WCAG WG weekly telecon -- 9 Jun 2005

<Yvette> Hello everyone

<rellero> Hi

<rscano> hi Yvette

<Yvette> Hi Robertos :-)

<rellero> Ciao

<jslatin> Hi, all.

<rscano> hi John

<jslatin> How are you, Roberto? Thanks for your work on GL 2.1.

<rscano> well thanks, writing my second accessibility book :)

<jslatin> Your *second* one? Wow.

<rscano> yep, first one was the first book in 4 format (4-in-one): paper, xhtml 1.0, tagged pdf and microsoft reader (all in one unique edition) :)

<rellero> ciao seb

<Sebastiano> ciao Rob :)

<Yvette> congraz on your second book RS

<Sebastiano> I'm back...

<Yvette> b

<Yvette> wb

<rcastaldo> Hi everybody :)

<rcastaldo> Ciao italians :)

<Yvette> Ciao Roberto#3

<rcastaldo> :D

<rcastaldo> Ciao Yvette

<bengt> who thinks he is me ?

<rcastaldo> I'm sorry, i wont be able to "hear" you... only irc tonight for me

<Yvette> RCastaldo, did you get my mail?

<Yvette> it might be tough to follow on IRC because of the new minute-strategy

<rcastaldo> No, Yvette..

<wendy> is one of the robertos on the phone?

<rscano> i'm trying but said: passcode not valid

<rcastaldo> It's not me

<bengt> chg my other name while Im out

<jslatin> lots of echo...

<jslatin> i think everyone should talk at once and we should record it for posterity

<rscano> i think the second bengt_farre is me

<wendy> rscano - can you drop please?

<rscano> ok

<rscano> i will recall now

<wendy> ok

<jslatin> echo echo cho o

<bengt> hmm, we are all going to be named the same :)

<Yvette> and then there's three!

<rcastaldo> :)

<Yvette> Do we have three echos now?

<rellero> yes

<rscano> ok I hangup and i call when lines will be best :)

<Yvette> RS, I will let you know on IRC when to rejoin

<rellero> I am seb

<bengt> nope that was really sebastiano

<bengt> shut down dialpad software and start over again it will select a new number

<Yvette> zakim +1.202.558.aagg is rellero

<rellero> :-I

<wendy> please - no one else call in with dialpad.

<wendy> it really confuses zakim.

<wendy> roberto scano - when we get to 2.1 i'll ask either sebastiano or roberto ellero to hang up.

<wendy> so that you can call in.

<rscano> ok

Agenda review and announcements (5 minutes)

<bengt> can someone tell zakim managers that dialpad uses a trunk

<wendy> bengt - if you have a summary of what you think the issue is, i can send it to our systeam. the more info, the better - to help them address the problem.

<bengt> ok

<wendy> scribe: wendy

discussion about what we're minuting: wcag wg dialog rather than individual comments. focus on resolutions and actions.

Techniques Task Force (5 minutes)

minutes from yesterday's telecon: http://www.w3.org/2005/06/08-wai-wcag-minutes.html

discussed - Review of SC with respect to Scripting and baseline, review of techniques related to guideline 1.3

plans for f2f

becky asks for input and feedback on post about scripting: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0680.html

please look at before F2F. becky prepping a proposal/draft for discussion next week.

the previous draft doesn't include 2.4, if someone wants to tackle before next week.

GL 2.4 (25 minutes)

results of 2.4 survey: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/navigation-mechanisms20050531/results

Proposed wording Level 1 SC 1: Navigational features can be programmatically determined. 16 propose, 2 current

concern about "navigational features"

resolution: adopt proposed wording for Level 1 SC 1: Navigational features can be programmatically determined. with definition of "navigational features"

discussing - Proposed wording Level 2 SC 1: Multiple ways to locate specific content within a set of delivery units are available.

14 proposed, 4 current

issues - "specific content" and "more than one" vs "multiple"

discussion of what was intended by "specific" content - in a sense it is "content that is desired by the user" but didn't want to include user in the SC. all adjectives are likely to be subjective.

delete the word "specific"?

no one disagrees

resolution: adopt Proposed wording Level 2 SC 1: More than one way is available to locate content within a set of delivery units.

discussing - Proposed wording Level 2 SC 2: Blocks of material that are repeated on multiple perceivable units are implemented so that they can be bypassed.

<Yvette> Or "A mechanism is provided to bypass blocks of material that are repeated on multiple perceivable units."?

16 proposed, 2 current

issues - editorial (wording), level

oops

ack s/material

<Yvette> ack "s

ack "s/m

<Zakim> Yvette, you wanted to say "a mechanism is provided to bypass blocks of material that are repeated on multiple perceivable units"

<Zakim> Michael_Cooper, you wanted to say I like the union of Ben and Wendy's comments, ending up with "Blocks of content that are repeated on multiple perceivable units can be bypassed by

discussion about author vs user agent responsibilities.

<Zakim> Michael_Cooper, you wanted to raise "perceivable" vs "delivery units" issue

resolution: adopt Proposed wording for Level 2 SC 2: Blocks of content that are repeated on multiple perceivable units are implemented so that they can be bypassed. [discuss perceivable unit vs delivery unit in guide doc]

discussing - Should we move current level 3 SC3 to Level 2 SC 3: Delivery units have descriptive titles?

12 yes (move), 5 no

js highlights that this is related to next item.

will treat together

(next item) - Proposed wording Level 2 SC 4: For each programmatic reference to another delivery unit, a title or description of that delivery unit can be programatically determined.

discussion about importance of adding titles.

<Zakim> Yvette, you wanted to say "navigation is of no use unless you know where you are and where you ended up"

discussion about accessibility issue (vs usability issue) about knowing where you will navigate to.

concern about "description of that delivery unit" being required for every link.

clarification that this addressess "click here" issue

resolution: concern about proposals. not ready to adopt. need more discussion. Proposed wording Level 2 SC 4: For each programmatic reference to another delivery unit, a title or description of that delivery unit can be programatically determined. and Should we move current level 3 SC3 to Level 2 SC 3: Delivery units have descriptive titles? [PENDING]

discussing - Should we remove level 3 SC 1: When content is arranged in a sequence that affects its meaning, that sequence can be determined programmatically?

15 proposed, 1 current

resolution: adopt removing level 3 SC 1: When content is arranged in a sequence that affects its meaning, that sequence can be determined programmatically and move it to principle 3

discussing - Should we remove level 2 SC 1: Documents that have five or more section headings and are presented as a single delivery unit include a table of contents with links to important sections of the document.?

17 yes, 1 no

resolution: remove level 2 SC 1: Documents that have five or more section headings and are presented as a single delivery unit include a table of contents with links to important sections of the document.

discussing - Should we remove level 2 SC 1: Images have structure that users can access?

resolution: remove level 3 SC 3 about images having structure, level 3 SC 5 about dividing text into paragraphs and level 3 SC 6 about dividing documents into hierarchical sections and subsections because they are all techniques for the same thing: splitting up complex content into more manageable pieces.

GL 2.1 (25 minutes)

<rscano> clap clap (textual transcription from here)

results from survey: they are all techniques for the same thing: splitting up complex content into more manageable pieces.

oops.

results from survey for 2.1: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/keyboardop20050607/results

discussion about the split in comments, and the valuable feedback received.

plan to discuss this at the F2F to work new proposal.

<Yvette> scribe: yvette

GL 1.1 (25 minutes)

Straw polls: all proposals for lvl 1 SC 1 have people who don't want them

<Zakim> Yvette, you wanted to say "not needed"

resolution to adopt proposed wording for L1 SC 4 "Non-text content that is not functional, is not used to convey information, and does not create a specific sensory experience is implemented such that it can be ignored by assistive technology."

<wendy> friendly amendment: ASCII art consists of graphic representations created by a spatial arrangement of text characters (typically from the 95 printable characters defined by ASCII).

discussion about ASCII art definition

<wendy> ascii art - pictures created by a spatial arrangement of characters (typically from the 95 printable characters defined by ASCII).

'a picture'

resolution to accept as definition of ascii art: 'a picture created by a spatial arrangement of characters (typically from the 95 printable characters defined by ASCII).'

on to definition of 'content'

<bengt> possibly plural

<wendy> css defn - The content associated with an element in the source document. Some elements have no content, in which case they are called empty. The content of an element may include text, and it may include a number of sub-elements, in which case the element is called the parent of those sub-elements.

<wendy> all w3c definitions of content - http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/All/?keywords=content

<Zakim> Yvette, you wanted to say "neither"

discussion about the fact that WCAG uses 'content' in broader definition than some authors might expect

<wendy> wikipedia defn - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content

Wendy looked at many definitions of content and fits with proposal

<bengt> from wordnet: content, cognitive content, mental object -- (the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned)

resolution to adopt as definition of content: Information in the delivery unit that is used by the user agent to generate perceivable units. This includes the code and markup that define the structure, presentation, and interaction, as well as text, images, and sounds that convey information to the end-user.

<wendy> all w3c defns of text: http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/All/?keywords=text

discussing definition of text

<wendy> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/chars.html#repertoire

<wendy> http://www.byteshift.de/web-design-Unicode-vi+Repertoire

<Zakim> Yvette, you wanted to say "repertoire"

Resolution to adopt as definition of text: "A sequence of characters. Characters are those included in the Unicode / ISO / IEC 106464 repertoire."

GL 1.4 (25 minutes)

'Repertoire' chosen because it is part of the Unicode definition

<Zakim> Yvette, you wanted to say "also because it doesn't distract"

<ben_> adk Andi

discussion about whether covered by UAAG, but UAAG only requires the UA to allow users to turn off all audio, not just background

if background audio interferes with screen reader, how will the user be able to find the mechanism?

<wendy> UAAG checkpoint 3.2 - http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG/uaag10.html#tech-configure-multimedia

<ben> Implementation details for UAAG 3.2 - http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/wai-eval/reports.php?report_id=4 (this item is not well supported in browsers)

<wendy> safari partial imp, opera partial imp, ie (almost complete) - http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/wai-eval/evals-cp.php?eval_id=11&cp_id=15

it seems it's only a problem if it's continuous audio, not if it stops automatically

<mcmay> 1-

discussion about whether or not to keep the benefit in the SC text

pro keeping: explains why turning down volume is not an option

con: belongs in benefits/guide

resolution: adopt as wording for L2 SC3: "A mechanism is available to turn off background audio that plays automatically"

<Andi> Yvette, do you want me to scribe now?

<wendy> scribe: Andi

<rcastaldo> I have to leave the irc call... bye all

<scribe> ACTION: David to research UA support of turning off background audio [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/09-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]

resolution: close 1320

dicussion about white text on white background. We have no SC that would make that illegal. But this is not accessible to anyone.

so it is not an accessibility issue

<Zakim> Yvette, you wanted to say "google spam"

discussion about invisible text that is added to pages simply to improve search engine results. Sighted users don't see it but screen reader users do. This would need to be addressed under a different guideline however.

can't resolve to close 1345 because don't have unanimous consent

there is another issue that addresses John's particular concern about text being perceivable so John agrees that we can close 1345

resolution: close 1345
... close 1372

<wendy> ACTION: john and michael take action to propose new criterion/guideline per issue 892 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=892] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/09-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]

discussion about whether or not we need GL 1.4 Level 1 SC 1 - other than images, there is no way to violate this. Images are covered by 1.1.

<wendy> current wording of the note: Images of text that meets guideline 1.1 should satisfy this criterion. (Refer to Guideline 1.1 Provide text alternatives for all non-text content. )

ben clarifies that the person misunderstood the note

<wendy> ben's proposal: Graphical presentations of text that meet guideline 1.1 satisfy this criterion. (Refer to Guideline 1.1 Provide text alternatives for all non-text content.)

and proposes a change to the note: Graphical presentations of text that meet guideline 1.1 satisfy this criterion. (Refer to Guideline 1.1 Provide text alternatives for all non-text content.)

discussion that this SC is about text and therefore does not apply to images of text so the note may be misleading

our definition of text means that you can never have "text" in an image. You can have graphical representations of text in an image.

proposal is to delete the note and close issue 1373

resolution: delete the note and close issue 1373
... close 1374
... close 1375 but rationale is that it is similar to 1345
... close 1376
... close 1377

Ben created a bug to remind us that we have to make sure David's techniques get into the techniques document

resolution: close 1430 because it is out of scope
... close 1440 because it is out of scope
... close 1081 because we have validated the criteria with experts

General Issues (25 minutes) http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/genclose20050608/results

GL 4.2

chair opens discussion to concerns from those who will not be attending face to face meetings

F2F preparation and comments

David has concerns about general techniques - do general techniques and guide to the guidelines belong in the same document

David thinks they appeal to different audiences

David recommends two documents - General Techniques and Guide to the Guidelines

Editors have reached the same conclusion and plan for two documents

discussion about communication between face to face attendees and members of the WG who cannot attend

in the past, we have had difficulty trying to include those who are trying to participate via phone and IRC.

This time, we will not set up a phone bridge. The room will have wireless Internet connection for up to 15 people.

We will capture resolutions, decisions, action items, and important discussion in IRC.

At the end of each day, we will post a summary of the day's discussion to the mailing list.

Next day, we will do our best to address comments posted to the list.

At next working group teleconference on 23 June, we will recap the face to face meeting for everyone who was unable to attend.

<Zakim> wendy, you wanted to say "additional surveys"

Additional surveys will be available today and tomorrow for proposals on 3.1, 2.5, 4.1, info gathering for 4.2, and maybe 1.2 and 3.2

Need to have the survey responses in by end of the day Friday. Wendy will be printing one copy and taking to the face to face meeting.

Expect another set of surveys beginning of the week of the 20th and discussing at the meeting on the 23rd of June.

Expect draft available on June 30th.

<David> I can do it

<Zakim> Yvette, you wanted to ask 'level 3'

concern that there is nothing on the agenda to discuss "elephants" such as whether or not we will have "Level 3 Conformance"

Chairs think it is on the agenda.

Primary goal for this face to face is to close as many issues as we can before the draft comes out.

Concern that Level 3 conformance could eat up time that we could potentially use to close lots of issues.

600 issues still to close

<Yvette> q)

<Yvette> ??

Level 3 conformance will be on the agenda but we will have to limit the time we discuss it.

<Yvette> I can't get back in because the conference is restricted

<Yvette> It cut me off at exactly 3:00 hours into the call

<bengt> what service ? are you using ?

<Yvette> regular phone line

Create a survey of Level 3 issues. Need to develop the proposals before we do the survey.

<Yvette> Had to use the operator :-)

<bengt> sneaky

<Yvette> who is coming to Brussels?

<Yvette> Ben, you can see the results for that questionaire? I can only see my own answers

<wendy> yvette - results of registration are at: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag200506/results

- DRAFT -

WCAG WG weekly telecon

9 Jun 2005

Attendees

Contents