19:47:57 RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag 19:47:57 logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-wai-wcag-irc 19:48:13 RRSagent, make log world 19:48:25 RRSAgent, generate minutes 19:48:25 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html ben 19:48:47 Michael has joined #wai-wcag 19:48:51 Meeting: WCAG WG Weekly Telecon 19:49:05 Chair: Gregg_Vanderheiden, John_Slatin 19:49:08 Luca has joined #wai-wcag 19:49:20 zakim, snutarelli is Sebastiano Nutarelli 19:49:20 I don't understand 'snutarelli is Sebastiano Nutarelli', snutarelli 19:50:31 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0392.html 19:50:48 agenda+ Agenda review (including information about face to face) (John, 5 19:50:48 minutes) 19:50:59 agenda+ Techniques report (Michael, 5 minutes) 19:51:09 agenda+ Guideline 2.4 proposal (Yvette, 25 minutes) 19:51:16 agenda+ Guideline 1.3 proposal (Joe, 25 minutes) 19:51:26 agenda+ Guideline 4.2 revised proposal (Loretta, 25 minutes) 19:51:41 agenda+ Guideline 2.5 - preliminary discussion of issue summary/proposal (Andi: 25 minutes) 19:51:58 agenda+ (Time permitting) Guideline 3.1 - preliminary discussion of proposal and issue summary (John) 19:52:10 agenda+ Wrap-up, action items, next week (10 minutes) 19:52:13 zakim, snutarelli is Sebastiano 19:52:13 sorry, snutarelli, I do not recognize a party named 'snutarelli' 19:52:13 bengt has joined #wai-wcag 19:55:58 LucaMascaro has joined #wai-wcag 19:56:28 snutarelli has left #wai-wcag 19:57:39 gregg has joined #wai-wcag 19:57:43 WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started 19:57:48 WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended 19:57:49 Attendees were 19:57:53 jslatin has joined #wai-wcag 19:58:13 Sebastiano has joined #wai-wcag 19:58:27 Andi has joined #wai-wcag 19:58:32 hi andi 19:58:36 Hi John 19:58:43 WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started 19:58:46 zakim, who's here? 19:58:46 On the phone I see no one 19:58:48 On IRC I see Andi, Sebastiano, jslatin, gregg, LucaMascaro, bengt, Michael, RRSAgent, Zakim, ben, joeclark 19:58:50 +[IBM] 19:59:00 Makoto has joined #wai-wcag 19:59:05 +John_Slatin 19:59:23 +??P9 19:59:34 zakim, ??P9 is Gregg_and_Ben 19:59:34 +Gregg_and_Ben; got it 19:59:56 zakim, [IBM] is Andi 19:59:56 +Andi; got it 20:00:02 zakim, who's here? 20:00:02 On the phone I see Andi, John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben 20:00:03 On IRC I see Makoto, Andi, Sebastiano, jslatin, gregg, LucaMascaro, bengt, Michael, RRSAgent, Zakim, ben, joeclark 20:00:50 zakim, who's here? 20:00:50 On the phone I see Andi, John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben 20:00:51 On IRC I see Makoto, Andi, Sebastiano, jslatin, gregg, LucaMascaro, bengt, Michael, RRSAgent, Zakim, ben, joeclark 20:00:57 Yvette has joined #wai-wcag 20:00:59 + +1.910.202.aaaa 20:01:07 Hi all 20:01:20 zakim, +1.910.202.aaaa is Bengt_Farre 20:01:20 +Bengt_Farre; got it 20:01:24 +Michael_Cooper 20:01:40 +Yvette_Hoitink 20:01:43 +[Microsoft] 20:01:45 zakim, I am Bengt_Farre 20:01:45 ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre 20:01:55 zakim, who's here? 20:01:55 On the phone I see Andi, John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben, Bengt_Farre, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, [Microsoft] 20:01:56 zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta 20:01:58 On IRC I see Yvette, Makoto, Andi, Sebastiano, jslatin, gregg, LucaMascaro, bengt, Michael, RRSAgent, Zakim, ben, joeclark 20:02:00 +Mike_Barta; got it 20:02:05 Becky_Gibson has joined #wai-wcag 20:02:36 +Becky_Gibson 20:02:44 + +1.202.558.aabb 20:02:46 rcastaldo has joined #wai-wcag 20:02:53 +??P18 20:02:56 HI folks :) 20:03:00 David has joined #wai-wcag 20:03:04 +[IPcaller] 20:03:07 test 20:03:09 zakim, unmute me 20:03:09 Michael_Cooper should no longer be muted 20:03:12 +Bengt_Farre.a 20:03:14 +Matt 20:03:27 zakim, [IPcaller] is Makoto 20:03:27 +Makoto; got it 20:03:36 +Dave_MacDonald 20:03:38 mcmay has joined #wai-wcag 20:03:42 zakim, ??P18 may be Joe_Clark 20:03:42 +Joe_Clark?; got it 20:03:50 zakim, who's here? 20:03:50 On the phone I see Andi, John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben, Bengt_Farre, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Mike_Barta, Becky_Gibson, +1.202.558.aabb, Joe_Clark?, Makoto, Bengt_Farre.a, 20:03:54 ... Matt, Dave_MacDonald 20:03:55 On IRC I see mcmay, David, rcastaldo, Becky_Gibson, Yvette, Makoto, Andi, Sebastiano, jslatin, gregg, LucaMascaro, bengt, Michael, RRSAgent, Zakim, ben, joeclark 20:03:59 +Loretta_Guarino_Reid 20:04:01 zakim, mute me 20:04:01 Makoto should now be muted 20:04:13 -Bengt_Farre.a 20:04:19 zakim, who's here? 20:04:19 On the phone I see Andi, John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben, Bengt_Farre, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Mike_Barta, Becky_Gibson, +1.202.558.aabb, Joe_Clark?, Makoto (muted), Matt, 20:04:23 ... Dave_MacDonald, Loretta_Guarino_Reid 20:04:24 On IRC I see mcmay, David, rcastaldo, Becky_Gibson, Yvette, Makoto, Andi, Sebastiano, jslatin, gregg, LucaMascaro, bengt, Michael, RRSAgent, Zakim, ben, joeclark 20:04:33 zakim, who's making noise? 20:04:37 zakim, 1.202.558.aabb may be Sebastiano 20:04:37 sorry, ben, I do not understand your question 20:04:44 Yvette, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds 20:04:47 +Tim_Boland 20:04:49 +JasonWhite 20:04:59 +lmascaro 20:05:02 zakim, mute me 20:05:02 Bengt_Farre should now be muted 20:05:05 zakim, +1.202.558.aabb may be Sebastiano 20:05:05 +Sebastiano?; got it 20:05:11 zakim, mute me 20:05:11 Sebastiano? should now be muted 20:05:31 I'm trying to connect with dialpad... having some problems 20:05:47 zakim, who's on the phone? 20:05:47 On the phone I see Andi, John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben, Bengt_Farre (muted), Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Mike_Barta, Becky_Gibson, Sebastiano? (muted), Joe_Clark?, Makoto (muted), 20:05:51 ... Matt, Dave_MacDonald, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Tim_Boland, JasonWhite, lmascaro 20:05:52 + +1.202.558.aacc - is perhaps Sebastiano? 20:05:54 they update the software just try to exit and start again 20:05:57 zakim, mute me 20:05:57 sorry, LucaMascaro, I do not see a party named 'LucaMascaro' 20:06:11 zakim, lmascaro is LucaMascaro 20:06:11 +LucaMascaro; got it 20:06:16 tks 20:06:18 zakim, mute me 20:06:19 LucaMascaro should now be muted 20:06:22 np 20:06:39 zakim, who's making noise? 20:06:42 zakim, who's muted 20:06:42 ben, you need to end that query with '?' 20:06:45 -Sebastiano? 20:06:49 Yvette, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Gregg_and_Ben (18%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (63%) 20:07:04 zakim, mute Loretta 20:07:04 Loretta_Guarino_Reid should now be muted 20:07:16 zakim, who's on the phone? 20:07:16 On the phone I see Andi, John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben, Bengt_Farre (muted), Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Mike_Barta, Becky_Gibson, Sebastiano? (muted), Joe_Clark?, Makoto (muted), 20:07:19 ... Matt, Dave_MacDonald, Loretta_Guarino_Reid (muted), Tim_Boland, JasonWhite, LucaMascaro (muted) 20:07:40 +Bengt_Farre.a 20:07:59 zakim, Bengt_Farre.a is Roberto_Castaldo 20:07:59 +Roberto_Castaldo; got it 20:08:08 Ciao italians :-) 20:08:15 scribe: David_MacDonald 20:09:26 Ciao Roberto! 20:09:30 agenda? 20:09:40 zakim, take up agendum 1 20:09:48 agendum 1. "Agenda review (including information about face to face) (John, 5" taken up [from ben] 20:09:56 js: techniques taskforce 20:11:13 Tim has joined #wai-wcag 20:11:42 zakim, close this item 20:11:42 agendum 1 closed 20:11:43 I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 20:11:45 2. Techniques report (Michael, 5 minutes) [from ben] 20:11:50 zakim, ping me in 20 minutes 20:11:50 ok, mcmay 20:12:01 js: tell zakim to ping us a 20minute tells us times up, a good reminder 20:12:21 zakim, take up agendum 2 20:12:21 agendum 2. "Techniques report (Michael, 5 minutes)" taken up [from ben] 20:12:22 gregg has joined #wai-wcag 20:13:01 mc: shadowing issue summaries along with guidliines issues 20:13:30 mc: 4.2 we go less than half way through lots of stuff 20:13:43 zakim, who's here? 20:13:43 On the phone I see Andi, John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben, Bengt_Farre (muted), Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Mike_Barta, Becky_Gibson, Sebastiano? (muted), Joe_Clark?, Makoto (muted), 20:13:46 ... Matt, Dave_MacDonald, Loretta_Guarino_Reid (muted), Tim_Boland, JasonWhite, LucaMascaro (muted), Roberto_Castaldo (muted) 20:13:48 On IRC I see gregg, Tim, mcmay, David, rcastaldo, Becky_Gibson, Yvette, Makoto, Andi, Sebastiano, jslatin, LucaMascaro, bengt, Michael, RRSAgent, Zakim, ben, joeclark 20:14:10 mc: some case issues into the guidelines. would be helpful, if the same person does the guidelines review as techniques reviews. 20:15:29 mc: lots of discussion etc... on of the things we missed was paying close attention to the baseline. take the three baselines. basic graphic browser, user agent. identified for each techniuqe within each baseline whether it is sufficient or opptional, not harmful, 20:15:54 Regrets: Roberto Ellero, Doyle, Neil Soiffer, Roberto Scano, Takayuki Watanabe 20:16:03 mc: first this look....a proposal to remove a techniques might because on one baseline and not another. 20:17:06 zakim, close this item 20:17:06 agendum 2 closed 20:17:06 zakim, mute me 20:17:07 I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 20:17:08 3. Guideline 2.4 proposal (Yvette, 25 minutes) [from ben] 20:17:10 Michael_Cooper should now be muted 20:17:15 zakim, next agendum 20:17:15 agendum 3. "Guideline 2.4 proposal (Yvette, 25 minutes)" taken up [from ben] 20:17:25 zakim, ping me in 20 minutes 20:17:25 ok, ben 20:17:54 yvette's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0371.html 20:17:56 js: move yh 2.4 20:19:02 annotated proposal (wiki): http://esw.w3.org/topic/May_2005_Guideline_1%2e3_Proposal?action=show 20:19:02 yh: I don't see the message tonight about SC L1 about reading order. has simple examples of content that is not accessible. 20:20:26 jw: the problems I raised still stand, that will have to be treat as 1.3 issue or worded different. If you reword it it doesn't belong on level 1 20:20:40 jw: see mailing list for more 20:21:17 yh: some people think it is about aggregation, it is better to get consencous on problem then get solution 20:22:16 q+ 20:22:56 js: it boils down to what happens when a screenreader goes into say all mode...the problem is that I want that reading to make sense, so I don't want a paragraph of text to be interupted by avigation bar orother artifact that a sighted person wouldn't look at in the middle of their content readitng, on a page not constructed properly, that doesn'thappen for a blind person 20:23:16 q+ 20:23:44 zakim, mute me 20:23:44 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 20:24:02 jw: everything I said in message is still true 20:24:49 joe: topic dogs us unecessarily over the years... if waiting for freedom scientific to do stuff properly, not our problem 20:25:15 joe: doesn't have to be in exact same order. 20:25:26 ack j 20:25:37 ask jason 20:25:37 joe: doument html read order 20:25:48 ask joe 20:25:57 ack jason 20:26:01 ack joe 20:26:03 joe: that is nvalid html and we tell people to use valid html. 20:26:49 ack gregg 20:27:16 joe: not a real feal...if a lot of valid html, and valid css, lets put some examples together 20:27:46 Also, a case of content interposing itself at the wrong point in the read order is probably a case of a bad user agent or incorrect HTML in the first place. Valid, semantic HTML has an intrinsically comprehensible read order. 20:28:13 gv: I'm still wrestling through first one. 20:28:49 gv: if reading order not im0ortant we could skip over this guideline 20:28:59 zakim, unmute me 20:28:59 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 20:29:24 q+ 20:29:28 ack john 20:29:35 gv: we have to be very careful about level ones. and with these kind of comments about it we should reconsider 20:30:38 js: gregg mentioned, and I say there are other technologies ie math ml, flash, pdf, order is extremly important. willing to grant that jaws etc have inadequate features regarding this 20:30:59 -LucaMascaro 20:31:33 js: i have heard many examples where menaingful reading order of text was a clear messed up order that no sighted reader would have 20:31:51 mcmay, you asked to be pinged at this time 20:32:20 js: not the intended behaviour behaviour by the author, I believe that it was not a validation problem, there are real issues. how to disentagle them...is a porblem 20:32:42 ack yvette 20:33:00 yh: sc at level one, major overloap with 3.2 link text... this should be at level 2, 20:33:19 q+ 20:33:27 yh: this could be a problem for content management systems. 20:33:33 ack Jason 20:34:25 q+ to say "keep overlap with 1.3" 20:34:43 jw: back to problem of John, the cause is not solved by writing markup by writing to spec, 20:35:11 jw: the problem is covered under 1.3 20:35:30 LucaMascaro has joined #wai-wcag 20:35:53 jw: but introducing a linear order requirement should be level 3 in 2.4 at best....not agood way to go . oet's move examoles to 1.3 20:36:05 q+ 20:36:21 ack gregg 20:36:46 +Roberto_Castaldo.a 20:36:54 -Roberto_Castaldo.a 20:37:21 gv: 2 things, 1) right now sc 2 is too general, if we say the content or parts of content are arranged in a linear sequece to understand their secquense proerly then them should be probgramatically determined 20:37:25 ben, you asked to be pinged at this time 20:37:46 +LucaMascaro 20:37:54 zakim, mute me 20:37:54 LucaMascaro should now be muted 20:38:37 gv: the comment was made thae sc 3 could not be done for some technology so it should go to L 2 , but you can't have something at level 2 that can't be done 20:39:47 bc: jason raised good point when he talks about an artifact of presentation, is that something that we really want. it the presentation is ajusted to present things in an audio form. 20:39:52 ack ben 20:39:55 ack andi 20:40:18 asw: if we take 3.2 wording it will be ok at level 2, 20:43:13 gv: I'm sorry I have a family emergency with my orphaned nephewsand I have to go, can someone jump in. 20:43:19 zakim, unmute me 20:43:19 Michael_Cooper should no longer be muted 20:43:55 scribe: Yvette 20:43:56 -Dave_MacDonald 20:45:04 action: john, yvette, joe, michael - revisit 2.4 wording and repropose 20:45:06 Testing linearity seems easier than testing "making sense"? 20:45:17 zakim, close this item 20:45:17 agendum 3 closed 20:45:19 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 20:45:20 4. Guideline 1.3 proposal (Joe, 25 minutes) [from ben] 20:45:31 zakim, ping me in 20 minutes 20:45:31 ok, Yvette 20:45:35 next agendum 20:46:30 jc: rewritten 1.3 to explain about web standards (valid CSS, HTML and generic JS) 20:46:45 jc: we even require valid code in WCAG 2 20:47:16 jc: HTML will be majority of web content and will have structure, PDF might have structure but we will require structure 20:47:38 jc: This is catching everyone up to standards and telling them how to do it 20:47:49 jc: boils down to "write according to web standards" 20:47:58 js: what's the def? 20:48:11 jc: in all web pages you have 3 layers: structure, presentation, behavior 20:48:27 jc: structure - HTML/tags. Presentation - CSS, behavior - JS 20:48:42 jc: other technologies might not have all three layers but there still might be presentation and behavior 20:49:41 jc: 'information' is redundant and circular. Information is purpose of website. We are Web CONTENT accessibility guidelines so no need to name information explicitely 20:49:53 js: proposal before us. Some discussion on the list. Comments? 20:50:30 gv: I've only found a proposal for the guideline text, not for success criteria 20:50:40 js: there was one but forgot to include in the agenda 20:50:58 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0248.html 20:51:13 js: cudos to ben for being the archive wizard 20:51:26 ack john 20:51:28 ack john 20:51:29 ack yvette 20:51:30 Yvette, you wanted to say "keep overlap with 1.3" 20:51:35 ack jason 20:51:36 ack tim 20:51:51 tb: would all technologies follow that model? 20:52:31 jc: one of the few experts on MathML is intrinsically structural because it's markup language 20:52:49 jc: HTML requires MathML to mark up equations 20:52:59 zakim, mute me 20:52:59 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 20:53:12 zakim, unmute me 20:53:12 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 20:54:08 q+ to say MathML is very baseline-dependent 20:54:14 jc: ambiguity is part of math, don't think it's really a accessibility problem 20:54:21 ack michael 20:54:22 Michael_Cooper, you wanted to say MathML is very baseline-dependent 20:54:26 ack Michael 20:54:29 q+ 20:55:00 mc: MathML has some UA support but won't be part of every baseline. 20:55:08 mc: it's baseline question 20:55:55 jc: My issue with that is that you suggest there is an alternative but there isn't. For real mathematical equations there isn't a real alternative 20:56:27 zakim, mute me 20:56:27 Michael_Cooper should now be muted 20:56:35 mm: but there is (la)tex which has been around since the digital ice age 20:56:47 q+ 20:57:05 ack gregg 20:57:34 gv: Joe, you took 'relationships' out of SC 1. Did you mean that relationships are covered by structure? 20:57:53 jc: I was one of the people who wondered about purpose of 'relationship' 20:58:21 jc: that question was never really answered so I took it out 20:58:35 js: so you believe that all the relationships are covered by structure? 20:58:48 jc: Yes, all the structures are already in HTML 20:59:50 gv: You keep referring to HTML but we must assume we don't know we're using 21:00:11 gv: If they want to use something else we have to wonder what they need to do in order to conform 21:00:18 The post I forwarded from Jacques Distler on MathML's "alternatives": 21:00:20 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0066.html 21:00:35 gv: saying all relationships are covered by HTML structure doesn't address that because that might not be true for other technologies 21:01:30 gv: does anyone disagree that relationships are a subset of structure? 21:02:03 asw: relationship between form element and label, would that be structure? 21:02:29 zakim, mute me 21:02:29 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 21:02:39 asw: web pages are not just documents 21:02:59 jc: I would be happy to change that into whatever the group wants 21:03:13 asw: what about 'content' that was in the original? 21:03:16 jc: fine by me 21:03:38 gv: add note in guidedoc that we consider relationships as part of the structure 21:04:14 gv: Let's define relationships to be included in structure and change document back to content 21:04:32 js: modified proposal for SC 1 "structures within the content can be programatically determined" 21:04:50 js: anyone against adopting that new formulation? 21:05:06 q? 21:05:11 different one 21:05:14 zakim, unmute me 21:05:14 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 21:05:31 Yvette, you asked to be pinged at this time 21:05:42 jw: someone should write a definition of structure and make sure it includes all those relationships 21:06:11 jc: if someone can come up with a definition or link to definition, I can pass it on to standardistas and ask their opinions 21:06:38 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#structuredef 21:06:47 jw: I'll take a look at the definitino 21:07:04 jw: current def is fine, so am happy with the proposal 21:07:24 js: any objections to unanimous consent? 21:07:25 resolved: accept Joe's proposal to revise 1.3 L1 SC1 to read: Structures within the content can be programmatically determined. 21:07:32 good 21:07:33 js: next SC 21:07:47 asw: did we have consensus on guideline? 21:07:49 js: no 21:08:11 asw: Had problem understand what was covered in SC 2 that wasn't in 1 21:08:12 proposal for SC 2: 2. Structural markup or coding is used to encode semantics to the extent possible for the content. 21:08:28 jc: 'the extent possible' is human testable just like correctness of alt-text 21:08:33 zakim, mute me 21:08:33 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 21:08:40 q+ 21:09:22 jc: common misunderstanding that standards compliance isn't semantic (for example: page with just
and ) 21:09:27 ack andi 21:09:53 correction: common misunderstanding that standards compliance = semantic 21:10:03 jc: semantic is step beyond 21:10:16 asw: still don't think that's testable 21:10:34 asw: don't understand why we need it. If structures can be determined, that's enough 21:11:16 asw: it might not be understood as well for other technologies 21:11:56 jc: it's possible in tagged PDF 21:12:02 use just
and is a violation of the validity of the code therefore the DTD, because we not use the correctly elements 21:12:15 zakim, unmute me 21:12:15 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 21:12:18 ack yvette 21:12:30 ack Jason 21:12:35 yh: forgot what I was going to say 21:12:47 jw: serious problems with this one 21:13:18 jw: it's redundant with SC1 1.3 and requirement of writing according to spec and 'to the extent possible' is not testable 21:13:44 jw: it is not testable in different technologies. 21:14:21 jw: we need SC about that it has to be relative to the technologies that author is user 21:14:52 gv: just to clarify: we have no requirement to write good alt text because that's not testable 21:15:37 gv: we would like to go further but don't have any objective way. We just specify what we can in a testable way. Especially in level 1 and 2 we're very careful about that because people might be required to conform 21:16:11 gv: is there a word missing in SC? "structural semantics"? 21:16:28 -Tim_Boland 21:16:32 Tim has left #wai-wcag 21:16:38 jc: Mean semantics as normal in web standards field, using right element to mark up content 21:16:44 jc: I want two things to happen: 21:16:56 jc: Not allowing people to use just
and to mark up page 21:17:48 jc: I don't want standards-compliant people to be harassed if they use and 21:17:50 LucaMascaro has joined #wai-wcag 21:18:03 jc: web standards should be the standards 21:18:06 -s 21:18:32 q? 21:18:37 ack gregg 21:18:46 js: what I would like is that we get another subgroup to work on 1.3 21:19:17 js: take into account Joe's proposal, responses and 4.2 discussion 21:19:40 Can someone take over scribing after this agenda item? 21:19:51 js: Joe, could you focus on 1.3 more than on 2.4 21:20:03 jc: sure 21:20:09 js: Joe, Gregg and Becky to work on 1.3 21:20:18 action: joe, gregg, becky to work on revised proposal for 1.3 21:20:28 js: stay in touch with 2.4 to address the overlap 21:21:25 scribe: ben 21:21:32 zakim, close this item 21:21:32 agendum 4 closed 21:21:33 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 21:21:34 5. Guideline 4.2 revised proposal (Loretta, 25 minutes) [from ben] 21:21:42 zakim, take up agendum 5 21:21:42 agendum 5. "Guideline 4.2 revised proposal (Loretta, 25 minutes)" taken up [from ben] 21:21:57 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0364.html 21:22:53 lgr: looked at gregg's proposal to replace the word "baseline" - am liking the word less and less 21:23:06 lgr: UA assumptions is not the same as baseline 21:23:16 gv: what I meant was assumptions you're making about user agents 21:23:26 lgr: agree with sentiment, but am soliciting alternative phrases 21:23:47 gv: you said, you wanted to focus on techs, you're talking about UAs that use technologies? 21:23:57 lgr: the technologies for which user agents exist 21:24:13 zakim, mute me 21:24:13 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 21:24:39 js: think there was consensus that we should talk about technologies rather than user agents 21:25:00 gv: yes, but 2 types of techs. techs user has or techs authors use 21:25:25 lgr: reads proposed def (assumes are supported) 21:25:33 gv: supported and turned on? 21:25:38 js: and enabled? 21:25:42 lgr: avail. to user? 21:25:56 gv: if turned off, then it's avail 21:26:10 lgr: looking for a word that implies that tech is both "there" and "on" 21:26:17 ack mike 21:26:34 js: supported and active? or you could define supported as meaning tha tUA is actually using and processing it 21:26:51 second point is that it wasn't clear from revised proposal for definition that this was the min. that can be assumed 21:27:14 js: not talking about larger set, but minimum assumptions - think that needs to be put in explicitly 21:27:22 lgr: it is there, "minimum set of technologies" 21:28:10 js: any preference about alternatives jason mentioned? 21:28:36 gv: in this conversation, we've drifted between UA and users 21:28:58 gv: not sure which we want to use in definition 21:29:41 gv: any feature that can be turned on and off would have to be assumed to occasionally be turned on and off for whatever reason - would have to be not have to be turned off for accessibility reasons 21:29:43 ack jason 21:30:05 jw: supported in UA and active in those UA is the sense that we want - that's the assumption from the author's perspective 21:30:07 ack andi 21:30:26 asw: seems we're nitpicking - if you assume it is supported, you have to assume it's turned on, otherwise, what's the point? 21:30:42 gv: may need to be turned off by users with disabilities 21:31:10 mb: seems to be a distinction between supported and available - either say it's reasonable to assume something is available --or-- we know the user has it and is using it 21:31:13 ack Mike 21:31:23 mb: any consensus on which we mean or do we mean both? 21:31:45 js: my sense was that wording jason mentioned might be nitpicky, but covers both of those possibilities 21:32:10 mb: concern is that means that it is responsibility of person making claim to know whether user has something turned on and off, which author can't know 21:32:17 mb: that's very restrictive 21:32:21 asw: back to HTML only sites 21:32:35 mb: if you're saying that you're picking techs based on a reasonable belief that techs are available 21:33:20 ack Loretta 21:33:59 lgr: remember, this is about trying to capture for WCAG the fact that someone will consider and make an informed decision about what is reasonable to assume - a lot of what we're churning on here is how someone makes a decision 21:34:02 ack jason 21:34:05 q+ 21:34:32 jw: loretta's point captures it well, basically defining min. set of techs that author assumes are active in UA. reasonableness of that assumption is not part of the consideration here. 21:34:37 ack gregg 21:35:22 gv: one of the things we keep saying is "that can be assumed" question is by who? authors? companies? I think we should say a min. set of techs that are assumed to be supported. by who depends upon who is setting the baseline 21:35:35 gv: or an established set of techs that the author assumes can be supported 21:35:57 gv: so it would be "a standard set of technologies that the author can assume are supported by user agents" 21:36:14 ack john 21:36:32 js: don't think we can say "established" because there will be situations where nothing has been established 21:37:09 js: current discussions in the TTF, list, etc. have been talking about 3 baselines, so word minimum may be problematic 21:37:20 gv: no, all 3 assume a different minimum set 21:37:23 I've got to leave the call now 21:37:30 By everyone :-) 21:37:32 gv: dropping the word "minimum" might be a good idea 21:37:35 rcastaldo has left #wai-wcag 21:37:42 -Roberto_Castaldo 21:37:43 ack Lor 21:38:16 lgr: think word "baseline" has wrong connotation. think "minimum" is critical 21:38:27 ack Jason 21:39:06 jw: was going to make the same point, emphasizing the importance of "minimum" in this context - agree with gregg's earlier assumption to say "are assumed" 21:39:56 -Joe_Clark? 21:39:58 js: propose we adopt this because it's better than what we've got now 21:40:12 gv: if we did, we might say "supported/on" as a footnote to remind us to fix it 21:41:12 action: loretta to wordsmith definition of baseline and post to list 21:41:30 -LucaMascaro 21:41:54 joeclark has left #wai-wcag 21:42:01 resolved: accept " 21:42:01 The minimum set of technologies that are assumed to be supported/enabled by user agents in order to access all information and functionality of the Web content.) as a working definition for baseline. 21:42:14 -Sebastiano? 21:42:25 definition of technology 21:42:39 zakim, unmute me 21:42:39 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 21:42:47 accept definition as proposed ("Technology" means a data format, programming or markup language, protocol or API.) 21:43:07 lgr: added a couple of proposals 21:43:38 lgr: new SC propsed: [9] New GL 2.4, Level 1 SC 21:43:38 21:43:38 Changes to content, structure, selection, focus, attributes, values, state, 21:43:38 and relationships within the content can be programmatically determined. 21:43:38 21:43:39 Issue: how much of this is just a user agent requirement? When does 21:43:41 the author have responsibility for any of this? 21:43:46 js: reactions? 21:44:36 yh: agree with loretta's doubts that if it's not possible to determine programmatically if something changes, then no UA will be able to show it. if a change to content isn't determinable, then no browser could show it. I really don't see what problem this is going to solve 21:45:01 gv: if each one of those things can be accessed, then UA could compare "then and now" and programmatically evaluate whether a change has been made 21:45:35 gv: usually this kind of a clause is surrounded by a requirement for notification, but I don't think we want to require that AT be notified at level 1 (we'd have to think about how that would be done) 21:46:03 lgr: there is at least one case (ex. flash) where you have in fact tell things to update themselves - not sure if this is just a UA issue 21:46:10 gv: sounds like a UA problem 21:46:16 ack Jason 21:47:34 jw: agree that this is a UA problem, UA must be able to detect a change, otherwise it can't change it - it's an internal issue w/in a UA. Only issue I can think of is if things are being updated in sequence, you might want a transaction or commit after a change so it doesn't become apparent to UA until all changes have been made - that's where you might want something in content to flag that a series of changes have been completed 21:48:47 gv: having spoken against it, I was going to comment for it (slightly) - one of the things that author does do is have a choice for choosing a tech where this is possible. (ex. captions are synchronized) - they could choose a tech. that doesn't support synchronization. author is reponsible for using a tech for which there is a UA that can do somethinbg. 21:48:55 s/somethinbg/something 21:49:01 lgr: sounds like this should be withdrawn 21:49:09 asw: what about applets? where do they fit in? 21:49:18 gv: that's our big 4.2 issue 21:49:25 lgr: would keeping this help us address applets? 21:49:42 gv: I wouldn't drop it at this point because we haven't figure out all of 4.2 yet 21:50:07 when we have content that delivers the UA along with the content, we do have to figure out where that gets distributed 21:50:55 js: that is what the discussion is about and the proposal is an attempt to distribute 4.2 issues so that they are addressed in other guidelines 21:51:30 js: think we should give loretta as much useful feedback as possible so we can get it done - can loretta (and team) take another shot at it? 21:51:53 jw: think that whatever we do, this proposal for 2.4 is really a 1.3 issue because it's about programmatic determination, not about anything else 21:52:01 lgr: I would have said it's about orientation 21:52:35 gv: yes, it's a 1.3 category issue 21:53:26 js: something that you just said suggests that we need to revisit guideline wording ("orient themselves" may not fit under 2.4) 21:53:49 q? 21:53:53 ack jason 21:54:16 agenda 21:54:18 agenda? 21:54:34 gv: question: 4.2 is so complicated, I wonder if we should try to tackle at the face to face 21:54:59 zakim, take up next agendum 21:54:59 agendum 6. "Guideline 2.5 - preliminary discussion of issue summary/proposal (Andi: 25 minutes)" taken up [from ben] 21:55:08 zakim, mute me 21:55:08 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 21:55:21 zakim, close this item 21:55:21 agendum 6 closed 21:55:22 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 21:55:24 7. (Time permitting) Guideline 3.1 - preliminary discussion of proposal and issue summary (John) [from ben] 21:55:49 next week: 2.5, 3.1 21:55:53 ack andi 21:56:22 asw: 4.2 was coupled with baseline issue, which was a blocking issue that we needed to solve before moving forward - are we declaring that we've closed the issue? 21:56:36 gv: we have a definition that's better than what we had, but still needs work 21:57:03 asw: if we've agreed that baseline shouldn't be in guidelines (in principle), I'd hate to defer progress until next f2f 21:57:44 gv: think we've been working on assumption that baseline won't be in the guidelines and we'll work off that assumption until we're proven wrong - is that what everyone else thinks? 21:58:28 js: think we should continue discussing 4.2 in coming weeks even though progress is slow 21:59:02 gv: suggestion to find those who are most interested in addressing this one and take an offline phone call/work session to try to see if we can help work it through 21:59:58 gv: would like to ask for volunteers to do a multi-hour work session with loretta to help her out with this 22:00:47 lgr: we might want to sunset that group and see who wants to continue 22:01:50 -Mike_Barta 22:02:02 zakim, unmute me 22:02:02 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 22:02:11 action: loretta to follow up with subgroup (plus gregg) for continued 4.2 discussion 22:02:13 -Bengt_Farre 22:02:16 agenda? 22:02:26 zakim, close agendum 7 22:02:26 agendum 7 closed 22:02:27 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 22:02:28 8. Wrap-up, action items, next week (10 minutes) [from ben] 22:02:30 -Becky_Gibson 22:02:34 zakim, close agendum 8 22:02:34 agendum 8 closed 22:02:36 I see nothing remaining on the agenda 22:02:37 -Andi 22:02:38 -Loretta_Guarino_Reid 22:02:40 -Matt 22:02:43 RRSAgent, generate minutes 22:02:43 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html ben 22:02:56 -Gregg_and_Ben 22:02:56 bengt has left #wai-wcag 22:02:56 -JasonWhite 22:06:41 Present: Andi Becky_Gibson Bengt_Farre Dave_MacDonald Gregg_and_Ben JasonWhite Joe_Clark John_Slatin Loretta_Guarino_Reid LucaMascaro Makoto Matt Michael Michael_Cooper Microsoft Mike_Barta Roberto_Castaldo Sebastiano Tim_Boland Yvette_Hoitink 22:06:48 RRSAgent, generate minutes 22:06:48 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html ben 22:07:05 zakim, bye 22:07:05 leaving. As of this point the attendees were John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben, Andi, Bengt_Farre, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Mike_Barta, Becky_Gibson, Matt, Makoto, Dave_MacDonald, 22:07:05 Zakim has left #wai-wcag 22:07:08 ... Joe_Clark?, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Tim_Boland, JasonWhite, Sebastiano?, +1.202.558.aacc, LucaMascaro, Roberto_Castaldo 22:07:36 RRSAgent, bye 22:07:36 I see 4 open action items: 22:07:36 ACTION: john, yvette, joe, michael - revisit 2.4 wording and repropose [1] 22:07:36 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-wai-wcag-irc#T20-45-04 22:07:36 ACTION: joe, gregg, becky to work on revised proposal for 1.3 [2] 22:07:36 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-wai-wcag-irc#T21-20-18 22:07:36 ACTION: loretta to wordsmith definition of baseline and post to list [3] 22:07:36 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-wai-wcag-irc#T21-41-12 22:07:36 ACTION: loretta to follow up with subgroup (plus gregg) for continued 4.2 discussion [4] 22:07:36 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-wai-wcag-irc#T22-02-11