17:55:15 RRSAgent has joined #ua 17:55:15 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/05/18-ua-irc 17:55:34 zakim, this will be WAI_U 17:55:34 ok, jallan; I see WAI_UAWG()2:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes 17:57:44 Meeting: W3C User Agent Teleconference for 18 May 2006 17:59:05 JR has joined #ua 17:59:15 parente has joined #ua 17:59:15 WAI_UAWG()2:00PM has now started 17:59:17 +Jim_Allan 17:59:53 +[IBM] 17:59:55 -[IBM] 17:59:56 +[IBM] 18:00:48 +Jan_Richards 18:01:04 Al has joined #ua 18:01:41 Scribe:JR 18:01:54 Chair: Jim Allan 18:02:08 Regrets: Dave P. 18:02:18 Zakim, call AlGilman-home 18:02:18 ok, Al; the call is being made 18:02:19 +AlGilman 18:02:57 Agenda+ Action item review 18:03:12 Jim and Cathy work on action item http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2006AprJun/0052.html 18:03:19 agenda+ Begin crafting comments to WCAG 2.0 18:04:14 Zakim, take up agendum 1 18:04:14 agendum 1. "Action item review" taken up [from JR] 18:04:36 Topic: First action item 18:04:58 JA: reports on conversation with CL 18:05:40 JA: "programmatically determined" seems to take author away from technology 18:07:09 Al: two parts: 1-on prog det as author responsbility: think of 2 views of content - rendered content and part that can go to automated ua 18:08:24 Al: Al interprets as convey in notation that has a formal semantics 18:08:58 Al: Should follow specs and fill in fields. 18:09:33 JA: Just doesn't seem like this would be understandable by others who read. 18:12:21 Al: we should be paying attention to what comes over wire from author's automation to the user's automation 18:13:21 Al: THey didn't want to say "in attribute"...to tech specific 18:13:50 Al: But in the end this is too indirect for authors to understand. 18:14:53 JA: CL and JA just think that this boils down to use well formed, semantic, etc. markup 18:17:19 JA: So are you saying you think things in WCAG should change? 18:17:34 Al: Yes we should write some language suggestions. 18:19:36 Al: By not separating user experience from data from server...the only things left are what's in user experience. 18:20:45 JR: its multipart, its a complex concept 18:22:57 JA: For example wcag 1.3.4... 18:23:39 JA: When you drill down...techs are use etc. instead of span bold. 18:26:39 Al: wcag is at a different level 18:26:52 success criteria is standalone - normative 18:27:08 don't need techniques, understanding, etc. 18:27:20 to meet the success criteria 18:28:00 Al: Success criteria are only thing normative - but techs really reqd in some cases to understand... 18:28:22 JR: in AU had to invent another layer. 18:28:32 technology specific benchmark document 18:29:05 tool maker must go through wcag and state what their tool does to meet wcag 18:29:37 then the Authoring tool conformance statement becomes binding on themselves 18:30:23 they must match their (autoring tools) interpretation of what wcag checkpoints/success criteria mean 18:30:41 Al: very much what EARL has done. 18:30:53 Al: shadi separates test objective from what was specifically tested 18:31:30 Shadi = EARL 18:32:25 Al: Years ago we had mtg with fed stats people about accessible stats... 18:32:56 they found JAWS inspect command - it would read of all headers if header attribute used...otherwise not. 18:33:28 Al: So some prog deter. things do reach user experience. 18:35:27 Al: New idea: Has to do with what the user agent calls configurability... 18:36:22 there are 2 kinds of controls in addition to what comes in over wire - view adjustments (eg view size) and the other is navigation. 18:38:45 Al: WCAG seems to have ignored this somewhat. 18:41:55 Al: ex, they ask you to make structure and presentation seperable, then they ask for sufficient contrast...even when ua is a ble to correct if struct and pres are seprated 18:43:43 Al: SUggest using HTML version of the mail-in form to draft text. 18:44:00 http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/comments/onlineform.html 18:44:14 http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/comments/guidelines.php 18:46:12 action: Jim to rewrite prog det items to conform to wcag model 18:46:16 there's also http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/comments/form.html 18:47:22 Topic: 3rd action from last week: JA to Identify instances where wcag requires something of the 18:47:22 author that really should be done by the user agent. 18:47:24 -AlGilman 18:47:44 JA: Decided to drop this. 18:47:52 Al has left #ua 18:50:32 JA: Other thing that came up on CG call was issue from compound documents... 18:51:36 JA: Essentially Al revised some comments by JA to compund docs group... 18:52:27 JA: Issue was what if in my UA I set 18pt font, what would happen with an SVG inside in 100x100 container in an xhtml 18:52:54 JA: Something needs to be done (scrolling) etc. 18:53:46 JA: They said not our prob.,,its the xhtml object. 18:54:16 JA: But the browser may not know what's inside object so ewhat's inside needs to porovide. 18:57:54 -[IBM] 18:57:56 -Jan_Richards 18:57:58 -Jim_Allan 18:58:00 WAI_UAWG()2:00PM has ended 18:58:01 Attendees were Jim_Allan, [IBM], Jan_Richards, AlGilman 18:58:09 RRSAgent, make minutes 18:58:09 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/05/18-ua-minutes.html JR 18:58:28 RRSAgent, make minutes 18:58:29 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/05/18-ua-minutes.html JR 18:58:42 RRSAgent, set logs public 20:06:18 JR has joined #ua 20:06:31 Zakim, bye 20:06:31 Zakim has left #ua 20:06:36 RRSAgent, bye 20:06:36 I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/18-ua-actions.rdf : 20:06:36 ACTION: Jim to rewrite prog det items to conform to wcag model [1] 20:06:36 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/18-ua-irc#T18-46-12