_
14:09:03 [wendy]
zakim, take up agendum 1
14:09:03 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Plan for addressing techniques and test suites for 1.1, 1.3, 2.4, 4.2" taken up [from wendy]
14:09:15 [wendy]
Regrets: Tim, Ben, Christophe
14:09:16 [David_]
mc: michael john mike david on call
14:09:29 [David_]
and wendy
14:10:02 [David_]
mc: techniques for the guidelines above
14:10:14 [Zakim]
14:11:21 [David_]
wc: techniques taskforce michael john mike david becky wendy, chris on call
14:12:04 [David_]
wc: should take up test cases and techniques at same time to harmonize
14:12:15 [David_]
wc: how to divy up the work???
14:12:48 [David_]
wc: who's willing to do what, how much time do people have
14:13:36 [David_]
wc: we have lots of people, if everyone took 10 techniques we could do it
14:13:54 [David_]
bg: seem to be loosing people from wed
14:14:52 [David_]
wc: resourses is an issue
14:15:17 [David_]
mc: that may be good because we can focus
14:16:07 [David_]
w: if you are doing a lot of action items on this call don't do much on Thurs
14:16:48 [David_]
js: and vice versa
14:18:14 [David_]
wc: next wed we need to talk about techniques....divy up work today. by monday issue summaries, harvest more on Wed. then update propsoals following week then following wed close
14:19:12 [David_]
wc: i think some tech for 1.1 could be combined
14:20:45 [David_]
wc: can't get into bugzilla
14:21:01 [David_]
js: I got in the day before yesterday
14:21:34 [David_]
wc: I'll ask gregg to restart that server
14:22:14 [David_]
mc: I'll write up search tips
14:23:45 [David_]
mc: take on tech for a guideline, in context of current, review each tech related to a guideline keeping in mind the discussions in main group thurs, discuss enndotes, bugzilla, then propose action, to close,change, create new combine etc
14:24:13 [David_]
setp2: go through mapping doc, think of techniques that appear to be missing
14:24:24 [David_]
css html and script
14:25:08 [David_]
mc: test cases: go through the test cases for the techniques.. identify issues with existing test cases and propose additional test casses
14:25:18 [David_]
wc: I have ideas for test cases in CSS
14:26:34 [David_]
wc: perhaps test cases with tim
14:27:28 [wendy]
action: wac ask tim about creating css test cases
14:27:49 [David_]
js: jim allen, james craig might help
14:28:18 [David_]
bg: we have no JS scripts techniques now
14:28:36 [David_]
mc: there open issues about how to write techniques in relation to baseline
14:31:13 [David_]
mc: havestin WAIG list ok to do also but not necessary
14:31:32 [David_]
bg: but guidelines in flux
14:31:47 [David_]
mc: make conditional techniques
14:32:27 [David_]
js: we may close 1.1, 4.2, 2.4, 1.3 soon
14:33:19 [David_]
wc: I'm tempted to take 1.1 cause I'm doing in.
14:33:53 [Michael]
action: Wendy take 1.1
14:34:14 [David_]
wc: labeling functional apps will work with Becky
14:34:50 [David_]
bg: label is ot an alternative
14:35:04 [David_]
wc: it is test that serves the same purpose
14:35:35 [David_]
mc: label is label not an alternative
14:35:49 [David_]
sure :-)
14:36:00 [Becky_Gibson]
scribe: Becky_Gibson
14:36:23 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: will be alot of work - review list for info about GL plus techs and tests
14:36:51 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: so makes sense to work with person reviewing the GL
14:36:59 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: have been working on 4.2
14:37:14 [Becky_Gibson]
js: but there is a proposal on the list - can start with that
14:37:47 [Becky_Gibson]
js: hope is that WG comes to consensus on proposal - then techs group can start work based on newly adopted proposal
14:37:58 [Michael]
action: David take 4.2
14:38:02 [Becky_Gibson]
js: so hopefully don't have to sift through all the prior proposals
14:38:09 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: so David is taking 4.2
14:38:29 [Michael]
action: Michael take 2.4
14:38:31 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: MC will take 2.4
14:38:34 [Michael]
action: Becky take 1.3
14:38:56 [Becky_Gibson]
bg: will take 1.3
14:39:07 [Michael]
action 3 = David take 4.2, work with Loretta
14:39:16 [Michael]
action 4 = Michael take 2.4, work with Yvette
14:39:17 [Becky_Gibson]
bg to work with jc; dm to work with LGR
14:39:23 [Michael]
action 5 = Becky take 1.3, work with Joe
14:39:26 [Becky_Gibson]
mc to work with yh
14:39:53 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: by Monday, may 2 we will all have sent an issue summary related to the techs; proposals for changes would be great
14:40:32 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: on May 9 will submit proposals for changes (based on dicsussion on May 4)
14:40:40 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: goal will be to discuss and close on May 11
14:41:08 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: concerned that am travelling week of May 9
14:41:18 [Becky_Gibson]
js: perhaps can coordinate with Ben?
14:41:35 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: will be in Japan to will be ahead of all of you :-)
14:42:18 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: will be at WWW conf and also speaking to JIS folks while in Japan
14:42:54 [Becky_Gibson]
js: have sent draft of 3.1 proposal to JIS group since they are concerned with English language centric issues
14:43:29 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: work is assigned; will send a summary of what we are doing; May 2 is this Monday - so not lots of time, plan accordingly
14:43:59 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: this includes bugzilla stuff - but we can't access bugzilla right now
14:44:08 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: will work on access
14:44:37 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: only dealing with techs that are still related to gL
14:45:18 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: sent emails with mapping of techs to guidelines - use those emails as starting point
14:45:27 [Becky_Gibson]
bg: all CSS techs showed as not being mapped
14:45:35 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: then probably not mapped properly
14:46:09 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: so consider techs that aren't currently assoc. and perhaps propose associating them with a particula Gl
14:46:18 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: have end to ends on my site that may help
14:46:29 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: will try to include pointers to all sources in set of instructions
14:46:38 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
14:46:38 [Zakim]
agendum 1 closed
14:46:39 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
14:46:41 [Zakim]
2. Requirements for Checklists and Techniques [from wendy]
14:46:42 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 2
14:46:42 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Requirements for Checklists and Techniques" taken up [from wendy]
14:46:47 [David_]
14:47:10 [wendy]
14:47:27 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: sent a change log to list
14:47:32 [wendy]
14:47:35 [David_]
end to end links above have associations that I eyeballed from Guidelines to Techniues docs, (6 months ago)
14:48:11 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: added info to intro about techs not being comprehensize - no garuntee we cover every possible tech and technology
14:48:33 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: following techs is not req. to conform to WCAG - is a set of well thought out suggestions
14:48:44 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: for most users is best way but not only way
14:49:13 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: def. of reliably human testable - understood that want to remove "80% of human testers would agree" so rewrote
14:49:22 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: added def. of postitive and negative tests
14:49:43 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: pos test demonstrates proper applicaton of tech; neg test demonstrates improper application
14:50:02 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: remove ref. to additional ideas
14:50:11 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: added bullets about sufficeint and optional
14:50:21 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: provided clarification of AND and OR
14:50:36 [wendy]
q+ to ask in tech summaries, start to categorize the techs as sufficient, future, etc?
14:50:39 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: removed req. for showing support by all AT (provide where approp)
14:51:00 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: removed req. about untestable techniques
14:51:09 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: added placeholder about baseline
14:51:21 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: this is probably biggest thing I want to deal with
14:51:34 [wendy]
ack john
14:51:35 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: removed appendix fields
14:52:01 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: removed req. about general techs that are req. to conform
14:52:14 [Becky_Gibson]
js: issues about req. for conformance
14:52:30 [Becky_Gibson]
js: positive test means test has been correctly implemented
14:52:39 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: reads from doc about pos and neg tests
14:52:57 [Becky_Gibson]
js: this should only be for techs that are sufficient
14:53:30 [Becky_Gibson]
js: may not need second clause, where tech is sufficient for conformance a positive test would indicate conformance - something like that
14:53:43 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: wanted to say techs are a way to meet SC - a positive test is a good thing for access.
14:53:58 [Becky_Gibson]
js: but pos. test isn't always a garuntee of conformance
14:54:24 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: action to delete clause about positive tests and conformance
14:54:40 [Becky_Gibson]
js: sufficient and optional bullets added?
14:54:47 [wendy]
action: michael delete clause about positive tests and conformance
14:54:54 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: reads info from doc
14:55:17 [Becky_Gibson]
js: does that entail that we have to spell out benefit?
14:55:36 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: why would we document an optional tech unless we thought it was worth it?
14:56:00 [Becky_Gibson]
js: so are we requiring ourselves to say what the identifiable benefit is?
14:56:15 [wendy]
ack wendy
14:56:15 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to ask in tech summaries, start to categorize the techs as sufficient, future, etc?
14:56:24 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: if we can describe them well - we can also use the categories for a tech. summary categories
14:56:49 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: if we want to categorize techs as optional, sufficient, future, etc
14:57:05 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: yes want to categorize; need that for when the tech spans baselines
14:57:27 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: at lowest baseline most techs are not optional but may become optional in higher baselines
14:57:49 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: or may be optional in one baseline and sufficient in another or vice versa
14:58:11 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: might be helpful if in the list of defs we list ooptional, sufficient,
14:58:20 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: so action to create definitions
14:58:25 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: other categories?
14:58:41 [wendy]
action: michael add definitions for sufficient, optional to section on definitions
14:58:47 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: analysis includes a not recommended category - where following tech was destructive to access.
14:58:54 [Becky_Gibson]
js: so there are places were we tell people what not to do
14:59:18 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: no - it is a tech for one baseline that is not rec. for another baseline
14:59:37 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: do we want to say that a tech becomes optional in another baseline?
15:00:05 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: req. doc does say tech must specify the baseline; probably should expand
15:00:13 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: need to carefully define optional
15:00:34 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: do we want to include the three baselines we have been discussing so far?
15:00:42 [Becky_Gibson]
bg: do need to define them
15:00:57 [Becky_Gibson]
js: instinct is to not put in req. since they may be somewhat fluid
15:01:14 [Becky_Gibson]
js: techs need to def. baseline and which baseline a given techs works in
15:01:15 [Michael]
action: Michael put information about relation of sufficient and optional in baseline section
15:01:29 [Becky_Gibson]
js: but don't think req. doc should contain the definitions of baseline
15:01:52 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: req doc should be like a checklist to make sure we have done the all necessary work
15:02:18 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: saying what we are going to implement without saying how
15:02:39 [Becky_Gibson]
js: say techs will ref. more than one baseline but not what they are
15:02:58 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: so current wording about techs referencing the baseline it applies to is ok
15:02:59 [Becky_Gibson]
js: yes
15:03:12 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: but still need to define baselines and where to include those defs
15:03:22 [Becky_Gibson]
js: need to figure out grouping etc.
15:03:36 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: so should add an agenda item for next wed. to discuss baseline
15:04:02 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: there will probably be issues related to baseline in our techs issues summary
15:04:21 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: still see the 80% figure in the req. doc
15:04:40 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: didn't remove it - wasn't sure if that was the action -
15:04:57 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: at first deleted the sentence - then just updated the wording
15:05:12 [wendy]
becky? i can take over minuting now
15:05:14 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: we are giving an exact % for an arbitrary number
15:05:26 [Becky_Gibson]
js: actually 80% is a common target
15:05:40 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: what is the exact term
15:05:59 [Becky_Gibson]
js: inter-rater reliability
15:06:37 [Becky_Gibson]
js: one example is if hand 5 people the same set of content they will agree on the rankings from best to worst but might give diff. numerical scores
15:07:10 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: we are tangenting a bit - do we want to zap the 80% testable by humans sentence or not?
15:07:30 [Becky_Gibson]
js: will take action item to see if there is agreement about % cut off
15:07:39 [wendy]
action: john research "inter-rater reliability" - is there a % cutoff point?
15:08:05 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: can get a book about inter-rater reliability for $39.99 :-)
15:08:43 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: is there more on req? do we need a break?
15:09:04 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: suggest putting it on agenda again so people have more time to review
15:09:35 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: will update based on actions from today's call and repost req. doc
15:09:36 [wendy]
scribe: wendy
15:09:38 [David_]
book called "handbook of inter-rater reliability"
15:09:42 [David_]
15:09:45 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
15:09:45 [Zakim]
agendum 2 closed
15:09:46 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
15:09:47 [Zakim]
3. Mapping of script techniques to guidelines [from wendy]
15:09:53 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 3
15:09:53 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Mapping of script techniques to guidelines" taken up [from wendy]
15:10:30 [wendy]
15:10:59 [wendy]
bg: didn't map too many to 1.1. didn't go through existing script techniques.
15:11:43 [wendy]
bg: went through a list apart, etc. tried to propose techs for 3 categories: 1. don't have scirpt, 2. can help w/accessibility 3. scripts not helping accessibility, but common scripts and how to do accessibly.
15:12:17 [wendy]
bg: only additional in noscripting e.g., about making accessible pop-ups (using real links instead of javacript uris). mapped to 2.4
15:12:30 [wendy]
bg: felt a bit of a stretch, but using a tags appropriately.
15:12:42 [wendy]
bg: could probably go under 4.1 as well.
15:12:59 [wendy]
js: re: 2.4, is it supporting navigation?
15:13:23 [wendy]
js: under 3.2 have extreme changes of context.
15:13:33 [wendy]
bg: tech is not to show how to mark extreme change of context.
15:13:58 [wendy]
js: if it's about using a tag might be about 1.3
15:15:25 [wendy]
wac: 3.2 level 1 #1 - "Any extreme change of context is implemented in a manner that can be programmatically identified. " is using a in a way that the ua knows what's going on. thus "programmatically identified"
15:15:39 [wendy]
bg: the next group were to enhance accessibility
15:15:50 [wendy]
bg: focus to form element. 2.4, level 2, #4
15:16:07 [wendy]
bg: could also be #2 of that GL and leve
15:16:10 [wendy]
15:16:28 [wendy]
bg: someone on the list said hadn't seen onload reliably.
15:16:35 [wendy]
mc: concept of setting focus is not under debate?
15:16:49 [wendy]
bg: no. someone else suggested "here's how i do it"
15:17:06 [wendy]
mc: like it, however, nothing before the focus is read.
15:17:12 [wendy]
bg: for filling out a form, is good.
15:17:36 [wendy]
js: google starting doing that/jaws supported, but field not labeled.
15:17:49 [wendy]
bg: leave it with one
15:18:14 [wendy]
mc: prefer to map to only one when possible. may have weak mappints to others. technique should only map to one.
15:18:47 [wendy]
bg: next is how to catch onchange of input, validate, and set focus on next element. sort of help ppl correct errors, but helps navigate sequentially.
15:19:00 [wendy]
mc: also helps when do validation to do not mess it up.
15:19:13 [wendy]
js: what if script validates and input wrong?
15:19:29 [wendy]
bg: leaves you in the same field. however, this hard b/c depends on the script.
15:19:52 [wendy]
bg: may not be able to come up with techs that are acceptable to the group. need code and testing...
15:20:22 [wendy]
js: what is the main thrust of the technique? helping users avoid errors and make ease to correct? or navigating sequentially?
15:20:35 [wendy]
js: then 2.4 l2 sc 2
15:20:45 [wendy]
bg: navigating sequentially
15:21:16 [wendy]
bg: it assumes you are doing validation. vs the other technique that says "move to the next field when there are 3 characters"
15:21:30 [wendy]
js: the 1st one goes under 2.5 (making easy to correct errors)
15:21:39 [wendy]
bg: say that it's about validation
15:22:04 [wendy]
input assist to change the background color or border of the element with focus [GL 2.5 L2 SC1 (If a user error is detected, the error is identified and provided to the user in text ) although color and border isn't really text and this technique isn't specific to errors.]
15:22:14 [wendy]
bg: could be "help navigate" or "error handling"
15:23:19 [wendy]
mc: could also set text (not only color)
15:23:36 [wendy]
bg: adding text effects the layout.
15:24:07 [wendy]
input assist auto advance through fields. Fore example, a US phone number input with 3 fields as you finish typing 3 numbers in the first
15:24:09 [wendy]
field the cursor moves to the next field and after three numbers there jumps to the last field. This one is likely to be controversial as I'm sure there are some people that dislike the auto advance behavior. [GL 2.4 L3 SC2 (When a page or other delivery unit is navigated sequentially, elements receive focus in an order that follows relationships and sequences in the content.)]
15:24:19 [wendy]
bg: some ppl like this one, others don't.
15:24:27 [wendy]
js: in an app, a user preference?
15:24:53 [wendy]
action: david send bg techs for 2.5
15:25:17 [wendy]
mapping makes sense
15:25:47 [wendy]
input assist to show a specific format in the field and user input over types the format with the actual value. For example, a field for a US social security number that shows "###-##-####" - as the user types the # gets replaced by the actual input. [GL 2.5 L2 SC2 (If a user error is detected and suggestions for correction are known and can be provided without jeopardizing security or...
15:25:48 [wendy]
...purpose, the error is identified and the suggestions are provided. ) This technique is not specific to errors, though. ]
15:26:11 [wendy]
bg: instead of 3 fields, one field with format.
15:26:32 [wendy]
bg: put under 2.5, however the user hasn't created an error helps prevent an error.
15:28:51 [jslatin]
a mechanism is available to help users enter data correctly
15:30:26 [wendy]
looks like we need to propose a success criterion in guideline 2.5 at level 2 or 3
15:30:55 [wendy]
mc: info needed to fill out the form is before the form
15:31:36 [wendy]
wac: google suggests - need info about how to fill in. not sure that "###-##-####" will be intuitive to users.
15:32:02 [wendy]
question about creating a SC that might not be met by HTML. although, seems that there are ways to do it in HTML.
15:32:58 [wendy]
wac: next steps?
15:35:30 [wendy]
figure out how to create an accessible pop-up (NOT a new window) that can be made accessible. I'm not sure how to do this, yet, but it could be used to provide more detailed information or help without leaving the page. [GL 2.1 L1 SC1; (All of the functionality of the content, where the functionality or its outcome can be described in a sentence, is operable through a keyboard or keyboard...
15:35:32 [wendy]
...interface. ) and GL 2.1 L3 SC 1; (All functionality of the content is designed to be operated through a keyboard or keyboard interface. ) ]
15:36:29 [David_]
15:36:44 [wendy]
wac: extreme change of context?
15:36:48 [David_]
above is general tech proposals for 2.5
15:39:40 [wendy]
discussion about how this could map to a variety of SC depending on the example. could also map to 3.2 (if avoiding an extreme chnge of context) or 2.5 (if helping user correct an error)
15:39:52 [wendy]
bg: pretty open ended. perhaps too early to map.
15:40:43 [wendy]
convert information provided via <link> elements into a select list on the page. From entry: Dynamically Conjuring Drop-Down Navigation [3] [GL 2.4 L1 SC1 (Structures and relationships within the content can be programmatically determined );GL 2.4 L2 SC 1 ( Documents that have five or more section headings and are presented as a single delivery unit include a table of...
15:40:44 [wendy]
...contents with links to important sections of the document. ); and GL 2.4 L2 SC2 (There is more than one way to locate the content of each delivery unit, including but not limited to link groups, a site map, site search or other navigation mechanism. )]
15:41:04 [wendy]
mc: tech to get around UA deficiency
15:41:08 [wendy]
bg: also navigation
15:41:23 [wendy]
js: level 2 under 2.4 (multiple nav mechanisms)
15:42:08 [wendy]
js: l2 sc2 of 2.4
15:42:55 [wendy]
provide alternative text sizing on the page (in combination with CSS). Here is an example for alistapart: Power To The People: Relative Font Sizes [4] Warning - it uses JavaScript uris :-) [This seems like a helpful technology but I can't find a mapping???]
15:43:30 [wendy]
js: take it for granted that text is perceivable (by default). perhaps a criterion that text is actually perceivable.
15:43:50 [wendy]
mc: related to tech on absolute size, have been unable to map them.
15:44:16 [wendy]
dmd: the only reason that we recommend rel is that there is a bug in ie?
15:45:21 [wendy]
mc: css mapping to 1.3
15:47:55 [wendy]
need a criterion about font size and reflowing content when font size increases.
15:47:57 [wendy]
js: fits under 3.2?
15:48:44 [wendy]
js: b/c talk about consistency and design and effect on layout
15:48:59 [wendy]
js: want to allow for changes in font size w/out blowing up layout
15:49:09 [wendy]
bg: it's hard to do.
15:49:21 [wendy]
js: specify a threshold, beyond which it is not the designers responsibility
15:49:34 [wendy]
dmd: address what % users can increase font size?
15:50:49 [wendy]
wac: what's the general rule of thumb from moving from increasing font size in browser to using magnification software?
15:51:39 [wendy]
action: wac new issue for 3.2 related to increasing font size
15:53:11 [wendy]
formatting table rows to distinguish one from another. This should help the readability of all users but particularly screen magnifier users if the table is wide. Another alistapart example: Zebra Tables[5] [GL 1.4 L1 SC1 (Any text that is presented over a background image, color, or text can be programmatically determined. ) although that is a bit of a stretch since the technique itself...
15:53:13 [wendy] using color]
15:54:43 [wendy]
discussion of benefits - people who use magnifiers, people with learning/reading disabilities
15:54:59 [wendy]
mc: may fit under understandable
15:56:09 [wendy]
js: perhaps an optional technique under 3.1 or 2.4 (re: making tables more navigable)
15:56:33 [wendy]
js: perhaps another mechanism for locating content
15:58:06 [wendy]
discussion about variety of places it could map to.
16:00:35 [wendy]
wac: depends on primary benefit - if learning disability, 3.1. if magnificiation, orientation and 2.4
16:00:58 [wendy]
action: dmd do either magnification tool have ability to zebra stripe
16:02:49 [wendy]
dmd: i've been looking re: inter-rater reliability and 80% seems reasonable number. 70% they say is low, 90% is high. sent john articles have found.
16:03:48 [wendy]
next week: issue summaries for techniques/test cases, baseline, requirements, script mapping
16:04:07 [Zakim]
16:04:08 [Zakim]
16:04:09 [Zakim]
16:04:09 [Zakim]
16:04:10 [Zakim]
16:04:11 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make log world
16:04:11 [Zakim]
16:04:12 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has ended
16:04:14 [Zakim]
Attendees were Becky_Gibson, Michael_Cooper, John_Slatin, Dave_MacDonald, Wendy, Chris_Ridpath
16:04:16 [wendy]
RRSAGent, draft minutes
16:04:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate wendy
16:04:28 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has left #wai-wcag
16:27:32 [Michael]
rrsagent, bye
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
I see 12 open action items:
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wac ask tim about creating css test cases [1]
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Wendy take 1.1 [2]
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: David take 4.2, work with Loretta [3]
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Michael take 2.4, work with Yvette [4]
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Becky take 1.3, work with Joe [5]
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: michael delete clause about positive tests and conformance [6]
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: michael add definitions for sufficient, optional to section on definitions [7]
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Michael put information about relation of sufficient and optional in baseline section [8]
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: john research "inter-rater reliability" - is there a % cutoff point? [9]
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: david send bg techs for 2.5 [10]
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wac new issue for 3.2 related to increasing font size [11]
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: dmd do either magnification tool have ability to zebra stripe [12]
16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in