IRC log of wai-wcag on 2005-08-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:00:17 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
14:00:17 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:00:21 [Michael]
rrsagent, make log world
14:00:37 [Michael]
meeting: WCAG Techniques Teleconference 10 August 2005
14:00:43 [Michael]
chair: Michael Cooper
14:00:54 [Michael]
14:01:00 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has now started
14:01:07 [Zakim]
+ +1.613.482.aaaa
14:01:22 [Becky]
Becky has joined #wai-wcag
14:01:45 [Zakim]
14:01:57 [Zakim]
14:02:17 [Zakim]
14:02:18 [Zakim]
14:02:39 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:02:39 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +1.613.482.aaaa, Becky_Gibson, Don_Evans, PaulC, Wendy
14:02:46 [Zakim]
14:02:53 [ben]
zakim, ??P20 is Ben
14:02:53 [Zakim]
+Ben; got it
14:03:00 [Christophe]
zakim, mute me
14:03:00 [Zakim]
sorry, Christophe, I do not see a party named 'Christophe'
14:03:13 [wendy]
zakim, +1.613.482.aaaa is David_MacDonald
14:03:13 [Zakim]
+David_MacDonald; got it
14:03:15 [Zakim]
14:03:27 [Zakim]
14:03:42 [wendy]
zakim, PaulC is Christophe
14:03:42 [Zakim]
+Christophe; got it
14:03:49 [wendy]
zakim, ??P21 is Lisa_Seeman
14:03:49 [Zakim]
+Lisa_Seeman; got it
14:03:55 [David]
David has joined #wai-wcag
14:04:06 [Christophe]
zakim, mute me
14:04:06 [Zakim]
Christophe should now be muted
14:04:16 [Christophe]
zakim, unmute me
14:04:16 [Zakim]
Christophe should no longer be muted
14:04:19 [leasa]
leasa has joined #wai-wcag
14:04:25 [DonFEvans]
DonFEvans has joined #wai-wcag
14:04:56 [DonFEvans]
DonFEvans has joined #wai-wcag
14:04:59 [DonFEvans]
14:05:14 [DonFEvans]
DonFEvans has joined #wai-wcag
14:05:27 [DonFEvans]
DonFEvans has joined #wai-wcag
14:05:33 [DonFEvans]
DonFEvans has joined #wai-wcag
14:07:23 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has joined #wai-wcag
14:07:35 [Don]
Don has joined #wai-wcag
14:09:06 [Zakim]
14:09:26 [wendy]
zakim, ??P25 is Chris_Ridpath
14:09:26 [Zakim]
+Chris_Ridpath; got it
14:09:33 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 1
14:09:33 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Discuss Script techniques direction" taken up [from Michael]
14:15:20 [wendy]
discussion - how much code should we include in scripting techniques? didn't seem to be a lot of support for david's proposal, although not much discussion on the list.
14:15:30 [wendy]
becky is working on an example that should be out today.
14:16:58 [wendy]
seems to be consensus that examples are good. clarify that "these are examples, not the only way it can be done."
14:22:20 [wendy]
for scripting, write functional outcomes that tie back to success criteria.
14:22:42 [wendy]
want to find a way forward to keep scripting at high priority since "selling point" for wcag 2.0 (addresses web apps).
14:23:09 [Becky]
14:23:27 [wendy]
re: functional outcomes - a menu should be operable by keyboard (2.4), all items should be read (1.1), items in appropriate order (x.y)
14:26:09 [wendy]
discussion about providing techniques that only work in firefox 1.5 and ie 6 - advanced accessibility, but concerns that usable by small audience (future techniques).
14:26:20 [wendy]
scribe: wendy
14:27:02 [wendy]
if we do include future techniques, need to set expectations correctly.
14:28:18 [Christophe]
zakim, mute me
14:28:18 [Zakim]
Christophe should now be muted
14:28:32 [wendy]
going back to idea about "functional outcomes" - even if not providing complete techniques/worked examples, need some snippets of the pieces that we know how to do.
14:28:45 [wendy]
e.g., various ways of providing menus.
14:31:14 [Christophe]
zakim, unmute me
14:31:14 [Zakim]
Christophe should no longer be muted
14:31:36 [wendy]
action: becky start discussion of javascript url protocol on the list
14:36:18 [wendy]
resolution: scripting techniques assume basic level of javascript understanding and do not try to teach the basics of javascript.
14:40:16 [wendy]
prioritize on those things that are most frequently asked about. maybe if we cover only the top 5 - 10 issues/questions, we're 80% or more of the way to Last Call.
14:42:33 [wendy]
where we know things are broken address, even if we don't know the answers, maybe encourage someone else to do so.
14:44:59 [wendy]
resolution: we will include code in scripting techniques
14:45:51 [wendy]
top priorities for scripting:
14:46:22 [wendy]
drop down menus -
14:47:59 [wendy]
form validation
14:48:01 [wendy]
14:48:52 [wendy]
list at
14:49:19 [wendy]
focus - setting it automatically either in form control when page load, or auto move when fill it out
14:50:09 [wendy]
focus - moving to a non-form element (e.g., have a left menu that's javscript, moving focus to right navigation panel. ala in an email product)
14:51:04 [wendy]
understanding when content has changed
14:51:15 [wendy]
and can get to the change
14:51:30 [wendy]
difference between visual focus and screenr eader focus
14:52:05 [wendy]
complete keyboard and mouse support - e.g., can open a menu w/a keybaord, as soon as tab "into" it closes b/c menu item no longer receiving focus
14:52:10 [wendy]
14:52:25 [wendy]
some discussion on list re: help text
14:52:43 [wendy]
relates to "knowing content is there" issue
14:57:26 [wendy]
action: wendy add this list to plan for scripting techniques
14:57:51 [wendy]
zakim, next item
14:57:51 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Script techniques / baseline proposals" taken up [from Michael]
15:02:50 [wendy]
if javascript not in baseline, refer to html techniques (note instead of grid)?
15:04:25 [wendy]
when using complex javascript on other technologies (e.g., svg 1.2 - input on a set of lines and turn into an editing field), lack of semantics.
15:05:48 [wendy]
agenda+ if time, check in on work statement edits
15:06:44 [wendy]
is "relies upon" necessary? need "usable without"
15:06:55 [wendy]
discuss how to categorize techs for each technology
15:07:16 [wendy]
"not applicable"
15:07:33 [wendy]
which was primary related to CSS
15:13:00 [wendy]
"works in"
15:13:11 [wendy]
e.g., this tech only works if the following techs are in your baseline
15:13:42 [wendy]
instead of table, simplify to 2 bullets?
15:14:03 [wendy]
1. if script in baseline, sufficient for SCx
15:14:09 [wendy]
2. if not, refer to technique xyz
15:16:43 [wendy]
javascript available and enabled...
15:16:55 [wendy]
javascript available and disabled...optional technique...
15:17:05 [wendy]
is enabled part of baseline assumption?
15:17:12 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
15:17:22 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: David_MacDonald (9%), Becky_Gibson (80%)
15:17:38 [wendy]
if not technique to refer to, state that
15:17:49 [wendy]
or "requires server-side valiation"
15:17:52 [David]
zakim, mute me
15:17:52 [Zakim]
David_MacDonald should now be muted
15:18:05 [wendy]
title: baseline implications
15:19:56 [wendy]
action: becky include this idea in upcoming mock-up
15:20:57 [wendy]
add to agenda for next week - 2 issues re: becy's proposal 1. baseline 2. testing
15:21:02 [wendy]
zakim, next item
15:21:02 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Testing" taken up [from Michael]
15:21:16 [wendy]
skipping since tim's not here
15:21:18 [wendy]
zakim, next item
15:21:18 [Zakim]
agendum 3 was just opened, wendy
15:21:24 [David]
zakim, unmute me
15:21:24 [Zakim]
David_MacDonald should no longer be muted
15:21:29 [wendy]
zakim, close item 3
15:21:29 [Zakim]
agendum 3, Testing, closed
15:21:31 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:21:32 [Zakim]
4. Test case reviews [from Michael]
15:21:34 [wendy]
zakim, next item
15:21:34 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Test case reviews" taken up [from Michael]
15:22:37 [wendy]
andrew disagreed:
15:23:58 [wendy]
some agreement with andrew's statement, it's a user agent repair test
15:24:27 [wendy]
modify test - ok to do as long a have for and id?
15:24:43 [wendy]
a test associated with a repair technique?
15:25:04 [wendy]
move existing html tech into "repair" category
15:26:02 [wendy]
test 57 allows implicit association
15:26:19 [wendy]
this test contradicts 57
15:26:27 [wendy]
add it as a UA issue? include it at the technique level?
15:26:55 [wendy]
current html techs, "don't use label implicitly" and is marked as deprecated.
15:27:33 [wendy]
intention, this tech to be deprecated. now saying it's ok, as long as use for and id. therefore, both tech and test case need to be fixed.
15:27:43 [wendy]
can do this w/out for and id?
15:27:49 [wendy]
just put input in label?
15:28:08 [wendy]
some user agents have a problem with that
15:30:02 [wendy]
test 186 - label can contain input but also have for and id?
15:30:19 [wendy]
should be a repair technique that explains the user agent problems
15:30:37 [wendy]
tech 15.2 (30 june 2005 draft) - move to repair techs. reference using for/id as solution.
15:31:30 [wendy]
the practice is valid html (label in input). issue is that screen readers don't always recognize.
15:31:59 [wendy]
remove test 186?
15:32:21 [wendy]
then in 57 - say ok, but not recommended?
15:33:44 [wendy]
action: chris review discussion on test 57, make proposal re: 57 and 186
15:34:41 [wendy]
action: michael make edit and send w/rest of proposed revised structure of html techs
15:36:25 [wendy]
test 187 - david suggested to keep it
15:36:30 [wendy]
some push back on the list
15:36:46 [wendy]
andrew said it's a valid technique
15:37:24 [wendy]
lisa had questions
15:39:00 [wendy]
related to "required" mark - way to associate that w/form control
15:39:43 [Don]
Don has left #wai-wcag
15:40:02 [DonFEvans]
DonFEvans has joined #wai-wcag
15:40:10 [wendy]
while ago, proposal for "no more than one label per control" not in the current draft. believe that we rejected the technique. therefore, reject the test?
15:40:11 [DonFEvans]
DonFEvans has joined #wai-wcag
15:40:29 [wendy]
as long as it's legal html, no reason to limit?
15:40:49 [wendy]
testing showed it was legal, unpredictable about which label "you get" (read by screen reader?)
15:41:02 [Christophe]
it's legal:
15:41:20 [wendy]
"forms mode" in general, seems to be an issue. only get info from labels and inputs, no other info (issue we've seen w/wbs forms)
15:41:45 [wendy]
resolution: reject test 187
15:44:17 [wendy]
test 189 - similar issues to 187
15:44:20 [wendy]
15:44:31 [Zakim]
15:45:11 [Zakim]
15:46:04 [wendy]
concern that there are some things could do to increase accessibility that would fail this test (related to descriptions or additional information about form controls, e.g., characteristics such as "required")
15:46:50 [wendy]
current wording: Test 189 - label must describe its associated control.
15:47:42 [wendy]
perhaps: text of the label directly relates to the associated control OR text of label is associated with the control OR "conceptually relate"
15:48:29 [wendy]
be careful about using "must" in the text of the test - ala john's suggestion
15:48:31 [Zakim]
15:49:19 [wendy]
action: david propose wording of test 189
15:49:25 [wendy]
is alt-text considered?
15:49:47 [wendy]
addressed in test 188
15:50:37 [wendy]
zakim, next item
15:50:37 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "if time, check in on work statement edits" taken up [from wendy]
15:51:39 [wendy]
15:53:11 [Zakim]
15:57:20 [wendy]
minor edits made to clarify a couple things. edits made as we discussed.
15:57:28 [wendy]
resolution: TTF work statement ready for thursday's discussion
15:58:45 [Zakim]
15:58:47 [Zakim]
15:58:47 [Zakim]
15:58:49 [Zakim]
15:58:49 [Zakim]
15:58:50 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has left #wai-wcag
15:58:51 [Zakim]
15:59:05 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:59:05 [Zakim]
On the phone I see David_MacDonald
15:59:19 [wendy]
zakim, drop David
15:59:19 [Zakim]
David_MacDonald is being disconnected
15:59:21 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has ended
15:59:23 [Zakim]
Attendees were Becky_Gibson, Don_Evans, Wendy, Ben, David_MacDonald, Michael_Cooper, Christophe, Lisa_Seeman, Chris_Ridpath
15:59:26 [wendy]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
15:59:26 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate wendy
16:01:33 [wendy]
zakim, bye
16:01:33 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
16:01:35 [wendy]
RRSAgent, bye
16:01:35 [RRSAgent]
I see 6 open action items saved in :
16:01:35 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: becky start discussion of javascript url protocol on the list [1]
16:01:35 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:01:35 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wendy add this list to plan for scripting techniques [2]
16:01:35 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:01:35 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: becky include this idea in upcoming mock-up [3]
16:01:35 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:01:35 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: chris review discussion on test 57, make proposal re: 57 and 186 [4]
16:01:35 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:01:35 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: michael make edit and send w/rest of proposed revised structure of html techs [5]
16:01:35 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:01:35 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: david propose wording of test 189 [6]
16:01:35 [RRSAgent]
recorded in