IRC log of wai-wcag on 2005-05-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:56:26 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
19:56:27 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:56:40 [ben]
Meeting: WCAG Weekly Teleconference
19:56:41 [ben]
19:57:18 [ben]
19:57:41 [ben]
Chair: John_Slatin, Gregg_Vanderheiden
19:58:07 [ben]
agenda+ Agenda review and Face to Face announcements (5 minutes)
19:58:10 [Makoto]
Makoto has joined #wai-wcag
19:58:13 [ben]
agenda+ Techniques Task Force report (Michael: 5 minutes)
19:58:20 [ben]
agenda+ GL 4.2, continued (def. of baseline and revised proposal) (25 minutes)
19:58:31 [ben]
agenda+ GL 1.3, continued (25 minutes)
19:58:37 [ben]
agenda+ GL 2.5 (25 minutes)
19:58:49 [ben]
agenda+ GL 3.1 (25 minutes)
19:58:58 [ben]
agenda+ Wrap-up and looking ahead
19:59:04 [Christophe_Strobb]
Christophe_Strobb has joined #wai-wcag
19:59:18 [ben]
RRSAgent, make log world
19:59:23 [ben]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
19:59:23 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ben
20:00:09 [Christophe_Strobb]
Christophe_Strobb has joined #wai-wcag
20:00:27 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started
20:00:34 [Zakim]
20:01:00 [Zakim]
20:01:03 [ben]
zakim, ??P2 is Ben
20:01:03 [Zakim]
+Ben; got it
20:01:07 [Zakim]
20:01:08 [ben]
zakim, I am ben
20:01:09 [Zakim]
ok, ben, I now associate you with Ben
20:01:15 [Zakim]
20:01:42 [Zakim]
20:02:04 [Zakim]
+ +1.610.738.aaaa
20:02:10 [bengt]
bengt has joined #wai-wcag
20:02:27 [Zakim]
20:02:30 [bengt]
zakim, what conferences ?
20:02:30 [Zakim]
I see WAI_WCAG()4:00PM, XML_QueryWG(ttf)3:00PM active
20:02:31 [Zakim]
also scheduled at this time are WAI_UAWG()2:00PM, SW_BPD(oed)3:00PM
20:02:38 [Zakim]
20:02:52 [Andi]
Andi has joined #wai-wcag
20:03:01 [Zakim]
20:03:07 [ben]
zakim, 1.610 is John_Slatin
20:03:07 [Zakim]
sorry, ben, I do not recognize a party named '1.610'
20:03:16 [Becky_Gibson]
Becky_Gibson has joined #wai-wcag
20:03:23 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.558.aabb - is perhaps Sebastiano_Nutarelli?
20:03:25 [ben]
zakim, +1.610.738.aaaa is John_Slatin
20:03:25 [Zakim]
+John_Slatin; got it
20:03:35 [Christophe_Strobb]
zakim, Christophe_Strobb is Christophe_Strobbe
20:03:35 [Zakim]
+Christophe_Strobbe; got it
20:03:40 [bengt]
zakim, +1.202.558.aabb is Bengt_Farre
20:03:40 [Zakim]
sorry, bengt, I do not recognize a party named '+1.202.558.aabb'
20:03:43 [Zakim]
20:03:53 [ben]
zakim, [IBM] is Andi
20:03:53 [Zakim]
+Andi; got it
20:04:08 [ben]
zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta
20:04:08 [Zakim]
+Mike_Barta; got it
20:04:14 [ben]
zakim, who is here?
20:04:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Michael_Cooper, Ben, Alex_Li, Christophe_Strobbe.a, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, John_Slatin, Andi, JasonWhite, Mike_Barta, Becky_Gibson, Sebastiano_Nutarelli?
20:04:17 [bengt]
zakim, 1.202.558.aabb is Bengt_Farre
20:04:17 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Becky_Gibson, Andi, bengt, Christophe_Strobb, Makoto, RRSAgent, Zakim, Michael, ben
20:04:19 [Zakim]
sorry, bengt, I do not recognize a party named '1.202.558.aabb'
20:04:46 [bengt]
zakim, Sebastiano is Bengt_Farre
20:04:46 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
20:04:54 [bengt]
zakim, who is here ?
20:04:54 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Michael_Cooper, Ben, Alex_Li, Christophe_Strobbe.a, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, John_Slatin, Andi, JasonWhite, Mike_Barta, Becky_Gibson, Bengt_Farre
20:04:57 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Becky_Gibson, Andi, bengt, Christophe_Strobb, Makoto, RRSAgent, Zakim, Michael, ben
20:05:26 [Zakim]
20:05:44 [ben]
zakim, [IPcaller] is Makoto
20:05:44 [Zakim]
+Makoto; got it
20:06:39 [ben]
20:07:01 [ben]
zakim, take up agendum 1
20:07:01 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Agenda review and Face to Face announcements (5 minutes)" taken up [from ben]
20:07:46 [ben]
js: 2.4 not on agenda today due to discussions/proposals in progress (not quite ready for group review)
20:08:24 [Zakim]
+ +1.614.424.aacc
20:08:42 [ben]
js: logistics info for June F2F had been updated
20:08:48 [ben]
20:09:01 [ben]
js: if you plan to attend, please register and make reservations as soon as possible
20:09:41 [ben]
zakim, close this item
20:09:41 [Zakim]
agendum 1 closed
20:09:43 [Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
20:09:44 [Zakim]
2. Techniques Task Force report (Michael: 5 minutes) [from ben]
20:10:04 [ben]
zakim, +1.614.424.aacc is Gregg
20:10:04 [Zakim]
+Gregg; got it
20:10:23 [ben]
mc: discussed requirements, many action items pending
20:11:07 [ben]
mc: in discussing this, there was an issue to address where requirements for the guide doc belongs
20:11:37 [ben]
mc: change to structure of techniques was to remove short name and replace with what is currently task to reduce confusion
20:11:55 [ben]
mc: still need to do some work on impact of baseline on techniques - for F2F agenda
20:12:36 [ben]
mc: also talked about F2F agenda - lots to talk about (baseline, structure of techniques, test cases, techniques, etc..) we'll be asking people to do a lot of advance homework so we can be focused at F2F
20:12:57 [ben]
mc: also reviewed techniques for 4.2, which is related to 4.2 guideline discussions
20:13:43 [ben]
js: question about F2F - is it your expectation that techniques proposals will be discussed beforehand for presentation to full group or is the goal to write and revise proposals at the F2F
20:14:03 [ben]
mc: hope is proposals will be made before the meeting, will likely result in propsoals to the larger group
20:14:10 [ben]
js: other questions?
20:14:18 [ben]
zakim, close this item
20:14:18 [Zakim]
I do not know what agendum had been taken up, ben
20:14:27 [ben]
zakim, close agendum 1
20:14:27 [Zakim]
agendum 1 closed
20:14:28 [Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
20:14:29 [Zakim]
2. Techniques Task Force report (Michael: 5 minutes) [from ben]
20:14:43 [ben]
zakim, take up agendum 2
20:14:43 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Techniques Task Force report (Michael: 5 minutes)" taken up [from ben]
20:14:51 [ben]
definition of baseline:
20:15:03 [ben]
revised proposal:
20:15:32 [ben]
js: consensus on definition of baseline first, will postpone discussion on conformance propsosal because that still needs work
20:16:02 [ben]
loretta reads latest def of baseline (URI above)
20:16:58 [ben]
js: motion is that we call for consensus on definition as read, accompanied by the notes
20:17:18 [ben]
js: has been a lot of discussion on this on the list, hope we're ready for consensus - anyone want to speak against?
20:17:26 [ben]
js: any objection to unanimous consent?
20:17:31 [ben]
-- no objections --
20:17:54 [ben]
resolved: accept definition of baseline as proposed (
20:18:46 [ben]
js: let's look at other pieces of 4.2 proposal, a number of reccs. to add existing SC under other guidelines that in effect would distribute the work of 4.2 throughout the guidelines
20:19:31 [ben]
lgr: most of these are SC derived by our excercise of going through UAAG P1 items
20:20:12 [ben]
lgr: there are 6 proposed SC, we'd like feedback about whether they make sense, are appropriate, etc.
20:20:36 [ben]
lgr: one proposal about reading order to be discussed in 2.4 subgroup (proposal in development)
20:21:14 [ben]
lgr: several proposals to add SC to 1.3 - one of them is about role state and value info be available - another is that the label of UI controls can be prog. determined and are explicitly associated with controls
20:21:35 [ben]
lgr: both have to do with ensuring info about interactive content is exposed appropriately
20:22:10 [ben]
lgr: sc for 2.1 (keyboard operation) that state and value that can be changed via UI can also be changed programmatically
20:22:14 [joeclark]
joeclark has joined #wai-wcag
20:22:51 [ben]
lgr: final is a proposal for 2.4 about changes to content, value, ...., focus and relationships of content (idea is AT needs to know when changes have happened)
20:23:08 [Zakim]
20:23:12 [ben]
lgr: that's the quick overview of proposed SC that came out of the UAAG analysis
20:23:18 [ben]
zakim, ??P0 is Joe_Clark
20:23:18 [Zakim]
+Joe_Clark; got it
20:23:32 [Becky_Gibson]
20:23:48 [ben]
js: comments or questions?
20:23:51 [Michael]
q+ to say like the proposals, question the home of the 2.4 one
20:24:03 [ben]
ack Becky
20:24:52 [ben]
bg: question on 2.1 - can you give an example? - am thinking about a handler to respond to an event - is that handler considered programmatic or do I now have to have a separate set of APIs that take particular information?
20:25:02 [ben]
lgr: interesting question
20:25:18 [ben]
bg: guess I don't understand exactly what that means
20:26:06 [ben]
asw: my question is that if we require that everything be keyboard operable and you can in effect activate through keyboard input, then I'm not sure we need this SC
20:26:11 [Michael]
ack andi
20:26:45 [ben]
gv: one of my questions was that if everything can be done from the keyboard, then what was the goal with going beyond?
20:27:16 [ben]
lgr: looking through notes to see why we added this - should I take this back to the list?
20:27:33 [Michael]
ack Michael
20:27:34 [Zakim]
Michael_Cooper, you wanted to say like the proposals, question the home of the 2.4 one
20:27:36 [ben]
action: loretta to post answer to Becky's question to the list
20:27:45 [Becky_Gibson]
20:28:38 [ben]
mc: I like them, the one proposed for 2.4 (changes to content, structure, selection...), feels very much like it doesn't belong in 2.4 based on our latest discussions, but think we should include it in WCAG somewhere, just not sure where
20:30:04 [ben]
bg: I have similar questions about the one for guideline 1.3 (role state and value can be programmatically determined...) To me, that seems like a future type proposal. Right now, that's done for you by the user agent. Only way I could do it today is to use some of the work on DHTML roadmap. Means I can't try to create a component using JavaScript today.
20:30:15 [ben]
lgr: question is whether that is a result we'd like
20:30:37 [Michael]
ack becky
20:30:39 [ben]
lgr: this req. would say that authors can't do this today, but when DHTML roadmap is done, then they will be able to do it
20:30:39 [Michael]
ack andi
20:30:55 [ben]
asw: what about a plugin or something written in another programming language?
20:31:00 [ben]
bg: then they could do that today
20:31:20 [joeclark]
20:31:30 [ben]
asw: is this related to software req. in 508 about exposing information programmatically about objects
20:31:56 [ben]
ack joe
20:32:11 [ben]
jc: can someone clarify at what level the SC is that everything must be keyboard operable
20:32:13 [ben]
gv: level 1
20:32:31 [ben]
jc: 2 issues with that - there are some things that can never be keyboard operable
20:33:14 [ben]
jc: point 2, there is work being done for submission to w3c about drag and drop interactions
20:33:33 [ben]
gv: is drag and drop support cut and paste?
20:33:43 [ben]
jc: check Ian Hickson's log (I'll post a URI)
20:34:10 [joeclark]
HTML 5 features for drag 'n' drop from Ian Hickson:
20:34:11 [joeclark]
20:34:13 [ben]
lgr: will always be the case that there is content that is valid, but not accessible - still need to look at what additional constraints might need to be established
20:35:04 [ben]
js: we're about 25 minutes into this one, should wrap up soon. we have one action item so far
20:35:29 [ben]
lgr: second item to look at proposal for 2.4 and see if there is a better home for it
20:35:55 [ben]
action: loretta consider alternative placement for proposed 2.4 criterion
20:36:09 [ben]
zakim, close this item
20:36:09 [Zakim]
agendum 2 closed
20:36:11 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
20:36:12 [Zakim]
3. GL 4.2, continued (def. of baseline and revised proposal) (25 minutes) [from ben]
20:36:38 [ben]
zakim, take up agendum 3
20:36:38 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "GL 4.2, continued (def. of baseline and revised proposal) (25 minutes)" taken up [from ben]
20:37:19 [ben]
john reviews proposals
20:37:25 [joeclark]
20:37:40 [ben]
proposed SC:
20:37:57 [ben]
ack Lore
20:37:59 [ben]
ack joe
20:39:05 [ben]
jc: I had a brainstorm - these days we're on this kick to avoid overlaps and redundancies in the guidelines - occured to me if we're recasting 1.3 as use web standards, obvious one is 4.1 (use spec). my big thing on that is we should require valid code at all times (presently a level 2)
20:39:42 [ben]
jc: the other one is 2.4 (orientation) - seems that one is trickier, a lot of that has to do with structural markup, link elements, sections and subsections, etc.
20:40:01 [joeclark]
20:40:08 [ben]
jc: am wondering if 4.1, and possibly 2.4 should be moved under 1.3
20:41:00 [ben]
js: point of info about joe's proposals - in keeping with that effort to avoid unnecessary overlap, group discussing 2.4 the other day (yvette, michael, myself so far) was to figure out how not to have them overlap.
20:41:20 [ben]
js: lets see where that goes before we take up joe's suggestion to combine
20:42:06 [ben]
gv: point of clarification - 1.3 was about separating struct. etc. you had said we're rewriting it into use web stds. - wasn't sure what you meant by that, use web stds. is more under 4.1 (use spec)
20:42:40 [Michael]
ack john
20:42:42 [Michael]
ack gregg
20:42:43 [ben]
jc: for our own ease of abbr. reference, we can say that my proposal for 1.3 boils down to "use web standards"
20:42:47 [ben]
ack lor
20:43:43 [ben]
lgr: joe, I think just boiling this down to "use web standards" is missing part of the goal here. (ex. PDF had to do some things to include structure in their specs - older PDF versions do not)
20:45:28 [ben]
jc: just read something today (will post URI) that said you have to use latest versions of a W3C technolgy, which implies that you have to use XHTML 1.1 today. Loretta's example, there would be ways to encourage use of latest versions that do include the structure we need
20:45:49 [joeclark]
Paper that mentions logical contradictions in WCAG 1.0:
20:46:10 [ben]
gv: 2 items you mentioned (if you have structure, use it) PDF had structure, but AT couldn't access it ...
20:46:39 [joeclark]
"Forcing Standardization or Accommodating Diversity? A Framework for Applying the WCAG in the Real World"
20:47:10 [ben]
gv: can have structure in a standard, but no way for UA to access that structure
20:47:19 [ben]
jc: but now you're dealing with user agents
20:48:22 [ben]
gv: has come up a number of times, ex. for a while, apple had no screen reader, saying that if there was a screenreader, it could be made accessible... that's one of the issues we still have is how we create a fairly bright line about what passes and what doesn't
20:49:04 [ben]
jc: sounds like you're restating the inaccuracy that PDF can't be read - better example than PDF (because that's contentious)
20:49:33 [ben]
gv: one of the things we're looking at is when new techs come out, we want to be sure guidelines are written so that something that conforms is actually something that is accessible
20:49:37 [ben]
jc: you mean like SVG?
20:49:48 [ben]
gv: yes, that kind of a situation, need to look at why and how
20:49:51 [ben]
20:50:00 [ben]
ack gv
20:50:02 [ben]
ack gregg
20:51:03 [ben]
lgr: I think the issue about whether something is theoretically or actually accessible is the baseline question that we've been talking around - think we'll be writing guidelines for which its possible to be theoretically accessible, but need to rely on whomever sets baseline to make sure they are reasonable and that techs in use contain sufficient support
20:51:28 [ben]
lgr: I would claim that earlier PDF versions coulnd't be made accessible, wasn't until spec was updated that we could address some of these things
20:52:19 [Michael]
scribe: Michael
20:52:30 [joeclark]
20:52:35 [joeclark]
is my previous proposal.
20:54:57 [Michael]
jc: SC 2 we have decided this is implicit in using to spec
20:56:06 [Michael]
jc: trying to persuade authors to use structured formats when possible
20:56:22 [Michael]
jc: know that not always available
20:56:48 [Michael]
gv: this is not just part of "use according to spec"
20:57:33 [Michael]
gv: but might be correct within context of first SC - Structures within the document can be programmatically determined.
20:57:48 [Michael]
gv: don't know if that will be Level 1 because there are times you can't
20:58:27 [Michael]
jc: e.g., <embed>, but I no solution yet; nevertheless most Web content forever and ever will be in HTML so it's pretty relevant to majority of cases
20:58:46 [Michael]
jc: don't oppose keeping L1 SC 2, just think it could be moved
20:59:02 [ben]
20:59:26 [joeclark]
um, not "forever and ever"-- within the lifetime of WCAG 2.
20:59:54 [ben]
ack Lor
20:59:59 [joeclark]
21:00:23 [Michael]
lgr: introduces testability problems
21:00:43 [Zakim]
21:01:34 [Michael]
jc: accept an imperfect world but don't want a site to fail because of edge cases
21:02:10 [Michael]
gv: remember anything that can't pass our requirements are barred from any site claiming WCAG conformance
21:02:30 [Zakim]
21:02:41 [Michael]
jc: e.g., <b> and <i> vs <strong> and <em>
21:03:03 [Michael]
jc: Ruby in Japanese only in XHTML, so in HTML it's a fudge
21:03:14 [Zakim]
21:03:20 [bengt]
bengt has left #wai-wcag
21:03:30 [joeclark]
21:03:34 [joeclark]
21:03:40 [Michael]
q+ jason
21:03:56 [ben]
ack jason
21:04:53 [Michael]
jw: issues with proposal, will respond on list because of connection difficulties with phone today
21:05:29 [Michael]
jw: would like proposals extracted from discussion
21:05:31 [Michael]
js: will do
21:05:33 [ben]
ack andi
21:05:51 [Michael]
asw: "Structural markup or coding is used as required by technology spec" to resolve testability issue
21:06:04 [Michael]
asw: not sure if this deals with Ruby example though
21:06:22 [Michael]
gv: works if you only use tech that allows you to encode structure
21:06:51 [Michael]
gv: issue if you use tech according to spec, and use a tech w/o structure, you pass without having to provide structure
21:07:16 [Michael]
asw: not clear why we need it, L1 SC1 covers what we need
21:07:32 [ben]
21:07:36 [joeclark]
21:08:02 [Michael]
gv: collpase SC 2 into SC1?
21:08:12 [Michael]
jc: not opposed, some issues to work out
21:08:20 [joeclark]
hold on.
21:08:23 [Michael]
ack ben
21:08:33 [joeclark]
Bare-bones language:
21:08:59 [Michael]
bc: advantage of SC2 gives us a better hook for techniques to say which parts of spec are more important than others - which types of structural markup sufficieint for a given baseline
21:09:23 [joeclark]
21:09:59 [Michael]
gv: SC2 says _how_ to provide what SC1 requires
21:10:26 [Michael]
jc: which causes greater harm? a) keep both b) collapse 2 into 1
21:10:53 [Michael]
jc: probably b is greater harm because harder to explain; a is just a little redundant
21:11:34 [Michael]
gv: semantics = meaning for a lot of people, might read it as use structural markup to encode meaning of doc;
21:11:53 [Michael]
gv: need to explain narrower def of semantics
21:12:11 [Michael]
jc: this is understood among web standards people and least of our problems
21:12:32 [Michael]
js: let's move discussion to week
21:12:36 [Michael]
21:12:48 [joeclark]
and the least of our problems with hard-to-understand terminology.
21:13:24 [Michael]
zakim, close this item
21:13:24 [Zakim]
agendum 3 closed
21:13:25 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
21:13:26 [Zakim]
4. GL 1.3, continued (25 minutes) [from ben]
21:13:30 [Michael]
zakim, take up item 4
21:13:30 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "GL 1.3, continued (25 minutes)" taken up [from ben]
21:13:35 [Michael]
zakim, close this item
21:13:35 [Zakim]
agendum 4 closed
21:13:36 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
21:13:37 [Zakim]
5. GL 2.5 (25 minutes) [from ben]
21:13:43 [Michael]
zakim, take up next item
21:13:43 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "GL 2.5 (25 minutes)" taken up [from ben]
21:13:48 [joeclark]
also, Success Criterion 2 is all about edge cases. and *I'm* all about edge cases. so we can be reasonably confident that we will take many examples into account by the time we're done.
21:14:46 [Michael]
asw: issues resolved by proposal
21:15:11 [Michael]
asw: 1343 user errors - might offend users - change to "input error"
21:16:22 [Michael]
asw: 1521 assist user to enter correct data e.g., input mask - propose new L3 SC (specific case so at L3)
21:16:44 [Michael]
asw: <reads proposal as edited by Ben>
21:17:10 [Michael]
asw: concern this is really usability, not accessibility, but at L3 don't care much
21:17:12 [Michael]
ack ale
21:17:42 [Michael]
asw: that's my concern too, does it mean *must* provide input support all the time?
21:18:10 [Michael]
asw: more input mask stuff, when applicable
21:18:58 [Michael]
asw: look at Yvette's proposal
21:19:00 [Michael]
ack g
21:19:23 [Michael]
gv: accessibility extension of usability, could put all of usability here
21:19:38 [Michael]
gv: bright line is, would this stop people from being able to enter data correctly
21:20:09 [Michael]
gv: do sites actually have secret input requirements?
21:20:12 [Michael]
chorus: yes
21:20:20 [ben]
21:20:28 [Michael]
gv: but is it a specific problem to PWD
21:20:35 [Michael]
ack b
21:20:41 [Michael]
bc: maybe this is a general technique
21:21:21 [Michael]
js: trip planner on Austin bus has specific requirements and doesn't tell you
21:21:55 [Michael]
My student loan site requires I enter payments a certain number of days in the future but doesn't tell me how many until I enter a date not far enough out
21:22:26 [Michael]
jc: <another example, scribe missed it>
21:22:33 [Michael]
asw: this is issue for everyone
21:22:35 [Michael]
21:23:22 [Michael]
ack alex
21:23:30 [Michael]
ack mike
21:24:37 [Michael]
ack mi
21:24:40 [Michael]
ack al
21:25:09 [Michael]
mc: error recovery could be really painful for PWD, so better to have error prevention
21:25:18 [Michael]
al: error recover already covered
21:25:56 [Michael]
gv: this is one of many techniques under category of "do what you can to help users prevent errors"
21:26:01 [Michael]
js: so a technique, not SC
21:26:27 [Michael]
ack g
21:26:30 [joeclark]
the example I gave was library (especially Library of Congress) subject headings, which are extremely hard to type exactly.
21:26:37 [Michael]
gv: seems more advisory than requirement
21:26:58 [Michael]
asw: let's not add the SC
21:27:59 [Michael]
asw: 1524 SC 3 not testable as worded, "significant" and "important"
21:28:06 [Michael]
asw: tried to quantify those terms
21:28:20 [Makoto]
Makoto has joined #wai-wcag
21:28:34 [Michael]
ack g
21:29:03 [Michael]
gv: usually worry about lists of conditions, but proposal is better than previous
21:29:26 [Michael]
gv: could miss an area but too bad, we can live with this since it's more objective, therefore support it
21:29:36 [Michael]
ack al
21:30:31 [Michael]
al: concept of financial transaction difficult to define since for me everything is it
21:30:57 [Michael]
asw: might make sense to move to L3 since it's so specific
21:31:07 [Michael]
gv: so easy to meet might be good to leave at L2
21:31:56 [Michael]
al: probably ok but impacts a lot of stuff
21:33:10 [Michael]
al: feels like this SC is written specially for SAP and Oracle
21:33:18 [Michael]
asw: meant to be for online banking etc.
21:33:45 [Michael]
js: live with for now?
21:33:49 [Michael]
al: ok, but will examine later
21:34:04 [Michael]
gv: add "legal" to conditions
21:34:56 [Michael]
al: change "occur" to "conclude"
21:35:28 [Michael]
gv: they're synonymous in this situation
21:36:35 [Michael]
js: accept proposal w/ addition of legal?
21:36:41 [joeclark]
joeclark has left #wai-wcag
21:36:44 [Zakim]
21:36:46 [Michael]
jw: financial is a subset of legal
21:38:00 [Michael]
gv: having them as pair useful
21:39:03 [Michael]
js: unanimous consent
21:39:17 [Michael]
zakim, close this item
21:39:17 [Zakim]
agendum 5 closed
21:39:18 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
21:39:19 [Zakim]
6. GL 3.1 (25 minutes) [from ben]
21:39:25 [Michael]
zakim, take up next item
21:39:25 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "GL 3.1 (25 minutes)" taken up [from ben]
21:40:20 [Michael]
oops, still on previous item
21:40:40 [Michael]
bc: propose we go ahead and reject the issues Andi proposed we reject
21:41:31 [Michael]
js: unanimous consent
21:41:43 [Michael]
action: Andi inform DRC of our suggestion
21:42:16 [Michael]
action: Andi submit updated proposal to list
21:42:28 [Michael]
now we're on this item
21:42:49 [Michael]
js: 63 open issues
21:43:09 [Michael]
js: many focused on L3 SC re a statement that you've done your best is present
21:44:07 [Michael]
js: some opposition to concept of a statement as a req, others concerned list of strategies weren't internationalizable, others concerned 3.1 too subjective and under heading of usability
21:45:25 [Michael]
js: trying to find ways to write internationalized SC (thanks Makato and Takayuki), and to introduce testable stuff
21:46:14 [Michael]
js: focused on education level and "readability forumulae"
21:46:37 [Michael]
js: such formulae focus on word length, sentence length, syntactic complexity
21:47:02 [Michael]
js: they assume shorter is better
21:47:09 [Michael]
js: they're really about decoding, not understanding
21:48:19 [Michael]
js: don't like readability indices but they are useful for certain reading disabilities where disability is around decoding, leaving less over for comprehension
21:48:57 [Michael]
js: readability measurements usually expressed in terms of grade level aka education level
21:49:23 [Michael]
js: could use that as a target around which to write techniques
21:50:08 [Michael]
js: at level 1 introduced SC for description of educational level of intended audience
21:50:46 [Michael]
js: can use international standard for education classification
21:52:11 [Michael]
js: then at level 2 can ask content to meet upper secondary level or provide alternative version(s)
21:52:29 [Michael]
js: since we assume average Web user has high school / upper secondary education
21:53:30 [Michael]
js: also L2 SC re definitions of all words broken into two, one for definitions and one for pronunciation (move to L3)
21:54:13 [Michael]
js: L2 SC re idioms, and L3 SC programmatic location of definitions of words used in a particular sense, combined into one L3 SC
21:55:00 [Michael]
js: wrote guide doc for each of these SC to test the concept and explain further the proposals
21:55:29 [Michael]
gv: where is all this?
21:55:58 [Michael]
js: in attachment, .bak extension but is HTML
21:57:30 [Makoto]
Makoto has joined #wai-wcag
21:58:23 [Michael]
gv: L1 SC3 description of intended audience - generally we don't include SC that don't change accessibility, but this is just reporting; also some orgs can't report
21:58:55 [Michael]
js: guide describes benefits for content selection
21:59:07 [Michael]
gv: doesn't change accessibility, makes it easier to find accessible version
21:59:44 [Michael]
asw: education level is problematic, can have high education yet have LD clearly in scope here
22:00:35 [Michael]
js: describing education doesn't change access of doc, because people with LD at all education levels
22:00:44 [Michael]
js: Dublin Core has an education level metatag
22:00:53 [Michael]
ack al
22:01:06 [Michael]
al: applicable to all languages?
22:01:10 [Michael]
js: yes, think so
22:03:44 [ben]
22:03:53 [ben]
zakim, close agendum 6
22:03:53 [Zakim]
agendum 6 closed
22:03:54 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
22:03:55 [Zakim]
7. Wrap-up and looking ahead [from ben]
22:04:19 [Zakim]
22:04:20 [Zakim]
22:04:22 [ben]
zakim, close agendum 7
22:04:22 [Zakim]
agendum 7 closed
22:04:23 [Zakim]
I see nothing remaining on the agenda
22:04:38 [Zakim]
22:04:39 [Zakim]
22:04:39 [Zakim]
22:04:41 [Zakim]
22:04:42 [Zakim]
22:04:43 [Zakim]
22:04:46 [ben]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
22:04:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ben
22:04:57 [Zakim]
22:04:57 [Andi]
Andi has left #wai-wcag
22:05:33 [Zakim]
22:05:55 [Zakim]
22:06:30 [Zakim]
22:06:32 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
22:06:33 [Zakim]
Attendees were Michael_Cooper, Ben, Alex_Li, Christophe_Strobbe, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, JasonWhite, +1.202.558.aabb, John_Slatin, Becky_Gibson, Andi, Mike_Barta, Bengt_Farre,
22:06:35 [Zakim]
... Makoto, Gregg, Joe_Clark
22:07:50 [Christophe_Strobb]
Christophe_Strobb has left #wai-wcag
22:08:25 [ben]
Present: Michael_Cooper, Ben, Alex_Li, Christophe_Strobbe, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, JasonWhite, +1.202.558.aabb, John_Slatin, Becky_Gibson, Andi, Mike_Barta, Bengt_Farre,
22:08:41 [ben]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
22:08:41 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ben
22:12:39 [ben]
ben has left #wai-wcag