13:57:39 RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag 13:57:39 logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/05/11-wai-wcag-irc 13:57:46 RRSAgent, make log world 13:58:08 agenda+ Review requirements 13:58:17 agenda+ Begin planning FtF, possibly breaking up to work on issues 13:58:25 Christophe_Strobb has joined #wai-wcag 13:58:41 agenda+ Continue review of 1.1, 2.4, 4.2 13:58:51 agenda+ Script techniques proposals 13:59:23 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0457.html 13:59:30 Chair: Michael_Cooper 13:59:32 WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has now started 13:59:39 +Dave_MacDonald 13:59:48 Christophe_Strobb has joined #wai-wcag 14:00:06 Becky_Gibson has joined #wai-wcag 14:00:23 +Becky_Gibson 14:00:37 +??P2 14:00:41 zakim, ??P2 is Ben 14:00:41 +Ben; got it 14:00:45 zakim, Christophe_Strobb is Christophe_Strobbe 14:00:45 sorry, Christophe_Strobb, I do not recognize a party named 'Christophe_Strobb' 14:01:50 David has joined #wai-wcag 14:01:53 +[IPcaller] 14:01:58 +Tim_Boland 14:02:05 +test 14:02:23 +Christophe_Strobbe 14:02:27 +Michael_Cooper 14:02:29 zakim, [IPcaller] is Chris_Ridpath 14:02:29 +Chris_Ridpath; got it 14:04:12 zakim, who's here? 14:04:12 On the phone I see Dave_MacDonald, Becky_Gibson, Ben, Chris_Ridpath, Tim_Boland, Christophe_Strobbe, Michael_Cooper 14:04:14 On IRC I see David, Becky_Gibson, Christophe_Strobb, RRSAgent, ChrisR, Michael, Zakim, ben 14:04:31 Present: Dave_MacDonald, Becky_Gibson, Ben, Chris_Ridpath, Tim_Boland, Christophe_Strobbe, Michael_Cooper 14:04:58 zakim, I am Ben 14:04:58 ok, ben, I now associate you with Ben 14:06:13 scribe: Ben 14:06:17 agenda? 14:06:44 zakim, next agendum 14:06:44 agendum 1. "Review requirements" taken up [from ben] 14:06:47 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-wcag2-tech-req-20050503.html 14:07:03 mc: talked about this a couple weeks ago and made a few changes - not all the way there, but getting closer 14:07:22 mc: may need to make this a F2F topic 14:07:50 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 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 tb: so definition of technique in that context might be important 14:08:56 mc: also relates to added definitions for sufficient, optional and not recommended 14:09:36 bc: a tech doesn't always satisfy a SC, may be multiple techniques 14:09:55 michael reads definition of sufficient 14:10:21 tb: may also need definition for technologies 14:10:56 tb: is there a template for a technique? 14:11:14 mc: yes, techniques DTD and the other is a web form people can use to submit proposed techniques 14:11:32 tb: is a "task" a testable statement? 14:12:27 mc: we defined testable statement for test cases, but not for techniques/tasks - maybe we should 14:13:08 mc: in this draft, added definitions of sufficient, optional, not recommended, positive/negative test cases 14:13:09 Tim has joined #wai-wcag 14:13:13 mc: added a little bit about baseline 14:13:20 but still need to expand on that 14:14:21 bc: guide doc? does that fit in WCAG 2 requirements or here - seems to be some overlap 14:14:50 mc: do we know if guide doc and general techniques will be seperate? 14:15:03 bc: no decision, but drafts we did when combined were very long 14:15:11 dm: seem like two different issues 14:16:09 mc: so you're saying we need to create reqs for guide doc and figure out where to put them? 14:16:11 bc: yes 14:16:35 mc: think it makes sense to put them in requirements for those in WCAG 2 reqs 14:17:22 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 tb: ... in authoring tools, have been some questions about who reviews and approves techniques 14:18:58 mc: haven't said anything about who authorizes techniques or what our process for reviewing them is yet 14:20:00 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 mc: in principle, any technique to conform to WCAG is a WCAG technique 14:20:43 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 mc: sounds like we've got some other issues on our plate, does that answer the question? 14:22:29 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 were there other issues? 14:23:32 bc: checklists section needs rework based on simplification of checklists we're heading toward 14:24:33 tb: contradictions around technique for each success criterion and checklists that address each SC? 14:25:42 mc: do people agree we should add a definition for technique and technology? 14:26:16 action: tim to work on proposals for these definitions 14:27:36 dm: have we resolved the issue around mapping techs to SC vs. more general guidelines? 14:27:49 mc: have been operating under the assumption that they should map to SC 14:27:52 bg: agree 14:28:03 dm: sometimes difficult to map 14:28:52 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 dm: does highlight how some of our techs are disengaged from the guidelines 14:29:33 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 dm: not entirely sure we'll be able to map each technique to a SC successfully, but would like it to 14:30:37 action: michael - include an ednote about whether techs can map to more general guidelines and principles 14:31:12 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 reads bullets 2 and 3 at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-wcag2-tech-req-20050503.html#relations-to-gl 14:32:17 bg: haven't been doing this yet 14:32:43 mc: does that address the issue Tim raised? 14:33:13 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 mc: maybe something about "meet the reqs of a SC" 14:33:47 tb: for example, how does use of a technique accomplish programmatic relationships in content? 14:34:00 mc: propose that tim and I work on a proposal to address 14:34:40 action: tim and michael to work on a proposal to makke it clearer how a technique satisfies a SC 14:34:52 s/makke/make 14:35:03 mc: testable statements for techniques - thoughts? 14:35:29 mc: my own view is that techniques should be testable, but test files are more amenable to testable statements 14:36:17 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 bc: at one point, we talked about techniques titles/tasks as true false statements, does that address this? 14:37:43 cr: didn't we decide to leave the testable statements to tests? 14:39:25 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 mc: not sure, leaning toward leaving testable statements to tests, but you're right that there are issues 14:41:09 tb: have to have some way to identify that a technique has been completed 14:41:44 mc: now, we've got tests, which make techniques testable, which make the guidelines testable 14:42:12 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 dm: reason a task was there in the first place was to make it testable - is that right? 14:43:23 tb: I think that's the correct sense 14:43:34 scribe: David 14:44:24 dm: task has been an annoying thing because it is redundant. We could fix the title and dump the task 14:44:33 test 14:45:12 bc: said the above, let's strike the task and fix the title 14:45:53 cr: so the title would be the technique??? 14:46:00 action: editors remove from technique and make technique title what is now , remove that element altogether 14:46:13 cr:fix above so the title would be the task??? 14:46:38 bc: ie using orderedl list in HTML, the techniques ould describe that 14:46:56 mc: good idea but we need to deal with the tesable statement issue 14:47:21 mc: do we want to declare a testable statement? 14:48:06 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 mc: othing preventing us to do that, xml allows that possibility, and our id's allow that 14:49:01 cr: output format, not input 14:49:23 mc: should not be a requirement but we can easily do that, ugly but beautiful 14:49:57 mc: baseline, propose we put it off to the face to face 14:50:56 bc: baseline is a good tart and we can cross reference it 14:51:31 mc: propose yes we need requiremtns and they belong a WCAG level so let's propose to working group 14:51:42 bc: wording implies we would find it there 14:52:04 mc: can ben post a short email to group on that 14:52:07 bc: sure 14:52:19 action: ben talk with editors about req for guide doc in WCAG req 14:52:47 mc: checklist, neet to rework checklist, how to go about it???? 14:53:10 bc: maybe not too much work, because checklist are SC. we would just describe that 14:53:20 bc: I can take a stab at that 14:53:24 action: ben propose updated checklists section of requirements 14:54:32 mc: Checklists must meet all SC, but Techniques only meet SC possible in tech ? need to harmonize 14:55:04 action: michael clarify techniques for some sc but checklists must meet all sc 14:55:26 zakim, close this item 14:55:26 agendum 1 closed 14:55:27 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 14:55:28 2. Begin planning FtF, possibly breaking up to work on issues [from ben] 14:55:48 zakim, take up next agendum 14:55:48 agendum 2. "Begin planning FtF, possibly breaking up to work on issues" taken up [from ben] 14:56:14 mc: f2f planning. meeting in brussels, week of june 13-16 14:57:18 mc: who can make it? Becky, Ben in, David and Chris out 14:58:29 Christophe_Strobb will be there, john, Yvette (perhaps) Wendy 14:58:37 Christophe Strobbe 14:59:57 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 mc: want good draft of html, css and script, 15:01:36 dm: does css, html go together. 15:01:42 mc: woll put it on agenda 15:01:47 wool=will 15:01:57 woll=will 15:03:32 -Tim_Boland 15:03:33 Have to go - another meeting - have a good day 15:03:34 tim: I ave to go, 15:03:36 Tim has left #wai-wcag 15:03:55 s/ave/have 15:04:01 :-) 15:05:30 mc: what are we going to do to make the f2f task focues 15:06:34 dm: gt lots of homework beforehand 15:07:23 mc: yup, need to get a lot of homework done 15:07:37 mc: people at home should have hwk done too 15:08:08 mc: people at home do clear homework 15:08:48 mc: does breakup subgroups of 2 make sense? 15:08:57 dm: yup 15:09:48 mc: task groups should cross fertilize not do stuff that can be done by email or phone 15:10:58 bg: andi will probably be there 15:11:06 mc: might see Takayuki? 15:12:28 zakim, close this item 15:12:28 agendum 2 closed 15:12:33 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:12:34 3. Continue review of 1.1, 2.4, 4.2 [from ben] 15:14:38 zakim, take up next agendum 15:14:38 agendum 3. "Continue review of 1.1, 2.4, 4.2 " taken up [from ben] 15:14:53 -Dave_MacDonald 15:17:49 +Dave_MacDonald 15:21:50 mc: let's dive into 1.3, the agenda say 1.1 that's a typo 15:22:13 scribe: Becky_Gibson 15:22:35 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0360.html 15:23:26 dm: 4.2 issues summary - GL is state of flux; additional meetings ongoing with other WG members 15:23:34 dm: not many open issues 15:24:02 dm: looked at techniques mapping 15:24:21 bc: mapping doc just pulls info from the techs themselves 15:24:59 dm: doesn't think 12.10 is mapped correctly 15:26:09 dm: interpretted mapping incorrectly - David read as 12.1 but it really is 12.10 - so mapping IS correct 15:26:33 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 bm: reason for map was probably due to using technologies access features 15:27:19 bc: (prev. comment by bc also) has to do with putting just an image in a frame 15:27:48 mc: if link frame directly to image there is no way to provide alt text - 15:28:14 mc: can see why progammatic object is confusing - really interested in objects without access. features 15:28:50 dm: didn't make that distinction - was really thinking about programmatic object; think of 4.2 dealing with non HTML techs 15:29:14 bc: there is no UAAG compliant UA that deals with images only 15:29:52 dm: wording of programmatic object implies one thing; frames seems like a broken part of HTML 15:30:19 mc: images can be thought of as non HTML; but WCAG2.0 is trying to be non tech specific 15:31:09 bc: suggest map 14.5 to GL 1.1 rather than 4.2 15:31:51 mc: back to 12.10 - this is really baseline related 15:32:59 dm: will a web page be more accessible if we leave this tech. out? (not providing link to access. viewer) 15:33:29 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 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 dm: do other standards have this req. other than 508? 15:34:45 mc: think it is picked up on inconsistently 15:35:20 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 mc: seems like every Canadian govt. has that link to download pdf reader 15:36:04 dm: propose removing tech. 12.10 15:36:18 dm: thinks 12.2 maps to 4.2 15:36:30 dm: as tech not supported tech it depends on baseline outcome 15:36:51 action: editors map HTML 14.5 to guideline 1.1 15:37:35 dm: suggest remove the editiorial note from 12.2 15:38:04 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 mc: for techs outside of the baseline need to provide fallbacks under GL 1.1 15:38:26 dm: everything has to be avail in text 15:38:32 mc: only if outside of baseline 15:38:53 dm: but has to be text for everything? 15:39:23 mc: think Wendy is addressing this issue - don't think we are forcing text only 15:39:49 mc: ex: if flash is in baseline and you've made the flash access we don't req. text alternative 15:40:29 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 dm: still concerned about people creating an unreasonable baseline 15:41:08 bc: that is why we need to provide guidance on reasonable baseline and assume policy makers will enforce 15:41:46 bc: think 12.2 could go away entirely but might need new techniques to cover for specific baselines 15:42:09 dm: can agree to remove the technique 15:42:29 bg: rec. is to remove 12.2?? 15:42:51 mc: 1.1 plus baseline seems to clarify 12.2 so perhaps it can go 15:43:07 dm: have to think of interplay of what people will actually do and what we think they will do 15:43:50 mc: propose remapping 12.2 to 1.1 to force us to address this during 1.1 disussion 15:44:09 action: editors map HTML 12.2 to guideline 1.1 15:44:20 dm: 12.3 alt content for programmatic content - suggest deleting it since covered by tech 12.4 15:44:45 mc: seems it has already been remapped to 1.1 in Feb. 11 draft 15:45:05 mc: so probably need to update the mapping 15:45:30 mc: have issues with these techs beyond where they belong 15:45:57 dm: thought the whole section 12 should be mapped to 4.2 15:46:22 dm: fail to see distinction between 12.3 and 12.4 15:46:49 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 mc: so maybe 12.4 needs to be removed and 12.3 reworked 15:47:36 dm: suggest dlink tech as repair tech for 12.4 15:48:04 dm: but dlink usage has sort of flopped - people don't understand what it is 15:49:43 mc: take dm comments about 12.4 and apply to 12.3 and remove 12.4 15:50:14 mc: someone posted to list about object content being a fallback when object tech. not support - not as an alternative 15:50:37 bc: somewhat ambiguous in HTML spec - issues with alternatives 15:51:01 bc: AT's should be smart enough to query for alternative info regardless of techs installed 15:52:03 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 bc: aren't AT's looking at the source code? 15:52:32 mc: no, IE based ATs are looking at the DOM and text for object isn't in the DOM 15:54:00 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 dm: very frustrating to have to still rely on dlinks or other older techs 15:55:12 dm: maybe we should say "until user agents..." 15:55:25 mc: perhaps address through baseline 15:55:50 mc: best tech is text desciption outside of