IRC log of wai-wcag on 2005-05-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:00:09 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
14:00:09 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:00:17 [ben]
RRSAgent, make log world
14:00:17 [Michael]
Michael has joined #wai-wcag
14:00:42 [Zakim]
14:00:43 [ben]
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 [ben]
agenda+ Discuss how we're going to set up our baselines and refer to them
14:01:02 [Zakim]
14:01:05 [ben]
agenda+ Review requirements [4]
14:01:08 [Zakim]
14:01:13 [ben]
agenda+ Continue mapping of script techniques to guidelines [5]
14:01:21 [ben]
agenda+ Assign issue summaries for guidelines 2.3, 2.5, 3.1
14:01:22 [Zakim]
14:01:44 [ben]
Meeting: WCAG Techniques Weekly Telecon
14:02:13 [jslatin]
jslatin has joined #wai-wcag
14:02:29 [Zakim]
14:02:58 [Zakim]
14:03:05 [ben]
zakim, ??P14 is Ben
14:03:05 [Zakim]
+Ben; got it
14:03:15 [ben]
zakim, I am Ben
14:03:15 [Zakim]
ok, ben, I now associate you with Ben
14:03:31 [Tim]
Tim has joined #wai-wcag
14:03:48 [ben]
Chair: Michael
14:04:28 [wendy]
wendy has joined #wai-wcag
14:04:54 [leasa]
leasa has joined #wai-wcag
14:05:09 [ben]
zakim, Ben is Lisa
14:05:16 [Zakim]
14:05:26 [ben]
zakim, ??P22 may be Ben
14:05:41 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:05:48 [Zakim]
+Lisa; got it
14:06:14 [Zakim]
+Ben?; got it
14:06:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Becky_Gibson, John_Slatin, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Ben?, Alex_Li, Christophe_Strobbe, lmascaro, Lisa, Wendy
14:06:45 [Zakim]
14:07:44 [wendy]
14:08:48 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 1
14:08:48 [Zakim]
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 [wendy]
Topic: guideline 2.4
14:08:58 [Michael]
zakim, ping in 25 minutes
14:08:58 [Zakim]
ok, Michael
14:08:59 [wendy]
zakim, ping me in 20 minutes
14:08:59 [Zakim]
ok, wendy
14:09:02 [wendy]
14:09:28 [Becky_Gibson]
scribe: Becky_Gibson
14:10:31 [wendy]
14:10:35 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: will review the 2.4 issues post
14:10:39 [wendy]
14:10:50 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: reviewed techs mapped to 2.4 and found issues and reviewed test cases
14:11:06 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: then reviewed SC and looked for other techs to map or propose new one
14:11:33 [wendy]
14:11:36 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: site map is mapped to L2 SC1 - believe it should be L1 SC2
14:11:42 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: group agrees
14:12:20 [Becky_Gibson]
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 [Michael]
ack wendy
14:12:24 [ChrisR]
14:12:36 [leasa]
14:12:37 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: curious - were you thinking about baseline as you reviewed?
14:12:44 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: not as much as probably should have
14:12:52 [leasa]
14:12:55 [Michael]
ack john
14:12:55 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: should add todo to clearup in next week
14:13:23 [Becky_Gibson]
js: ? about how to identify sitemap in a test; site map is not one of the prefined rel values is it?
14:13:33 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: no - not one of predefined values currently
14:13:40 [Becky_Gibson]
js: is it for xhtml 2.0
14:13:49 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: might be currently - will check
14:13:52 [wendy]
q+ to ask "wording of test 'must' and needs to inherit mapping to SC"
14:13:56 [Michael]
ack chris
14:14:23 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: can update the test cases with realistic site map
14:14:44 [Becky_Gibson]
cr: should I just put in a site map example?
14:15:02 [Becky_Gibson]
js: is there an actual "site map" attribute - would make it easier to test for
14:15:22 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: need to work out details later in interest of time
14:15:22 [wendy]
rel linktypes:
14:15:38 [Michael]
ack leasa
14:15:44 [wendy]
ack wendy
14:15:44 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to ask "wording of test 'must' and needs to inherit mapping to SC"
14:15:50 [Becky_Gibson]
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 [Becky_Gibson]
ls: am writing role for Xhtml 2 and it includes site map
14:16:21 [wendy]
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 [Tim]
Do we have an unambiguous definition of "site map" ?
14:17:02 [Yvette]
14:17:14 [leasa]
and also what is good enough in a site map?
14:17:16 [Becky_Gibson]
wc: applicable to several test cases - use of word "must" and correct mapping to SC to test and tech match
14:17:22 [leasa]
what is too much info?
14:17:23 [Michael]
ack yvette
14:17:29 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: site map is not one of the rel attributes in HTML currently
14:17:38 [wendy]
action: wendy send comments to chris about xml and updating mapping from test cases to SC
14:17:38 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: move on to collection info
14:18:20 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: propose remap from reading order to L2 multiple meanings or L1 relationships
14:18:36 [leasa]
folks I know everyone wants to move fast
14:18:46 [jslatin]
cd map to l2 sc2
14:18:46 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: think it applies to L2 multiple means
14:18:49 [leasa]
But can not follow easly when people speek so fast
14:19:12 [Becky_Gibson]
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 [leasa]
and use refrences and condencesed sentence
14:19:45 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: rationale of tech is to provide alternative nav. so multiple ways to find info is most applicable -L2 SC2
14:20:02 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: is this only necessary when doc contains formal structure?
14:20:24 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: esp. useful if doc does NOT contain formal structure
14:20:50 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: always useful to provide separate link elements even if not in the actual content
14:20:56 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: but more in optional category
14:21:03 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: but is an alternative method
14:21:16 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: tech probably gets marked as optional but itis useful
14:21:22 [Becky_Gibson]
group: agrees
14:21:55 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: suggest addn test files and tests should use real links
14:22:02 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: linear reading order of tables
14:22:17 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: like but SC is currently under alot of disc. right now
14:22:57 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: currently 3 options for SC - delete becuz already covered; gets promoted to L1;
14:23:08 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: so keep tech mapped to current SC and tech will move with it
14:23:17 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: vote for SC kept at L1
14:24:06 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: suggest remove comment about CSS tech
14:24:26 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: are there css techs to address logical reading order?
14:24:59 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: since can use CSS to arrange things visually in different order than doc order
14:25:08 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: will mark as open issue
14:25:29 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: there are evaluation suggests that should be moved out of tech itself
14:25:37 [Becky_Gibson]
js: this info is distinct from testing?
14:25:47 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: yes, refers to using eval. tools and points to ER group
14:26:08 [Becky_Gibson]
js: does this go in resources section of tech or be removed?
14:26:14 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: ok in resources
14:26:32 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: intro on layout tables talks abt what they are and we don't like them
14:26:56 [Becky_Gibson]
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 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: should add to this tech
14:27:21 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: add a link / reference to intro info rather than repeating in tech
14:27:25 [Becky_Gibson]
al: agree
14:27:28 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: will do that
14:27:37 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: what about linearizaton of data tables?
14:27:50 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: tech is not clear about that
14:28:05 [Becky_Gibson]
js: in 2005 can assume that data tables are handled properly by AT if marked up correctly
14:28:18 [Becky_Gibson]
js: need to make clear that we are making this assumption - but this might be handled at baseline
14:28:37 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: issue 248 - automated differentiation of data tables
14:28:55 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: don't support those because they are hacks and can't count on authors using them
14:28:58 [leasa]
I do not think the role is a hack
14:29:00 [Zakim]
wendy, you asked to be pinged at this time
14:29:08 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: but many people are behing this so need to address
14:29:46 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: isn't this if it uses th it is data and if not is layout?
14:29:54 [leasa]
14:29:57 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: but can't assume that - not a perfect world
14:30:12 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: issue (248) remains open
14:30:23 [Becky_Gibson]
js: long discussion on IG list about this
14:30:46 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: guess have to own proposing something
14:31:07 [leasa]
14:31:12 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: another issue says need to make a stand on use of tables for layout
14:31:27 [jslatin]
we could say *that* clearly: don't want to encourage, but can't say no
14:31:36 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: other issue says we have to assume tables for layout will be around for awhile so need to "allow" use
14:31:54 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: agree with Jslatin comment above
14:32:13 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: test cases should start with assumption that we are allowing layout tables
14:33:00 [Becky_Gibson]
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 [Yvette]
14:33:58 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: link groups
14:33:59 [Zakim]
Michael, you asked to be pinged at this time
14:34:10 [Michael]
q- leasa
14:34:14 [Michael]
ack yvette
14:34:52 [wendy]
yep. very choppy.
14:34:56 [wendy]
14:35:01 [jslatin]
dhtml roadmap is doing stuff with <link rel="navigatoin" href="#navbar" title="Global navigation"> (for example)
14:35:52 [jslatin]
jon gunderson has an example working in HTML 401 with his Acccessibility Extension
14:35:59 [Becky_Gibson]
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 [Becky_Gibson]
ls: so can say that role of this table is a layout
14:36:38 [Becky_Gibson]
ls: this isn't only for layout tables - we should think about roles as we go through the techs
14:36:48 [Becky_Gibson]
ls: and consider if roles can help us
14:36:58 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: good point to discuss on list
14:37:33 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: seems like logical sets are rates as more imp than repeated material
14:37:34 [leasa]
this is part of the road map..
14:38:12 [Becky_Gibson]
yh: navigaton repeated on every page is repeated material but not a logical group
14:38:30 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: so still further discussion needed
14:38:33 [jslatin]
"repeated: becomes an issue *because* it's repeated
14:38:48 [Zakim]
14:38:56 [Yvette]
bye all
14:39:23 [jslatin]
thmbs down on address element
14:39:35 [wendy]
scribe: wendy
14:39:40 [wendy]
Topic: Guideline 1.3 techniques
14:40:03 [wendy]
14:40:16 [wendy]
address element: resolved - get rid of it.
14:40:28 [wendy]
Section headings
14:41:15 [wendy]
ls: working on metadata techniques related to this. would like feedback.
14:41:16 [wendy]
ack john
14:42:18 [wendy]
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 [wendy]
js: perhaps some of the things in the guide will also address some of these issues.
14:43:41 [wendy]
ls: have a set of techs to add, e.g. use link element to add semantic info - not using rdf.
14:43:47 [Christophe]
Christophe has joined #wai-wcag
14:43:56 [wendy]
ls: happy to add to rdf techs if that doc will go somewhere.
14:44:40 [wendy]
js: we have a document called "general techs for wcag 2.0"
14:44:40 [wendy]
14:44:55 [wendy]
hmm. my connection just cut out for the end of that discussion.
14:45:34 [wendy]
action: john and lisa take discussion about guide/general techniques/metadata techs to the list
14:46:40 [wendy]
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 [wendy]
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 [wendy]
bg: no consensus on the list, but all the msgs read seemed to agree.
14:47:32 [wendy]
mc: ok to close and not require.
14:47:44 [wendy]
mc: if we're not restricting under 925 do we even care about ordering?
14:47:57 [Michael]
ack john
14:47:57 [wendy]
bg: html spec suggests they should be
14:48:11 [leasa]
14:48:30 [wendy]
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 [wendy]
ack leasa
14:48:39 [Michael]
ack l
14:48:51 [wendy]
ls: reasons for why it does matter.
14:49:09 [wendy]
ls: h1 doesn't have to be the first, but has to be in the right order.
14:49:31 [wendy]
mc: doesn't have to be first, but ordering is an issue.
14:49:55 [jslatin]
i think there's a <sectin> element in xhtml2
14:50:15 [wendy]
bg: attempt to address issue w/proposal otherwise open new issue
14:50:21 [wendy]
14:50:51 [wendy]
ack john
14:51:06 [wendy]
js: my proposal for 3.1, there is a tech re: emphasis
14:51:14 [wendy]
js: it could map there iinstead of 1.3
14:51:32 [wendy]
bg: do we want to include subtleties in technique or in test case?
14:51:48 [wendy]
bg: or just assume that strong/em are best and ppl using b/i are doing so knowledgeably.
14:51:55 [wendy]
mc: don't think ppl are considering semantics.
14:52:16 [wendy]
mc: like idea of being semantics, not sure much diff in UA support or author's instent.
14:52:20 [wendy]
14:52:48 [wendy]
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 [wendy]
js: work in AAC community might find that a helpful way to ...
14:58:02 [wendy]
from matt's blog:
14:58:10 [wendy]
14:58:27 [wendy]
requirement: future techs don't need test files (??)
14:58:48 [wendy]
(related to Short Quotations (future))
14:58:54 [wendy]
In-line structural elements to identify citations, code fragments, deleted text, etc.
14:59:23 [wendy]
bg: several ednotes. propose that we remove it. should be covered by guide or rework tech and create test files.
14:59:40 [wendy]
14:59:53 [wendy]
15:00:26 [wendy]
wac: covered by previous blog entries. think covered by emphasis rewrite.
15:00:43 [wendy]
bc: muddies the waters around strong/em
15:02:26 [wendy]
wac: could keep separate or could create a tech for semantic markup.
15:02:40 [Zakim]
15:02:43 [wendy]
bg: rewrite this tech and provide more about how to use them and why
15:02:59 [wendy]
Ordered lists
15:03:33 [wendy]
tb: proposed content for tests 149 and 150 but not to lists
15:03:45 [wendy]
mb: don't think we need this tech anymore.
15:03:49 [wendy]
15:04:15 [wendy]
bc: it belongs in css techs, think it is problematic use of css. css is introducing content.
15:04:34 [wendy]
bc: think it is an example of what not to do instead of what to do.
15:05:02 [mcmay]
mcmay has joined #wai-wcag
15:05:11 [wendy]
bc: UA testing, Jaws and window eyes do a good job identifying nesting. jaws doesn't summarize how many nested lists.
15:05:33 [wendy]
s/jaws doesn't/hpr doesn't
15:05:52 [wendy]
bc: say we remove it, it's UA responsibility
15:06:22 [wendy]
resolve: remove technique 6.1
15:07:13 [wendy]
bg: take these proposals and take to list?
15:07:38 [wendy]
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 [wendy]
got through 6/19 of techniques
15:09:02 [wendy]
mc: since david not here, table 4.2 issues.
15:09:07 [wendy]
mc: need to discuss baseline.
15:09:12 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
15:09:12 [Zakim]
agendum 1 closed
15:09:13 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:09:14 [Zakim]
2. Discuss how we're going to set up our baselines and refer to them [from ben]
15:09:23 [wendy]
zakim, next item
15:09:23 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Discuss how we're going to set up our baselines and refer to them" taken up [from ben]
15:09:33 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 2
15:09:33 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Discuss how we're going to set up our baselines and refer to them" taken up [from ben]
15:09:37 [wendy]
15:09:58 [Tim]
Do we have a definition of what we mean by "baseline"?
15:10:25 [jslatin]
tim, definition of baseline is up for discussion on the WG call, last week and again today
15:11:14 [wendy]
mc: in reqs, say that each tech should identify baseline.
15:11:15 [wendy]
15:11:22 [wendy]
mc: put defns in reqs for sufficient, optional, required
15:11:54 [wendy]
mc: propose that we continue that exercise and mark each tech w/above.
15:12:02 [wendy]
mc: wcag wg should recommend which baseline.
15:12:11 [wendy]
mc: tentative recommendation that we use base baseline
15:12:54 [wendy]
15:13:18 [wendy]
[1] Definition of baseline:
15:13:20 [wendy]
15:13:21 [wendy]
The minimum set of technologies that can be assumed to be supported by user
15:13:23 [wendy]
agents in order to access all information and functionality of the Web
15:13:25 [wendy]
15:13:26 [wendy]
15:13:30 [wendy]
[2] Definition of technology
15:13:31 [wendy]
15:13:33 [wendy]
"Technology" means a data format, programming or markup language, protocol or API.
15:13:35 [wendy]
15:14:07 [wendy]
wac: need to be careful about redefining technology since ATAG just decided to use our defn of technology.
15:14:11 [wendy]
mc: defn not descriptive enough.
15:14:36 [wendy]
mc: feel that is a proper defn, but only we will understand what it means.
15:14:41 [wendy]
js: needs plain language or example?
15:14:46 [wendy]
mc: needs expansion.
15:15:56 [wendy]
wac: perhaps that info is in "conformance requirements modifications?"
15:16:20 [wendy]
mc: do we know enough about baseline to continue discussion?
15:16:39 [wendy]
no disagreement
15:17:40 [wendy]
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 [wendy]
mc: future - to set a goal
15:17:59 [wendy]
mc: want some direction to the UA promised land
15:18:08 [wendy]
mc: put most of energy into the 1st 2
15:18:14 [wendy]
tb: diff techs for diff baselines? subsets?
15:18:29 [wendy]
ben? can you minute for a while?
15:18:54 [ben]
scribe: Ben
15:18:57 [wendy]
15:19:19 [ben]
mc: insight for us was that higher baselines allow you to follow fewer techniques
15:19:33 [ben]
js: are there specific techs that jumped out in that analysis?
15:20:35 [ben]
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 [ben]
mc: had questions about table structure techniques, another one was tabindex and accesskey, alternatives for <object> etc. being problematic
15:21:32 [wendy]
15:21:55 [ben]
js: interesting that you put it that way, I wouldn't have seen those as problems for the structure you're thinking about
15:21:59 [ben]
ack wendy
15:22:34 [ben]
wc: part of what I did was to try to apply these techniques to see if I agreed mappings for each technique - had a variety of questions
15:22:47 [ben]
ex. meta refresh is a way people create webcams, but not mapped to 1.1
15:23:09 [ben]
wasn't sure how that relates - I think there are changes that we can make that will work, but how does that relate?
15:23:26 [ben]
another question was link element, a lot of this fits in future
15:23:56 [ben]
third question is how specific are we about which DTD or Schema are we talking about (validating to DTD that allows <embed>?)
15:24:43 [ben]
js: if we think in terms of how the proposed def. of baseline talks about technologies vs. user agents, then some of this becomes even more important
15:25:11 [ben]
then we can be looking at collecting techniques for XHTML 2.0 as it moves toward finalization
15:25:44 [ben]
wc: I agree that it's a useful excercise to consider baseline as we review these
15:26:12 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the hpone?
15:26:12 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, wendy.
15:26:22 [ben]
mc: are people more or less behind those 3 baselines?
15:26:25 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:26:25 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Becky_Gibson, John_Slatin, Michael_Cooper, Ben?, Alex_Li, Christophe_Strobbe, lmascaro, Wendy, Tim_Boland
15:26:26 [Michael]
zakim, mute luca
15:26:28 [Zakim]
sorry, Michael, I do not see a party named 'luca'
15:26:30 [wendy]
zakim, mute lmascaro
15:26:30 [Zakim]
lmascaro should now be muted
15:26:33 [ben]
js: I like it
15:26:41 [wendy]
zakim, mute christophe
15:26:41 [Zakim]
Christophe_Strobbe should now be muted
15:27:04 [ben]
tb: do those baselines represent a sufficient capturing of current and future best practices? I'm concerned about baseline implications regarding conformance.
15:27:29 [wendy]
latest 4.2 proposal:
15:27:40 [ben]
js: there are implications, good summaries on list from Loretta recently
15:28:44 [ben]
mc: wonder if we should categorize each technique (sufficient, optional, not recommended) based on each baseline
15:28:45 [wendy]
q+ to ask diff between sufficient optional not recommended and base/graphical/future ?
15:29:18 [wendy]
15:29:40 [ben]
wc: base/graphical/future vs. sufficient/optional/not recommended (diff?)
15:29:49 [wendy]
each baseline has sufficient, optional, and not recommended techniques (9 combos)
15:31:07 [ben]
wc: interesting in looking at results that there were some contradictions
15:31:16 [ben]
mc: we did discuss somewhat, but didn't update
15:31:29 [Zakim]
15:31:45 [ben]
mc: action could be to put info from mapping excercise in techniques and then discuss/resolve contradictions?
15:31:58 [wendy]
15:32:21 [ben]
wc: if we can all be voting (ex. test case polls using WBS), that can help us collect data so that we only talk about disagreements on calls
15:32:46 [ben]
wc: still some issues with WBS form that we're trying to resolve
15:33:24 [ben]
wc: could be anything (ex. proposed action items, etc.)
15:34:29 [ben]
mc: process is somewhat overwhelming (though a lot of fun), but important to provide concrete proposals
15:34:51 [ben]
js: knowing in advance that it takes a long time, one thing we should ask people to do is assume that they will spread it out over a few days
15:35:22 [ben]
bg: not that it can't be done, but tough to turn around in 2-3 days
15:35:49 [ben]
js: trying to map out assignments so people will have more time to work on things
15:37:26 [ben]
wc: I had 1.1, interesting to do both guideline and techniques summaries, person doing techniques summaries should be coordinating with guideline summary people as we go. recc. extreme programming model where you have two brains working on something
15:38:22 [ben]
js: proposal there that we shoudl talk about - try to do for techniques summaries and proposals what we've done for guidelines summaries and assign them out for the next couple months so people know what their assignments are in advance
15:38:42 [ben]
mc: agree we should do that, but we should also send weekly reminders to make sure people are working on them
15:40:11 [ben]
js: we're experimenting with new system for planning and milestone/assignement tracking
15:41:35 [ben]
js: maybe what we can do in interim is if you have favorite issues, you can put in a bid for that so you don't get assigned random stuff
15:41:49 [wendy]
15:42:57 [ben]
mc: action to incorporate baseline info into techniques, set up a voting system and to get assignments made on summaries
15:43:21 [Michael]
action: mc to incorporate baseline info into techniques, set up a voting system and to get assignments made on summaries
15:44:20 [wendy]
drop action 3
15:44:25 [ben]
wc: think it might be too soon to put in baseline info now, but include in summaries and incorporate once we have agreement
15:45:15 [wendy]
RRSAgent, action 3 = mc to set up a voting system (for next 2 weeks, until wac back and using wbs) and to get assignments made on summaries
15:45:20 [ben]
mc: agenda #4 was to assign issue summaries
15:45:29 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
15:45:30 [Zakim]
agendum 2 closed
15:45:30 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:45:31 [Zakim]
3. Review requirements [from 4 via ben]
15:45:40 [wendy]
15:45:43 [wendy]
15:45:52 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 5
15:45:52 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Assign issue summaries for guidelines 2.3, 2.5, 3.1" taken up [from ben]
15:46:12 [ben]
action: john - issue summaries for 3.1 techs
15:47:56 [ben]
ah, I must be muted
15:48:08 [ben]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:48:08 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Becky_Gibson, John_Slatin, Michael_Cooper, Ben?, Christophe_Strobbe (muted), lmascaro (muted), Wendy, Tim_Boland
15:48:17 [ben]
zakim, unmute lmascaro
15:48:17 [Zakim]
lmascaro should no longer be muted
15:50:04 [ben]
bc: 2.3 - not much can be done at this point because tool needs development and intl. standards are not yet avail. - could have "don'
15:50:20 [ben]
t use" techs, but beyond that measure is needed
15:50:39 [ben]
js: 1.4 - gv is working with Aries Arditti on this
15:51:33 [ben]
action: bc techs issue summary on 1.4
15:52:12 [ben]
action: bg techs issue summary on 2.1
15:54:45 [ben]
action: nobody techs issues on 2.2 (time limits)
15:56:50 [joeclark]
joeclark has joined #wai-wcag
15:56:56 [ben]
action: wc to talk to andi about techs issues on 2.5
15:57:03 [jslatin]
morning, joe
15:57:25 [ben]
wc: 3.2 guidelines summary is unassigned
15:59:12 [ben]
wc: need to make decisions about what to do at F2F
15:59:17 [ben]
mc: let's put that on the agenda for next week
15:59:59 [ben]
3.2 techs summary unassigned
16:00:27 [ben]
action: bc techs summary on 4.1
16:00:50 [ben]
mc: script techs and requirements for next week
16:01:05 [ben]
mc: are we asking anyone to have done issues for next week or are we continuing on the ones we've got
16:01:15 [ben]
wc: I'm bumping 1.1 to week of 16 May
16:01:36 [ben]
wc: we should talk about proposals for 1.3 and 2.4 and issues review for 4.2
16:02:01 [Zakim]
16:02:03 [Zakim]
16:02:04 [Zakim]
16:02:05 [Zakim]
16:02:06 [Zakim]
16:02:07 [Zakim]
16:02:08 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make log world
16:02:09 [Zakim]
16:02:11 [Zakim]
16:02:12 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has ended
16:02:15 [Zakim]
Attendees were Becky_Gibson, John_Slatin, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Alex_Li, Christophe_Strobbe, lmascaro, Wendy, Lisa, Ben?, Tim_Boland
16:02:18 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has left #wai-wcag
16:02:19 [joeclark]
joeclark has left #wai-wcag
16:02:19 [ben]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
16:02:19 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ben
16:03:12 [Tim]
Tim has left #wai-wcag
16:03:36 [leasa]
leasa has left #wai-wcag
16:05:23 [Christophe]
Christophe has left #wai-wcag
16:07:20 [ben]
RRSAgent, bye
16:07:20 [RRSAgent]
I see 9 open action items:
16:07:20 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wendy send comments to chris about xml and updating mapping from test cases to SC [1]
16:07:20 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:07:20 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: john and lisa take discussion about guide/general techniques/metadata techs to the list [2]
16:07:20 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:07:20 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: mc to set up a voting system (for next 2 weeks, until wac back and using wbs) and to get assignments made on summaries [3]
16:07:20 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:07:20 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: john - issue summaries for 3.1 techs [4]
16:07:20 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:07:20 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: bc techs issue summary on 1.4 [5]
16:07:20 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:07:20 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: bg techs issue summary on 2.1 [6]
16:07:20 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:07:20 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: nobody techs issues on 2.2 (time limits) [7]
16:07:20 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:07:20 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wc to talk to andi about techs issues on 2.5 [8]
16:07:20 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:07:20 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: bc techs summary on 4.1 [9]
16:07:20 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:07:25 [ben]
Zakim, bye
16:07:25 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag