See also: IRC log
CI: "Baseline" was clearer to me
<scribe> ...new concept mixes responsibility between content developers and User Agent developers
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: if UA's don't use
accessibility features of a technology then it is a UA problem, not an
accessibility problem
... "current state of technology" is very diverse amongst assistive techs
... not sure why user agents are mentioned, should be more separation between
ATAG, UAAG, WCAG
SAZ: there needs to be a balance between the puristic approach and the more pragmatic -theortical accessibility support doesn't work in real life
CI: you will always find a UA or an assistive
tech that fails in something
... the level of support is not mentioned -100% or just some support?
SAZ: comments from perspective or eval tools developer?
CI: concept of transaction doesn't seem clear
-what is a full process?
... for example, purchase process may be different depending on the login of
the user
... do all different variants need to be considered?
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance
Item #9
CI: difficult for external reviewer to know all the possible paths and scenarios of a process
SAZ: how about if in the guidelines there is a
brief mention that sometimes internal knowledge of the application and
processes is needed to evaluate this requirement
... to acknowledge that external reviews aren't always simple because the
internal processes (and branches/paths etc) may be hidden or unkown
... and elaborate a little more on this in the "Understanding" document
... to help guide evaluators who want to *review* web sites (as opposed to
developers building the site)
<CarlosI> Statement of partial conformance
CI: statement of partial conformance could be a
backdoor
... "everything is ok with my CMS, but i can't control my content"
... can be an excuse, need to be able to control the conformance level
<CarlosI> except for error periods
<CarlosI> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20070517/Overview.html#uc-239-head
CI: blanket conformance claims for whole Web
sites should be avoided, hardly exists in reality
... for example claims for whole sites will most usually have exceptions
... i'm missing a note or some kind of clarification
SAZ: do you agree that the basic notion of the conformance claim is based on Web pages rather than whole web sites?
CI: understanding of "set of Web pages" may be different -like domains, directories, etc
SAZ: can you draft these comments
CI: also have another comment on resources
... will put them together and send a draft by tomorrow