IRC log of ua on 2006-05-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:50:51 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ua
17:50:51 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/05/04-ua-irc
17:50:56 [jallan]
list
17:51:11 [jallan]
zakim, list
17:51:12 [Zakim]
I see Style_XSL WG()1:00PM, WS_AddrWG(F2F)9:00AM, XML_EXI()1:30PM active
17:51:14 [Zakim]
also scheduled at this time is WAI_UAWG()2:00PM
17:51:29 [jallan]
zakim, this will be WAI_UAWG
17:51:29 [Zakim]
ok, jallan; I see WAI_UAWG()2:00PM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
17:55:22 [jallan]
Meeting: UAWG teleconference 4 May 2006
17:58:18 [Zakim]
WAI_UAWG()2:00PM has now started
17:58:25 [Zakim]
+DPoehlman
17:58:53 [Zakim]
+Jim_Allan
18:03:15 [Zakim]
+[IBM]
18:03:58 [JR]
JR has joined #ua
18:04:00 [cklaws]
cklaws has joined #ua
18:04:44 [Zakim]
+Jan_Richards
18:05:47 [JR]
Scribe: JR
18:06:17 [JR]
Agenda+ WCAG 2.0 official last call review conformance section
18:06:34 [JR]
Agenda+ Review revision 2 UAAG - WCAG correlation table.
18:07:01 [JR]
Agenda+ Review UAAG references/dependencies on WCAG 1.0 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2006AprJun/0010.html)
18:08:13 [JR]
Agenda+ Any comments from the UAWG on the "Mobile Web Best Practices" Last Call
18:08:29 [JR]
Agenda+ WebAPI Links
18:08:52 [JR]
Zakim, take up agendum 1
18:08:52 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "WCAG 2.0 official last call review conformance section" taken up [from JR]
18:09:13 [JR]
JA: My reading of new conformance text is that it is the same as before...
18:09:54 [JR]
JA: They still say you choose the technologies and you conform assuming that supporting user agents and AT's exist.
18:10:07 [JR]
JA: Our comment deadline is May 31
18:11:21 [JR]
CL: Does UAAG say UA needs to conform by itself without AT.
18:11:22 [JR]
?
18:11:53 [JR]
DP: Actually think UA can team up with an AT
18:12:28 [JR]
CL: We need to update our conformanceref - it mentions WCAG 1.0
18:13:31 [JR]
JA: A uA can conform to a subset UAAG (e.g. visualtext, etc.)
18:14:17 [jallan]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/conformance.html#conformance-wcag1
18:19:53 [JR]
JR: A UAAG v.1.1 could change its conformance scheme to allow the developer to choose to point to WCAG 1.0 or 2.0 - their choice...
18:23:55 [jallan]
specific reference to WCAG 1.0 in UAAG conformance http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-UAAG10-20021217/uaag10.html#conformance-claims
18:23:57 [JR]
JR: WCAG pointed to in only 2 places in UAAG
18:24:16 [JR]
JR: Could change is fairly easily in a v1.1
18:25:41 [JR]
JA: Back to the table...
18:26:25 [JR]
zikim, close current agendum
18:26:34 [JR]
zakim, close current agendum
18:26:34 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'close current agendum', JR
18:26:47 [JR]
Zakim, close this item
18:26:47 [Zakim]
agendum 1 closed
18:26:48 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
18:26:50 [Zakim]
2. Review revision 2 UAAG - WCAG correlation table. [from JR]
18:26:53 [jallan]
WCAG 2.0 understanding baseline http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/baseline/
18:27:40 [JR]
CL comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2006AprJun/0040.html
18:28:00 [JR]
CL: noticed inconsistencies in organization
18:30:11 [JR]
CL: UAAG 9.10 EXTENDS WCAG 2.4.1
18:34:07 [jallan]
CL: UAAG 9.8 Support WCAG 2.4.2
18:36:10 [JR]
JR: WCAG seems to be assuming the UA has an intra-page text search capability
18:38:21 [JR]
CL: UAAG 10.6 supports WCAG 2.4.3
18:45:05 [JR]
JR, JA: UAAG 10.7 EXTENDS WCAG 2.4.7
18:46:07 [JR]
JA: How should we frame these comments to WCAG?]
18:47:32 [JR]
JA: this initiall came up in discussion with CMN.
18:47:44 [JR]
DP: Also this is a gap analysis...
18:48:38 [JR]
JR: Also CMN saying UA's could do some of the things that WCAG asking of users.
18:50:33 [JR]
DP: Now WCAG says don't flash, in case uaag we say control flashing...if UA's conformed to UAAG then WCAG wouldn't have to say don't flash...
18:50:47 [JR]
DP: What are we asking of WCAG...
18:54:20 [jallan]
JR: UAWG soucle say here are WCAG cp (p1), here are the UAAG checkpoints that support these cp.
18:55:09 [jallan]
if you want to claim conformance to wcag cp, then you must have identified a UA that conforms to the UAAG checkpoints
18:57:51 [jallan]
yes, UAAG may be too much, but there is a basic set of functionalities assumed/required by WCAG in a useragent
18:58:16 [jallan]
and these set of functionalities must/should conform to UAAG
18:59:37 [JR]
JA: Next step is to cross reference list with reports
19:00:25 [JR]
to see if user agents are already meeting them.
19:00:34 [jallan]
action: Jim, cross reference the table with the conformance reports
19:01:26 [JR]
JR: its important not just that a uaag checkpoint be on the list but that it be associated with the highest wcag priority
19:05:40 [JR]
JA: 4.5 maybe should be added for 2.2.2
19:08:12 [Zakim]
-[IBM]
19:08:14 [Zakim]
-DPoehlman
19:08:39 [JR]
action JR: Take updated alignment page from JA and re-org to show Priority view from WCAG
19:16:53 [Zakim]
-Jan_Richards
19:16:54 [Zakim]
-Jim_Allan
19:16:55 [Zakim]
WAI_UAWG()2:00PM has ended
19:16:56 [Zakim]
Attendees were DPoehlman, Jim_Allan, [IBM], Jan_Richards
19:22:13 [JR]
RRSAgent, make minutes
19:22:13 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/05/04-ua-minutes.html JR
19:22:25 [JR]
RRSAgent, set logs public
19:23:11 [JR]
Zakim, bye
19:23:11 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ua
19:23:14 [JR]
RRSAgent, Bye
19:23:14 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/04-ua-actions.rdf :
19:23:14 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Jim, cross reference the table with the conformance reports [1]
19:23:14 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/04-ua-irc#T19-00-34
19:23:14 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: JR to Take updated alignment page from JA and re-org to show Priority view from WCAG [2]
19:23:14 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/04-ua-irc#T19-08-39