IRC log of wai-wcag on 2005-05-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:57:39 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
13:57:39 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:57:46 [ben]
RRSAgent, make log world
13:58:08 [ben]
agenda+ Review requirements
13:58:17 [ben]
agenda+ Begin planning FtF, possibly breaking up to work on issues
13:58:25 [Christophe_Strobb]
Christophe_Strobb has joined #wai-wcag
13:58:41 [ben]
agenda+ Continue review of 1.1, 2.4, 4.2
13:58:51 [ben]
agenda+ Script techniques proposals
13:59:23 [ben]
13:59:30 [ben]
Chair: Michael_Cooper
13:59:32 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has now started
13:59:39 [Zakim]
13:59:48 [Christophe_Strobb]
Christophe_Strobb has joined #wai-wcag
14:00:06 [Becky_Gibson]
Becky_Gibson has joined #wai-wcag
14:00:23 [Zakim]
14:00:37 [Zakim]
14:00:41 [ben]
zakim, ??P2 is Ben
14:00:41 [Zakim]
+Ben; got it
14:00:45 [Christophe_Strobb]
zakim, Christophe_Strobb is Christophe_Strobbe
14:00:45 [Zakim]
sorry, Christophe_Strobb, I do not recognize a party named 'Christophe_Strobb'
14:01:50 [David]
David has joined #wai-wcag
14:01:53 [Zakim]
14:01:58 [Zakim]
14:02:05 [David]
14:02:23 [Zakim]
14:02:27 [Zakim]
14:02:29 [ben]
zakim, [IPcaller] is Chris_Ridpath
14:02:29 [Zakim]
+Chris_Ridpath; got it
14:04:12 [ben]
zakim, who's here?
14:04:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Dave_MacDonald, Becky_Gibson, Ben, Chris_Ridpath, Tim_Boland, Christophe_Strobbe, Michael_Cooper
14:04:14 [Zakim]
On IRC I see David, Becky_Gibson, Christophe_Strobb, RRSAgent, ChrisR, Michael, Zakim, ben
14:04:31 [ben]
Present: Dave_MacDonald, Becky_Gibson, Ben, Chris_Ridpath, Tim_Boland, Christophe_Strobbe, Michael_Cooper
14:04:58 [ben]
zakim, I am Ben
14:04:58 [Zakim]
ok, ben, I now associate you with Ben
14:06:13 [ben]
scribe: Ben
14:06:17 [ben]
14:06:44 [ben]
zakim, next agendum
14:06:44 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Review requirements" taken up [from ben]
14:06:47 [ben]
14:07:03 [ben]
mc: talked about this a couple weeks ago and made a few changes - not all the way there, but getting closer
14:07:22 [ben]
mc: may need to make this a F2F topic
14:07:50 [ben]
tb: intro talks about technology and techniques, but neither term is defined. should we provide a definition of what a technique is?
14:08:30 [ben]
tb: technique maps to a SC. "maps" isn't a very strong word, may not be clear that a tech satisfies a SC
14:08:44 [ben]
tb: so definition of technique in that context might be important
14:08:56 [ben]
mc: also relates to added definitions for sufficient, optional and not recommended
14:09:36 [ben]
bc: a tech doesn't always satisfy a SC, may be multiple techniques
14:09:55 [ben]
michael reads definition of sufficient
14:10:21 [ben]
tb: may also need definition for technologies
14:10:56 [ben]
tb: is there a template for a technique?
14:11:14 [ben]
mc: yes, techniques DTD and the other is a web form people can use to submit proposed techniques
14:11:32 [ben]
tb: is a "task" a testable statement?
14:12:27 [ben]
mc: we defined testable statement for test cases, but not for techniques/tasks - maybe we should
14:13:08 [ben]
mc: in this draft, added definitions of sufficient, optional, not recommended, positive/negative test cases
14:13:09 [Tim]
Tim has joined #wai-wcag
14:13:13 [ben]
mc: added a little bit about baseline
14:13:20 [ben]
but still need to expand on that
14:14:21 [ben]
bc: guide doc? does that fit in WCAG 2 requirements or here - seems to be some overlap
14:14:50 [ben]
mc: do we know if guide doc and general techniques will be seperate?
14:15:03 [ben]
bc: no decision, but drafts we did when combined were very long
14:15:11 [ben]
dm: seem like two different issues
14:16:09 [ben]
mc: so you're saying we need to create reqs for guide doc and figure out where to put them?
14:16:11 [ben]
bc: yes
14:16:35 [ben]
mc: think it makes sense to put them in requirements for those in WCAG 2 reqs
14:17:22 [ben]
mc: one thing we have to be careful of is if we consider guide doc optional, we wouldn't have it in requirements, if essential, it would. my understanding is that the guide doc is currently considered to be essential
14:18:35 [ben]
tb: ... in authoring tools, have been some questions about who reviews and approves techniques
14:18:58 [ben]
mc: haven't said anything about who authorizes techniques or what our process for reviewing them is yet
14:20:00 [ben]
dm: I think what we're saying is that we've tested the techs we've written and if you want to do something else, that's fine, but w3c published techs should be higher quality
14:20:14 [ben]
mc: in principle, any technique to conform to WCAG is a WCAG technique
14:20:43 [ben]
mc: I think though, that we suggest that other people developing techniques work to a similar set of reqs, but we have no authority to do anything beyond suggest that
14:21:50 [ben]
mc: sounds like we've got some other issues on our plate, does that answer the question?
14:22:29 [ben]
mc: issues I captured were added def for technique and technology, clarification on relationship of techs to SC, a question about testable statements for techniques, impact of baseline and reqs. for guide doc
14:22:39 [ben]
were there other issues?
14:23:32 [ben]
bc: checklists section needs rework based on simplification of checklists we're heading toward
14:24:33 [ben]
tb: contradictions around technique for each success criterion and checklists that address each SC?
14:25:42 [ben]
mc: do people agree we should add a definition for technique and technology?
14:26:16 [ben]
action: tim to work on proposals for these definitions
14:27:36 [ben]
dm: have we resolved the issue around mapping techs to SC vs. more general guidelines?
14:27:49 [ben]
mc: have been operating under the assumption that they should map to SC
14:27:52 [ben]
bg: agree
14:28:03 [ben]
dm: sometimes difficult to map
14:28:52 [ben]
mc: so far, when we've had issues mapping, there hasn't been a priliferation of SC in the guidelines. think mapping is a useful tool to encourage WG to solidify SC.
14:29:06 [ben]
dm: does highlight how some of our techs are disengaged from the guidelines
14:29:33 [ben]
mc: relates to whole end to end thing we did a year ago - are you wanting us to leave this as an open issue?
14:30:09 [ben]
dm: not entirely sure we'll be able to map each technique to a SC successfully, but would like it to
14:30:37 [ben]
action: michael - include an ednote about whether techs can map to more general guidelines and principles
14:31:12 [ben]
mc: about relationship to meeting SC, I did add some info about AND and OR under the "relation to WCAG 2.0" section
14:32:11 [ben]
reads bullets 2 and 3 at
14:32:17 [ben]
bg: haven't been doing this yet
14:32:43 [ben]
mc: does that address the issue Tim raised?
14:33:13 [ben]
tb: my issue was that the technique convey info about how the employment of a tech would satisfy the SC -- that could be made clearer
14:33:23 [ben]
mc: maybe something about "meet the reqs of a SC"
14:33:47 [ben]
tb: for example, how does use of a technique accomplish programmatic relationships in content?
14:34:00 [ben]
mc: propose that tim and I work on a proposal to address
14:34:40 [ben]
action: tim and michael to work on a proposal to makke it clearer how a technique satisfies a SC
14:34:52 [ben]
14:35:03 [ben]
mc: testable statements for techniques - thoughts?
14:35:29 [ben]
mc: my own view is that techniques should be testable, but test files are more amenable to testable statements
14:36:17 [ben]
mc: not sure how to make a testable statement for technques that isn't the union of our existing techniques and test cases
14:37:02 [ben]
bc: at one point, we talked about techniques titles/tasks as true false statements, does that address this?
14:37:43 [ben]
cr: didn't we decide to leave the testable statements to tests?
14:39:25 [ben]
bg: if you add testable statements to techs, you have to do lots of "if you do this" and "if you have that" kind of stuff - difficult to word
14:40:58 [ben]
mc: not sure, leaning toward leaving testable statements to tests, but you're right that there are issues
14:41:09 [ben]
tb: have to have some way to identify that a technique has been completed
14:41:44 [ben]
mc: now, we've got tests, which make techniques testable, which make the guidelines testable
14:42:12 [ben]
mc: testable doesn't have to mean testable on code inspection - think outcome testing can be valid and in script techs, that may be more appropriate than in others
14:43:09 [ben]
dm: reason a task was there in the first place was to make it testable - is that right?
14:43:23 [ben]
tb: I think that's the correct sense
14:43:34 [ben]
scribe: David
14:44:24 [David]
dm: task has been an annoying thing because it is redundant. We could fix the title and dump the task
14:44:33 [David]
14:45:12 [David]
bc: said the above, let's strike the task and fix the title
14:45:53 [David]
cr: so the title would be the technique???
14:46:00 [Michael]
action: editors remove <short-name> from technique and make technique title what is now <task>, remove that element altogether
14:46:13 [David]
cr:fix above so the title would be the task???
14:46:38 [David]
bc: ie using orderedl list in HTML, the techniques ould describe that
14:46:56 [David]
mc: good idea but we need to deal with the tesable statement issue
14:47:21 [David]
mc: do we want to declare a testable statement?
14:48:06 [David]
cr: I'm wondering could we combine the techniques test cases, and map,, like a big data base, put them all together in one document??
14:48:40 [David]
mc: othing preventing us to do that, xml allows that possibility, and our id's allow that
14:49:01 [David]
cr: output format, not input
14:49:23 [David]
mc: should not be a requirement but we can easily do that, ugly but beautiful
14:49:57 [David]
mc: baseline, propose we put it off to the face to face
14:50:56 [David]
bc: baseline is a good tart and we can cross reference it
14:51:31 [David]
mc: propose yes we need requiremtns and they belong a WCAG level so let's propose to working group
14:51:42 [David]
bc: wording implies we would find it there
14:52:04 [David]
mc: can ben post a short email to group on that
14:52:07 [David]
bc: sure
14:52:19 [Michael]
action: ben talk with editors about req for guide doc in WCAG req
14:52:47 [David]
mc: checklist, neet to rework checklist, how to go about it????
14:53:10 [David]
bc: maybe not too much work, because checklist are SC. we would just describe that
14:53:20 [David]
bc: I can take a stab at that
14:53:24 [Michael]
action: ben propose updated checklists section of requirements
14:54:32 [David]
mc: Checklists must meet all SC, but Techniques only meet SC possible in tech ? need to harmonize
14:55:04 [Michael]
action: michael clarify techniques for some sc but checklists must meet all sc
14:55:26 [ben]
zakim, close this item
14:55:26 [Zakim]
agendum 1 closed
14:55:27 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
14:55:28 [Zakim]
2. Begin planning FtF, possibly breaking up to work on issues [from ben]
14:55:48 [ben]
zakim, take up next agendum
14:55:48 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Begin planning FtF, possibly breaking up to work on issues" taken up [from ben]
14:56:14 [David]
mc: f2f planning. meeting in brussels, week of june 13-16
14:57:18 [David]
mc: who can make it? Becky, Ben in, David and Chris out
14:58:29 [David]
Christophe_Strobb will be there, john, Yvette (perhaps) Wendy
14:58:37 [Christophe_Strobb]
Christophe Strobbe
14:59:57 [David]
mc: need to nail down requirements in f2f, baseline impact, tie it all together at f2f, issue summarries for any guidelines not covered
15:00:31 [David]
mc: want good draft of html, css and script,
15:01:36 [David]
dm: does css, html go together.
15:01:42 [David]
mc: woll put it on agenda
15:01:47 [David]
15:01:57 [David]
15:03:32 [Zakim]
15:03:33 [Tim]
Have to go - another meeting - have a good day
15:03:34 [David]
tim: I ave to go,
15:03:36 [Tim]
Tim has left #wai-wcag
15:03:55 [David]
15:04:01 [David]
15:05:30 [David]
mc: what are we going to do to make the f2f task focues
15:06:34 [David]
dm: gt lots of homework beforehand
15:07:23 [David]
mc: yup, need to get a lot of homework done
15:07:37 [David]
mc: people at home should have hwk done too
15:08:08 [David]
mc: people at home do clear homework
15:08:48 [David]
mc: does breakup subgroups of 2 make sense?
15:08:57 [David]
dm: yup
15:09:48 [David]
mc: task groups should cross fertilize not do stuff that can be done by email or phone
15:10:58 [David]
bg: andi will probably be there
15:11:06 [David]
mc: might see Takayuki?
15:12:28 [ben]
zakim, close this item
15:12:28 [Zakim]
agendum 2 closed
15:12:33 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:12:34 [Zakim]
3. Continue review of 1.1, 2.4, 4.2 [from ben]
15:14:38 [ben]
zakim, take up next agendum
15:14:38 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Continue review of 1.1, 2.4, 4.2 " taken up [from ben]
15:14:53 [Zakim]
15:17:49 [Zakim]
15:21:50 [David]
mc: let's dive into 1.3, the agenda say 1.1 that's a typo
15:22:13 [ben]
scribe: Becky_Gibson
15:22:35 [ben]
15:23:26 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: 4.2 issues summary - GL is state of flux; additional meetings ongoing with other WG members
15:23:34 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: not many open issues
15:24:02 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: looked at techniques mapping
15:24:21 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: mapping doc just pulls info from the techs themselves
15:24:59 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: doesn't think 12.10 is mapped correctly
15:26:09 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: interpretted mapping incorrectly - David read as 12.1 but it really is 12.10 - so mapping IS correct
15:26:33 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: 12.5 frame sources - doesn't think that applies to 4.2 since doesn't think of frames as programmatic objects
15:26:52 [Becky_Gibson]
bm: reason for map was probably due to using technologies access features
15:27:19 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: (prev. comment by bc also) has to do with putting just an image in a frame
15:27:48 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: if link frame directly to image there is no way to provide alt text -
15:28:14 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: can see why progammatic object is confusing - really interested in objects without access. features
15:28:50 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: didn't make that distinction - was really thinking about programmatic object; think of 4.2 dealing with non HTML techs
15:29:14 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: there is no UAAG compliant UA that deals with images only
15:29:52 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: wording of programmatic object implies one thing; frames seems like a broken part of HTML
15:30:19 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: images can be thought of as non HTML; but WCAG2.0 is trying to be non tech specific
15:31:09 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: suggest map 14.5 to GL 1.1 rather than 4.2
15:31:51 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: back to 12.10 - this is really baseline related
15:32:59 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: will a web page be more accessible if we leave this tech. out? (not providing link to access. viewer)
15:33:29 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: with the link might be more likely to take advantage of access. I generally won't download something in order to view a document
15:34:20 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: so, do we need to dump tech 12.10 becuz of where we are going with our baseline - we are assuming the user has the techch
15:34:37 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: do other standards have this req. other than 508?
15:34:45 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: think it is picked up on inconsistently
15:35:20 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: for my website if people give me a pdf to post I will also add a link to download pdf viewer
15:35:41 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: seems like every Canadian govt. has that link to download pdf reader
15:36:04 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: propose removing tech. 12.10
15:36:18 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: thinks 12.2 maps to 4.2
15:36:30 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: as tech not supported tech it depends on baseline outcome
15:36:51 [ben]
action: editors map HTML 14.5 to guideline 1.1
15:37:35 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: suggest remove the editiorial note from 12.2
15:38:04 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: baseline says that for set of techs in the baseline access features are already supported- thus don't need a fallback
15:38:18 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: for techs outside of the baseline need to provide fallbacks under GL 1.1
15:38:26 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: everything has to be avail in text
15:38:32 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: only if outside of baseline
15:38:53 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: but has to be text for everything?
15:39:23 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: think Wendy is addressing this issue - don't think we are forcing text only
15:39:49 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: ex: if flash is in baseline and you've made the flash access we don't req. text alternative
15:40:29 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: say java outside baseling and flash in baseline - have to have a fallback for the java object but the fallback could be flash since it IS in the baseline
15:40:47 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: still concerned about people creating an unreasonable baseline
15:41:08 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: that is why we need to provide guidance on reasonable baseline and assume policy makers will enforce
15:41:46 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: think 12.2 could go away entirely but might need new techniques to cover for specific baselines
15:42:09 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: can agree to remove the technique
15:42:29 [Becky_Gibson]
bg: rec. is to remove 12.2??
15:42:51 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: 1.1 plus baseline seems to clarify 12.2 so perhaps it can go
15:43:07 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: have to think of interplay of what people will actually do and what we think they will do
15:43:50 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: propose remapping 12.2 to 1.1 to force us to address this during 1.1 disussion
15:44:09 [ben]
action: editors map HTML 12.2 to guideline 1.1
15:44:20 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: 12.3 alt content for programmatic content - suggest deleting it since covered by tech 12.4
15:44:45 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: seems it has already been remapped to 1.1 in Feb. 11 draft
15:45:05 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: so probably need to update the mapping
15:45:30 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: have issues with these techs beyond where they belong
15:45:57 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: thought the whole section 12 should be mapped to 4.2
15:46:22 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: fail to see distinction between 12.3 and 12.4
15:46:49 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: I think bc analyzed how 12.4 was supposed to work and that text in object element is not a valid tech
15:47:00 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: so maybe 12.4 needs to be removed and 12.3 reworked
15:47:36 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: suggest dlink tech as repair tech for 12.4
15:48:04 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: but dlink usage has sort of flopped - people don't understand what it is
15:49:43 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: take dm comments about 12.4 and apply to 12.3 and remove 12.4
15:50:14 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: someone posted to list about object content being a fallback when object tech. not support - not as an alternative
15:50:37 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: somewhat ambiguous in HTML spec - issues with alternatives
15:51:01 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: AT's should be smart enough to query for alternative info regardless of techs installed
15:52:03 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: problem is that IE doesn't preserve that text for an object in the DOM - most ATs are built to support IE
15:52:11 [Becky_Gibson]
bc: aren't AT's looking at the source code?
15:52:32 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: no, IE based ATs are looking at the DOM and text for object isn't in the DOM
15:54:00 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: may have media player present even if you can't perceive it - need to be able to deal with the object as if player is not available
15:54:53 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: very frustrating to have to still rely on dlinks or other older techs
15:55:12 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: maybe we should say "until user agents..." <giggle>
15:55:25 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: perhaps address through baseline
15:55:50 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: best tech is text desciption outside of <object> tag but in same HTML doc
15:56:20 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: I don't care if it is in another doc - just don't like the title "dlink" - people don't know that that means
15:56:56 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: if I see a dlink I know site is "accessibility nerd" site
15:57:14 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: no one really knows what dlink is (except WCAG WG people)
15:57:45 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: dm to turn this dicussion into proposal
15:58:14 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: suggest deprecate 12.5 and 12.6
15:58:22 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: that is baseline dependent
15:58:28 [ben]
action: david to turn discussions on 4.2 techs issues into proposals
15:58:56 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: 12.7-12.9 are all embed techniques so will leave them in
15:59:10 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: will be not recommended in "future" baseline
15:59:29 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: don't see any css techs for 4.2
16:00:26 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: css techs 5.5, 1.1, 1.2 and 5.2 are currently mapped to 4.2 but don't think they should be
16:01:00 [Becky_Gibson]
bg, bc, mc: don't see these as a good mapping either
16:01:19 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: perhaps wc used 4.2 as default mapping
16:01:49 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: where would we map these CSS techs?
16:01:52 [ben]
action: editors remove mappings from CSS techniques that map to guideline 4.2
16:02:31 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: do we want to continue to suggest relative font sizes?
16:02:43 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: yes although it shouldn't be req. in future baseline
16:03:14 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: javascript 2.1 - this is an anti tech
16:03:27 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: suggest keep in "graphical" baseline
16:03:42 [Becky_Gibson]
dm: 2.2 dynamic content generation
16:06:00 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: 2.1 is Javascript URIs - 2.2 is docuemnt.write and innerHTML
16:06:27 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: thinks there is a way to do this in the present day baseline - so need a tech for that
16:07:22 [Becky_Gibson]
bg: but can't use document.write in XHTML
16:07:46 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: so should separate document.write from innerHTML
16:07:59 [Becky_Gibson]
bg: is innerHTML a DOM API or IE only?
16:08:09 [Becky_Gibson]
mc: thinks it is a JS type implementation
16:08:48 [ben]
Meeting: WCAG Techniques Task Force Weekly Telecon
16:08:55 [Becky_Gibson]
bg: correction to minutes- JS tech 2.1 applies to "base" baseline not "graphical" baseline as prev. recorded
16:09:03 [Zakim]
16:09:07 [ben]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
16:09:07 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ben
16:09:19 [Zakim]
16:09:19 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has left #wai-wcag
16:09:19 [Zakim]
16:09:19 [Zakim]
16:09:19 [Zakim]
16:09:21 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has ended
16:09:23 [Zakim]
Attendees were Dave_MacDonald, Becky_Gibson, Ben, Tim_Boland, Christophe_Strobbe, Michael_Cooper, Chris_Ridpath
16:10:01 [ben]
RRSAgent, make minutes world
16:10:06 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes world', ben. Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:10:16 [ben]
RRSAgent, make log world
16:10:53 [Christophe_Strobb]
Christophe_Strobb has left #wai-wcag
16:11:36 [ben]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
16:11:36 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ben
16:15:16 [ben]
RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
16:15:45 [ben]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
16:15:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ben
16:17:17 [ben]
RRSagent, bookmark?
16:17:17 [RRSAgent]
16:17:45 [ben]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:17:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ben
16:18:13 [ben]
Zakim, bye
16:18:13 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
16:18:44 [ben]
RRSAgent, bye
16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
I see 11 open action items:
16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: tim to work on proposals for these definitions [1]
16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: michael - include an ednote about whether techs can map to more general guidelines and principles [2]
16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: tim and michael to work on a proposal to makke it clearer how a technique satisfies a SC [3]
16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: editors remove <short-name> from technique and make technique title what is now <task>, remove that element altogether [4]
16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ben talk with editors about req for guide doc in WCAG req [5]
16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ben propose updated checklists section of requirements [6]
16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: michael clarify techniques for some sc but checklists must meet all sc [7]
16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: editors map HTML 14.5 to guideline 1.1 [8]
16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: editors map HTML 12.2 to guideline 1.1 [9]
16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: david to turn discussions on 4.2 techs issues into proposals [10]
16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: editors remove mappings from CSS techniques that map to guideline 4.2 [11]
16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
recorded in