14:00:09 RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag 14:00:09 logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/05/04-wai-wcag-irc 14:00:17 RRSAgent, make log world 14:00:17 Michael has joined #wai-wcag 14:00:42 +Yvette_Hoitink 14:00:43 agenda+ Issue summaries for HTML, CSS, scripting techniques and tests for 1.1, 1.3 [1], 2.4 [2], 4.2 [3] 14:00:57 agenda+ Discuss how we're going to set up our baselines and refer to them 14:01:02 +??P22 14:01:05 agenda+ Review requirements [4] 14:01:08 +Alex_Li 14:01:13 agenda+ Continue mapping of script techniques to guidelines [5] 14:01:21 agenda+ Assign issue summaries for guidelines 2.3, 2.5, 3.1 14:01:22 +Christophe_Strobbe 14:01:44 Meeting: WCAG Techniques Weekly Telecon 14:02:13 jslatin has joined #wai-wcag 14:02:29 +lmascaro 14:02:58 +??P14 14:03:05 zakim, ??P14 is Ben 14:03:05 +Ben; got it 14:03:15 zakim, I am Ben 14:03:15 ok, ben, I now associate you with Ben 14:03:31 Tim has joined #wai-wcag 14:03:48 Chair: Michael 14:04:28 wendy has joined #wai-wcag 14:04:54 leasa has joined #wai-wcag 14:05:09 zakim, Ben is Lisa 14:05:16 +Wendy 14:05:26 zakim, ??P22 may be Ben 14:05:41 zakim, who's on the phone? 14:05:48 +Lisa; got it 14:06:14 +Ben?; got it 14:06:42 On the phone I see Becky_Gibson, John_Slatin, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Ben?, Alex_Li, Christophe_Strobbe, lmascaro, Lisa, Wendy 14:06:45 +Tim_Boland 14:07:44 agenda? 14:08:48 zakim, take up item 1 14:08:48 agendum 1. "Issue summaries for HTML, CSS, scripting techniques and tests for 1.1, 1.3 [1], 2.4 [2], 4.2" taken up [from 3 via ben] 14:08:55 Topic: guideline 2.4 14:08:58 zakim, ping in 25 minutes 14:08:58 ok, Michael 14:08:59 zakim, ping me in 20 minutes 14:08:59 ok, wendy 14:09:02 :) 14:09:28 scribe: Becky_Gibson 14:10:31 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0344.html 14:10:35 mc: will review the 2.4 issues post 14:10:39 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/att-0344/2005-05-02_issuesummary_techniques_2_4.html 14:10:50 mc: reviewed techs mapped to 2.4 and found issues and reviewed test cases 14:11:06 mc: then reviewed SC and looked for other techs to map or propose new one 14:11:33 q+ 14:11:36 mc: site map is mapped to L2 SC1 - believe it should be L1 SC2 14:11:42 mc: group agrees 14:12:20 mc: test case refers to precense of site map but doesn't show what it looks like - not sure if that is an issue 14:12:23 ack wendy 14:12:24 q+ 14:12:36 +q 14:12:37 wc: curious - were you thinking about baseline as you reviewed? 14:12:44 mc: not as much as probably should have 14:12:55 ack john 14:12:55 mc: should add todo to clearup in next week 14:13:23 js: ? about how to identify sitemap in a test; site map is not one of the prefined rel values is it? 14:13:33 mc: no - not one of predefined values currently 14:13:40 js: is it for xhtml 2.0 14:13:49 yh: might be currently - will check 14:13:52 q+ to ask "wording of test 'must' and needs to inherit mapping to SC" 14:13:56 ack chris 14:14:23 cr: can update the test cases with realistic site map 14:14:44 cr: should I just put in a site map example? 14:15:02 js: is there an actual "site map" attribute - would make it easier to test for 14:15:22 mc: need to work out details later in interest of time 14:15:22 rel linktypes: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/types.html#type-links 14:15:38 ack leasa 14:15:44 ack wendy 14:15:44 wendy, you wanted to ask "wording of test 'must' and needs to inherit mapping to SC" 14:15:50 ls: are we defining a good enough site map? - many are too simple so need to define what it is and what we want from it 14:16:17 ls: am writing role for Xhtml 2 and it includes site map 14:16:21 note to michael and chris (don't need to discuss on call): wording of test is concern (it says 'must provide site map' and needs to inherit mapping to SC) 14:16:37 Do we have an unambiguous definition of "site map" ? 14:17:02 q+ 14:17:14 and also what is good enough in a site map? 14:17:16 wc: applicable to several test cases - use of word "must" and correct mapping to SC to test and tech match 14:17:22 what is too much info? 14:17:23 ack yvette 14:17:29 yh: site map is not one of the rel attributes in HTML currently 14:17:38 action: wendy send comments to chris about xml and updating mapping from test cases to SC 14:17:38 mc: move on to collection info 14:18:20 mc: propose remap from reading order to L2 multiple meanings or L1 relationships 14:18:36 folks I know everyone wants to move fast 14:18:46 cd map to l2 sc2 14:18:46 yh: think it applies to L2 multiple means 14:18:49 But can not follow easly when people speek so fast 14:19:12 mc: some confusion on diff of 1.3 and 2.4 - there is a diff and need to widen the gap then can bemore clear abt where tech maps 14:19:21 and use refrences and condencesed sentence 14:19:45 yh: rationale of tech is to provide alternative nav. so multiple ways to find info is most applicable -L2 SC2 14:20:02 mc: is this only necessary when doc contains formal structure? 14:20:24 yh: esp. useful if doc does NOT contain formal structure 14:20:50 yh: always useful to provide separate link elements even if not in the actual content 14:20:56 mc: but more in optional category 14:21:03 yh: but is an alternative method 14:21:16 mc: tech probably gets marked as optional but itis useful 14:21:22 group: agrees 14:21:55 mc: suggest addn test files and tests should use real links 14:22:02 mc: linear reading order of tables 14:22:17 mc: like but SC is currently under alot of disc. right now 14:22:57 yh: currently 3 options for SC - delete becuz already covered; gets promoted to L1; 14:23:08 yh: so keep tech mapped to current SC and tech will move with it 14:23:17 mc: vote for SC kept at L1 14:24:06 mc: suggest remove comment about CSS tech 14:24:26 yh: are there css techs to address logical reading order? 14:24:59 yh: since can use CSS to arrange things visually in different order than doc order 14:25:08 mc: will mark as open issue 14:25:29 mc: there are evaluation suggests that should be moved out of tech itself 14:25:37 js: this info is distinct from testing? 14:25:47 mc: yes, refers to using eval. tools and points to ER group 14:26:08 js: does this go in resources section of tech or be removed? 14:26:14 mc: ok in resources 14:26:32 mc: intro on layout tables talks abt what they are and we don't like them 14:26:56 mc: but don't review that in this particular tech - could be lost if don't have access to or read layout table intro 14:27:06 mc: should add to this tech 14:27:21 bc: add a link / reference to intro info rather than repeating in tech 14:27:25 al: agree 14:27:28 mc: will do that 14:27:37 mc: what about linearizaton of data tables? 14:27:50 mc: tech is not clear about that 14:28:05 js: in 2005 can assume that data tables are handled properly by AT if marked up correctly 14:28:18 js: need to make clear that we are making this assumption - but this might be handled at baseline 14:28:37 mc: issue 248 - automated differentiation of data tables 14:28:55 mc: don't support those because they are hacks and can't count on authors using them 14:28:58 I do not think the role is a hack 14:29:00 wendy, you asked to be pinged at this time 14:29:08 mc: but many people are behing this so need to address 14:29:46 yh: isn't this if it uses th it is data and if not is layout? 14:29:54 q+ 14:29:57 mc: but can't assume that - not a perfect world 14:30:12 mc: issue (248) remains open 14:30:23 js: long discussion on IG list about this 14:30:46 mc: guess have to own proposing something 14:31:07 Q+ 14:31:12 mc: another issue says need to make a stand on use of tables for layout 14:31:27 we could say *that* clearly: don't want to encourage, but can't say no 14:31:36 mc: other issue says we have to assume tables for layout will be around for awhile so need to "allow" use 14:31:54 mc: agree with Jslatin comment above 14:32:13 mc: test cases should start with assumption that we are allowing layout tables 14:33:00 mc: updated test cases to show table that linerizes and one that doesn't rather than showing data table vs layout table 14:33:38 q+ 14:33:58 mc: link groups 14:33:59 Michael, you asked to be pinged at this time 14:34:10 q- leasa 14:34:14 ack yvette 14:34:52 yep. very choppy. 14:34:56 voip? 14:35:01 dhtml roadmap is doing stuff with (for example) 14:35:52 jon gunderson has an example working in HTML 401 with his Acccessibility Extension 14:35:59 ls: roles being created in xhtml 2 so we have the ability now to add terms that we need into the role attribute 14:36:13 ls: so can say that role of this table is a layout 14:36:38 ls: this isn't only for layout tables - we should think about roles as we go through the techs 14:36:48 ls: and consider if roles can help us 14:36:58 mc: good point to discuss on list 14:37:33 yh: seems like logical sets are rates as more imp than repeated material 14:37:34 this is part of the road map.. 14:38:12 yh: navigaton repeated on every page is repeated material but not a logical group 14:38:30 mc: so still further discussion needed 14:38:33 "repeated: becomes an issue *because* it's repeated 14:38:48 -Yvette_Hoitink 14:38:56 bye all 14:39:23 thmbs down on address element 14:39:35 scribe: wendy 14:39:40 Topic: Guideline 1.3 techniques 14:40:03 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/att-0345/00-part 14:40:16 address element: resolved - get rid of it. 14:40:28 Section headings 14:41:15 ls: working on metadata techniques related to this. would like feedback. 14:41:16 ack john 14:42:18 js: the techs that ls writing are not general techniques, they are very specific to a particular to a specific type of semantic markup. however, even if they were finished and get the review you want, would not address the need identified in these ed notes. not a critique, a distinction between rdf techniques and the way general techs written so far seem to be working. they work together. 14:42:35 js: perhaps some of the things in the guide will also address some of these issues. 14:43:41 ls: have a set of techs to add, e.g. use link element to add semantic info - not using rdf. 14:43:47 Christophe has joined #wai-wcag 14:43:56 ls: happy to add to rdf techs if that doc will go somewhere. 14:44:40 js: we have a document called "general techs for wcag 2.0" 14:44:40 hello? 14:44:55 hmm. my connection just cut out for the end of that discussion. 14:45:34 action: john and lisa take discussion about guide/general techniques/metadata techs to the list 14:46:40 bg: 2 issues 925 (only 1 h1/page and 1st element) - seems that most ppl disagree with that. propose we close 925, don't require only one, write up the info from that discussion into tech. good practice to use 1 and to start with but not required. 14:47:03 bg: 1070 is about ordering (h2 follows h1) - we discussed that. think we addressed that when we updated the test. think we can close. 14:47:24 bg: no consensus on the list, but all the msgs read seemed to agree. 14:47:32 mc: ok to close and not require. 14:47:44 mc: if we're not restricting under 925 do we even care about ordering? 14:47:57 ack john 14:47:57 bg: html spec suggests they should be 14:48:11 q+ 14:48:30 js: the order can matter. a SR that announces header level...can be startling to get h4 then h2. not that should be disallowed. 14:48:36 ack leasa 14:48:39 ack l 14:48:51 ls: reasons for why it does matter. 14:49:09 ls: h1 doesn't have to be the first, but has to be in the right order. 14:49:31 mc: doesn't have to be first, but ordering is an issue. 14:49:55 i think there's a element in xhtml2 14:50:15 bg: attempt to address issue w/proposal otherwise open new issue 14:50:21 Emphasis 14:50:51 ack john 14:51:06 js: my proposal for 3.1, there is a tech re: emphasis 14:51:14 js: it could map there iinstead of 1.3 14:51:32 bg: do we want to include subtleties in technique or in test case? 14:51:48 bg: or just assume that strong/em are best and ppl using b/i are doing so knowledgeably. 14:51:55 mc: don't think ppl are considering semantics. 14:52:16 mc: like idea of being semantics, not sure much diff in UA support or author's instent. 14:52:20 s/instent/intent 14:52:48 js: wrt 3.1, thought about SC to identify main ideas in a paragraph. that seems that emph would have semantic function. 14:55:18 js: work in AAC community might find that a helpful way to ... 14:58:02 from matt's blog: http://www.bestkungfu.com/archive/date/2004/05/understanding-semantics/ 14:58:10 and http://www.bestkungfu.com/archive/date/2004/05/strongly-emphasizing-semantics/ 14:58:27 requirement: future techs don't need test files (??) 14:58:48 (related to Short Quotations (future)) 14:58:54 In-line structural elements to identify citations, code fragments, deleted text, etc. 14:59:23 bg: several ednotes. propose that we remove it. should be covered by guide or rework tech and create test files. 14:59:40 q+ 14:59:53 q- 15:00:26 wac: covered by previous blog entries. think covered by emphasis rewrite. 15:00:43 bc: muddies the waters around strong/em 15:02:26 wac: could keep separate or could create a tech for semantic markup. 15:02:40 -Lisa 15:02:43 bg: rewrite this tech and provide more about how to use them and why 15:02:59 Ordered lists 15:03:33 tb: proposed content for tests 149 and 150 but not to lists 15:03:45 mb: don't think we need this tech anymore. 15:03:49 s/mb/mc 15:04:15 bc: it belongs in css techs, think it is problematic use of css. css is introducing content. 15:04:34 bc: think it is an example of what not to do instead of what to do. 15:05:02 mcmay has joined #wai-wcag 15:05:11 bc: UA testing, Jaws and window eyes do a good job identifying nesting. jaws doesn't summarize how many nested lists. 15:05:33 s/jaws doesn't/hpr doesn't 15:05:52 bc: say we remove it, it's UA responsibility 15:06:22 resolve: remove technique 6.1 15:07:13 bg: take these proposals and take to list? 15:07:38 mc: yes, the plan is today is issue raising next week is proposal. ideally we should have gotten through all of summary. next week proposals. 15:08:18 got through 6/19 of techniques 15:09:02 mc: since david not here, table 4.2 issues. 15:09:07 mc: need to discuss baseline. 15:09:12 zakim, close this item 15:09:12 agendum 1 closed 15:09:13 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:09:14 2. Discuss how we're going to set up our baselines and refer to them [from ben] 15:09:23 zakim, next item 15:09:23 agendum 2. "Discuss how we're going to set up our baselines and refer to them" taken up [from ben] 15:09:33 zakim, take up item 2 15:09:33 agendum 2. "Discuss how we're going to set up our baselines and refer to them" taken up [from ben] 15:09:37 hmm. 15:09:58 Do we have a definition of what we mean by "baseline"? 15:10:25 tim, definition of baseline is up for discussion on the WG call, last week and again today 15:11:14 mc: in reqs, say that each tech should identify baseline. 15:11:15 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0095.html 15:11:22 mc: put defns in reqs for sufficient, optional, required 15:11:54 mc: propose that we continue that exercise and mark each tech w/above. 15:12:02 mc: wcag wg should recommend which baseline. 15:12:11 mc: tentative recommendation that we use base baseline 15:12:54 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0364.html 15:13:18 [1] Definition of baseline: 15:13:20 15:13:21 The minimum set of technologies that can be assumed to be supported by user 15:13:23 agents in order to access all information and functionality of the Web 15:13:25 content. 15:13:26 15:13:30 [2] Definition of technology 15:13:31 15:13:33 "Technology" means a data format, programming or markup language, protocol or API. 15:13:35 15:14:07 wac: need to be careful about redefining technology since ATAG just decided to use our defn of technology. 15:14:11 mc: defn not descriptive enough. 15:14:36 mc: feel that is a proper defn, but only we will understand what it means. 15:14:41 js: needs plain language or example? 15:14:46 mc: needs expansion. 15:15:56 wac: perhaps that info is in "conformance requirements modifications?" 15:16:20 mc: do we know enough about baseline to continue discussion? 15:16:39 no disagreement 15:17:40 mc: propose minimal tech (html, not much else), modern day graphical + AT (html, css, script. perhaps also java, flash, and pdf accessibility), future (all features of all techs are supported according to specs in UAs) 15:17:49 mc: future - to set a goal 15:17:59 mc: want some direction to the UA promised land 15:18:08 mc: put most of energy into the 1st 2 15:18:14 tb: diff techs for diff baselines? subsets? 15:18:29 ben? can you minute for a while? 15:18:54 scribe: Ben 15:18:57 thx! 15:19:19 mc: insight for us was that higher baselines allow you to follow fewer techniques 15:19:33 js: are there specific techs that jumped out in that analysis? 15:20:35 mc: main thing was when we marked techniques as "not recommended" ex. format ordered lists (which we just discussed) was one that was not recommended in future baseline) 15:21:15 mc: had questions about table structure techniques, another one was tabindex and accesskey, alternatives for