IRC log of eo on 2005-12-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:26:46 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #eo
13:26:46 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:26:49 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #eo
13:26:58 [shadi]
zakim, this will be EOWG
13:26:58 [Zakim]
ok, shadi; I see WAI_EOWG()8:30AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
13:27:31 [shadi]
13:27:37 [shadi]
chair: Judy
13:27:51 [shadi]
agenda+ Outreach updates (brief)
13:28:00 [shadi]
agenda+ Continued discussion of: WCAG 2.0 Working Draft(s) Review
13:28:10 [shadi]
agenda+ ATAG 2.0 Working Draft(s) Review
13:29:03 [shadi]
regrets: Justin, Jack, Roberto, Barry
13:29:28 [Judy]
Judy has joined #eo
13:30:34 [Zakim]
WAI_EOWG()8:30AM has now started
13:30:36 [Zakim]
13:31:13 [Zakim]
13:31:31 [Zakim]
13:31:55 [Zakim]
13:32:45 [Zakim]
13:32:58 [Zakim]
13:33:11 [shadi]
zakim, ??p4 is really Henk
13:33:11 [Zakim]
+Henk; got it
13:33:36 [George]
George has joined #eo
13:34:59 [LiamM]
LiamM has joined #eo
13:34:59 [Zakim]
13:35:54 [shadi]
scribe: Shadi
13:37:29 [shadi]
zakim, take up agendum 1
13:37:29 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Outreach updates (brief)" taken up [from shadi]
13:38:29 [Zakim]
13:38:55 [Zakim]
13:39:59 [Judy]
hi george, we lost you...
13:40:11 [Zakim]
13:41:00 [shadi]
no outreach updates
13:41:06 [shadi]
zakim, close agendum 1
13:41:06 [Zakim]
agendum 1, Outreach updates (brief), closed
13:41:07 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
13:41:08 [Zakim]
2. Continued discussion of: WCAG 2.0 Working Draft(s) Review [from shadi]
13:41:09 [shadi]
zakim, take up agendum 2
13:41:09 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Continued discussion of: WCAG 2.0 Working Draft(s) Review" taken up [from shadi]
13:41:26 [pasquale]
13:44:08 [shadi]
pasquale: Understanding WCAG 2.0 is a very important document, but the title is misleading
13:45:32 [shadi]
shadi: second this observation
13:45:41 [shadi]
judy: anyone else?
13:46:38 [shadi]
liam: title should relfect the importance of the document (should not sound like "read it if you want")
13:47:35 [shadi]
judy: document was previously called "Guide"
13:48:30 [shadi]
judy: share the reservation but it also addresses some aspects of "Understanding WCAG 2.0"
13:48:46 [shadi]
judy: has all you need to know to use WCAG 2.0
13:50:24 [shadi]
shadi: how about splitting this up if it is such a comprehensive resource? for example an "Understanding" + "Guide" (or using) documents
13:50:37 [shadi]
liam: The Essential Guide to WCAG 2.0
13:51:01 [shadi]
liam: it is a real good document and should be promoted
13:51:17 [shadi]
judy: how about "Guide to WCAG 2.0"
13:51:45 [shadi]
doyle: "Essential" works good for me
13:52:12 [shadi]
henk: "Guide to Meet WCAG 2.0"
13:52:28 [Judy]
"A Guide to Meeting WCAG 2.0"
13:52:36 [shadi]
george: "Essential" is good
13:53:08 [shadi]
william: why is the "essential" information not in the core document?
13:53:25 [shadi]
liam: wasn't most of this originally in the core documents?
13:54:09 [shadi]
judy: yes. WCAG WG is trying to accommodate different "views" on WCAG 2.0
13:55:15 [shadi]
william: implication of "essential" is that you can't do without it
13:56:39 [shadi]
liam: synonyms may work better
13:57:41 [shadi]
judy: WCAG WG is being pushed to go as fast as they can
13:57:56 [Zakim]
13:58:04 [shadi]
...comments such as changing organization or modularizing etc need to be very clear
13:59:36 [Jack]
Jack has joined #eo
14:00:19 [shadi]
liam: is the understanding document linked from the core document?
14:00:26 [shadi]
judy: not very well
14:00:44 [shadi]
liam: there is the "how to meet..." link
14:01:19 [shadi]
judy: in WCAG 1.0, checklist was linked at least 65 times
14:01:34 [shadi]
...yet in informal usability testing, people had trouble finding it
14:02:22 [shadi]
william: is "Understanding WCAG 2.0" on Rec track?
14:02:24 [shadi]
judy: no
14:03:05 [shadi]
william: how can the Recommendation depend on a non-normative document?
14:04:04 [shadi]
judy: what about "Authoritative Guide"?
14:04:32 [shadi]
william: people will publish books and call them "Essential Guides"
14:05:37 [shadi]
henk: it is good that this document has been separated from the core documents
14:06:05 [shadi]
henk: but it is not "essential" for experienced developers, it help newbies
14:06:24 [shadi]
henk: for naming suggest "Guide to Meeting WCAG 2.0"
14:07:24 [shadi]
pasquale: essential may be too strong, but other names (like "Key" etc) may work
14:08:24 [shadi]
george: agree with Henk's comment, it is a good document and tool to send the people back to the core documents
14:13:39 [shadi]
shadi: separation from core documents is a good step
14:13:53 [shadi]
shadi: i see more potential for further splitting
14:14:25 [shadi]
shadi: there is information about higher-level WCAG 2.0 structure (for managers or policy makers etc)
14:14:46 [shadi]
shadi: there is also information for developers wanting to meet WCAG 2.0 success criteria
14:15:11 [shadi]
shadi: the title was misleading, i prefer "Guide to Meeting WCAG 2.0"
14:15:26 [shadi]
doyle: i like the organization of the document
14:15:43 [shadi]
doyle: agree with the title being misleading
14:16:02 [shadi]
george: i like the title "Understanding WCAG 2.0"
14:16:41 [shadi]
jack: it concerns me that the document is non-normative. it implies optional
14:18:05 [shadi]
jack: don't like "essential", like "guide"
14:18:36 [shadi]
william: title may be not as important, someone will always object
14:19:09 [shadi]
liam: concerned the document may not be easily found, not sure we have the right solution yet
14:19:49 [shadi]
judy: title may not reflect content
14:20:10 [shadi]
judy: implies guidelines are incomprehensible
14:21:10 [shadi]
judy: may also be easily lost or not read properly
14:21:19 [Zakim]
14:23:19 [shadi]
judy: important to strip down the core documents in order to get WCAG 2.0 out the door
14:24:46 [shadi]
william: it is a valid observation that the core documents are opaque and hard to understand, so that such a document is necessary
14:28:20 [shadi]
judy: comparing to other publications on
14:28:29 [shadi]
judy: for example, OWL or RDF
14:28:52 [shadi]
judy: maybe the "Understanding..." should be on Rec track just not normative
14:30:19 [shadi]
judy: any objections with moving ahead for now, and i will take the responsibility of contacting the appropriate people in WCAG WG
14:30:36 [Harvey]
Harvey has joined #eo
14:31:57 [shadi]
all: accepted
14:33:49 [shadi]
14:34:04 [shadi]
judy: where should this be placed in the document?
14:34:26 [shadi]
henk: no specific suggestion, maybe in the "key terms"
14:34:54 [LiamM]
14:35:41 [shadi]
judy: lets look up Luminosity Ratio
14:36:57 [shadi]
henk: what is the goal of the "glossary"? to explain the technical terms or the actual concepts?
14:37:10 [shadi]
judy: yes, major issue with that one
14:38:10 [LiamM]
e.g. the link definition has information which links 'count' in terms of the WCAG guideline... the glossary should just explain what the link is.
14:41:36 [shadi]
judy: not sure how to formulate this observation into a comment, let's come back to it later
14:42:59 [shadi]
comment #1
14:43:18 [shadi]
RESOLUTION: propose to toss this item
14:43:28 [shadi]
comment #2
14:44:13 [shadi]
RESOLUTION: propose "change language" (rather than "foreign")
14:44:24 [shadi]
RESOLUTION: propose "change of language" (rather than "foreign")
14:44:39 [shadi]
s/RESOLUTION: propose "change language" (rather than "foreign")/
14:44:45 [shadi]
comment #3
14:45:08 [shadi]
judy: sounds like a typo
14:45:38 [shadi]
henk: not a right entry for a glossary
14:46:40 [shadi]
RESOLUTION: propose to move to "key terms" rather than in glossary
14:47:12 [shadi]
RESOLUTION: propose to change example
14:48:47 [shadi]
judy: seems like they are trying to provide information for non-native English speakers
14:48:59 [shadi]
judy: should not be here
14:51:01 [shadi]
s/RESOLUTION: propose to change example/RESOLUTION: propose to remove example
14:51:40 [shadi]
comment #4
14:54:22 [shadi]
judy: how many people understand the term "on screen keyboard"
14:54:48 [shadi]
henk: why not write that if that is what is meant?
14:55:17 [shadi]
judy: keyboard interface is actually something different, for example single switches etc
14:56:15 [shadi]
RESOLUTION: description is ambigous, ask WCAG WG to clarify what they exactly mean
14:56:17 [Judy]
s/single switches/single switch access through a connection
14:56:51 [shadi]
comment #5
14:57:12 [shadi]
judy: "live presentation"?
14:57:24 [shadi]
liam: "time based" is ambigous
14:57:58 [shadi]
RESOLUTION: request glossary item for "time based"
14:58:33 [shadi]
liam: descriptions that refer to time are often very ambigous or complex
14:59:15 [shadi]
RESOLUTION: propose adopting Henk's proposal
14:59:20 [shadi]
comment #6
15:01:33 [shadi]
judy: term sounds more US-like rather than international (too adapted from UNESCO)
15:01:40 [shadi]
judy: why is this needed?
15:02:02 [shadi]
henk: it isn't, it shouldn't be in the glossary or guidelines
15:02:36 [Zakim]
- +39.081.1972.aaaa
15:03:11 [Zakim]
15:03:31 [pasquale]
15:03:33 [Harvey]
Live video -- may also contain closed captions
15:04:00 [shadi]
william: sounds very sketchy
15:05:47 [shadi]
liam: UNESCO definition really says 9th year, it is very fuzzy itself
15:06:22 [shadi]
judy: think there is a separate scale of literacy level rather than education years
15:07:16 [shadi]
RESOLUTION: propose looking at scales of literacy levels rather than educational years
15:07:22 [LiamM]
UNESCO doc on literacy measurement:
15:10:35 [shadi]
comment "general flash threshold"
15:10:49 [Harvey]
Any discussion of flash is motivated by avoidance of triggering photo-sensitive epilepsy?
15:11:47 [shadi]
action: judy find out why so many of the definitions need more work
15:12:19 [shadi]
comments: "link" "contrast ration" etc
15:12:53 [shadi]
liam: nothing wrong with giving that sort of information but may need to be written differently
15:12:56 [LiamM]
A method of giving a numeric value to contrast between text and its background. (L1+0.05) / (L2+0.05) where L is luminosity and is defined as 0.2126*R + 0.7152*G + 0.0722*B using linearized R (red), G (green), and B (blue) values.
15:13:05 [LiamM]
For example, linearized R = (R/FS)^2.2, where FS is the full scale value (255 for 8 bit color channels). L1 is the higher value (of the text or background) and L2 is the lower value.
15:13:49 [shadi]
RESOLUTION: not sure all technical entries need to be in the glossary
15:14:01 [shadi]
RESOLUTION: consider suggestions from Liam above
15:16:24 [LiamM]
15:18:15 [shadi]
henk: they are explaining two separate things in "event handler"
15:18:33 [shadi]
judy: do you suggest separating them or taking something out?
15:19:11 [shadi]
RESOLUTION: propose to highlight two different types of event handlers more clearly
15:19:34 [shadi]
s/RESOLUTION: propose to highlight two different types of event handlers more clearly/RESOLUTION: propose to highlight two different types of event handlers more clearly, and maybe break them out
15:23:27 [shadi]
judy: any comments on the draft i prepared?
15:23:36 [shadi]
william: reviewed and forgot
15:23:55 [shadi]
pasquale: it is fine, its what we discussed last teleconference
15:25:30 [shadi]
judy: we have a farily comprehensive collection of comments
15:25:40 [shadi]
william: i have more queued up
15:26:18 [shadi]
judy: who could meet on 23rd?
15:26:23 [pasquale]
i can
15:27:10 [shadi]
george, liam, shadi no
15:27:28 [shadi]
jack, harvey, pasquale, yes
15:27:28 [Harvey]
15:27:33 [shadi]
henk, maybe
15:29:03 [shadi]
judy: objections for me to putting something out to the list on Monday and wait for comments until Wednesday
15:29:10 [shadi]
all: go for it
15:29:39 [shadi]
judy: no meeting on 23 and 30 december, happy holidays
15:29:40 [Zakim]
15:29:41 [Zakim]
15:29:42 [Zakim]
15:29:43 [Zakim]
15:29:44 [Zakim]
15:29:48 [shadi]
zakim, unmute me
15:29:48 [Zakim]
Shadi should no longer be muted
15:29:49 [Zakim]
15:29:53 [Zakim]
15:29:54 [Zakim]
15:30:01 [Harvey]
Harvey has left #eo
15:36:13 [Zakim]
15:36:15 [Zakim]
15:36:16 [Zakim]
WAI_EOWG()8:30AM has ended
15:36:18 [Zakim]
Attendees were Shadi, Judy, Loughborough, George_Heake, pasquale, Henk, Liam_McGee, Doyle_Saylor, Jack, Bingham
15:36:31 [shadi]
zakim, bye
15:36:31 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #eo
15:36:37 [shadi]
rrsagent, make logs world
15:36:48 [shadi]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:36:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate shadi
15:37:07 [shadi]
rrsagent, bye
15:37:07 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in :
15:37:07 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: judy find out why so many of the definitions need more work [1]
15:37:07 [RRSAgent]
recorded in