W3C

- DRAFT -

EOWG

13 Jul 2007

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Doyle, Judy, William_Loughborough, Sylvie_Duchateau_(first_part), Shawn, Andrew, Henny, Shadi, Justin, Jack_(first_part), Liam_McGee, Wayne_Dick_(last_few_minutes)
Regrets
Helle, Jack, Wayne, Alan
Chair
Judy
Scribe
Henny

Contents


 

 

<shawn> scribe: Henny

WCAG 2.0 WD, SC 3.1.4

Comment fromn the WG: What do you mean by abbreviation?

Judy: do we need further discussion on this?

<shawn> Justin's email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007JulSep/0006.html

William: I like what Justin said, lets rephrase it.

<judy> ACTION: jb reply again on thread to WCAG WG regarding clarification of our puzzlement on 3.1.4, using Justin's explanation as further clarification. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/13-eo-minutes.html#action01]

1.2. Clarification or withdrawal of two of our new comments

Judy: Comment number 6 and 15

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007JulSep/0005.html

One comment is about conformance and the other conformance referencing

<shawn> We sent two comments which were still in progress: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007JulSep/0005.html

<shawn> comment #6 is regarding conformance requirements: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance-reqs

<shawn> and #15 is regarding conformance referencing: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance-referencing

Judy: we sent over a lot of comments about this. I think Wayn, maybe others too, asked: were we thinking apart from some of the redundencies in requirments 5 and 6 maybe some of that should be considered a SC.
... we need to decide what we think here
... Do we know what "only accessibility supported web technologies means"

Andrew: it would be useful to see a link to the list.

William: The "only's" put restrictions on

Judy: does anybody feel something from comment 5 or 6 shouldn't be in the conformance requirements and instead should be in the SC's

Andrew: 6 doesn't seem to relate to conformance, is a set of instructions, should be in the guidelines not conformance.

Judy: it sounds like a SC

Shawn: number two is a SC
... still think we should put in a comment that this seems really strange and that at a minimum that they should put in a note why it is here.

Andrew: why do they repeat them here when they are already described in the document?

Shawn: You can use accessibility technologies for enhancement but you still have to be careful of these 3 things 1. no keyboard trap, 2. Three Flashes or Below Threshold, 3 Non support. #2 is already a SC. and #1 should be covered.

Judy: I think it is notable that people don't seem to understand what is intended in this section
... Should it stay in the section Shawn?

Shawn: Unclear, need to work on it.

William: "used" in number 6 and "relied upon" in number 5 is difficult for me How can something that is used not be relied upon.

Judy: There is a linked definition of relied upon but not used.

<judy> draft ACTION: [conformance requirements] In Note 5, please link "accessibility supported Web technologies," and the second sentence needs copy-editing for understandability ("Any information or functionality that is implemented in technologies that are not accessibility supported must also be available via technologies that are accessibility supported.")

Judy: Lets look at 6

<judy> ACTION: [conformance requirements] In Note 5, please link "accessibility supported Web technologies," and the second sentence needs copy-editing for understandability ("Any information or functionality that is implemented in technologies that are not accessibility supported must also be available via technologies that are accessibility supported.") [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/13-eo-minutes.html#action02]

Judy: Does the top level note belong here or as a SC. Does the stuff underneath it belong with this or spread out between SC. Or is it redundant.

William: Flashes are redundant

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say I think this should be a NOTE related to using non-accessibility-supported technologies

Shawn: It's a note where you talk about used but not relied upon.
... I think that number 6 should be a note related to using non-accessibility supported technologies but not relying on them
... Under number 6, number 3 is not non-interference. That's a seperate thing

Judy: Neither is two, Flashes.

Shawn: if it Flashes you can't use a web page.

William: still can't get past concept of being used and not relied upon.

Shawn. It's alternate versions. All infomation is available in text but you have the addition of Flash to make it pretty on top of that.

Andrew: another example is you fill in a form that uses JavaScript to update your postcode on the fly but if you do not have JS then the form is submitted and the page reloaded.

Judy: Other comments?

Sylvie: It's complicated

Judy: Which is a relevant point

Andrew wants to go with the note idea.

<judy> draft ACTION: [conformance requirements] On Note 6, we had what this really meant and why it belonged within the conformance requirements as opposed to as SC or alternatively as notes within the section on Accessibility Supported Technologies. Please consider...

Shawn: it seems like it should be a note about using but not relying on non-accessibility suppoted technologies

William: until there is a list of non-accessibility supported technologies it will be difficult to understand.

Judy: to me it seems that the group had understanding what it meant even if one or two did.

<shawn> [6 sticks out of place here. It seems like it should be a note where you talk about using but not relying on non-accessibility supported technologies. The third point is not really about Non-Interference, it's a higher-level definition of used-but-not-relied-upon.]

Judy: Note 2 about Flash, does anyone object that we drop that?
... Was there a reason to have that Shawn?

Shawn: I think they can keep the idea but drop all that text.
... all they need to do is poin the the SC 3.2.1

Judy: But should it be dropped from teh chunk of stuff we're asking them to move.

Shawn: I think we should say consider if it is important to point out these two things.

<judy> draft ACTION: [conformance requirements] On Note 6, we had difficulty understanding what this meant; and it does not seem to belong with the conformance requirements. Please move it as a note under Accessibility Supported Techniques, and re-examine whether all of the sub-notes are necessary and/or belong within this note.

<shawn> [ The third point is not really about Non-Interference, it's a higher-level definition of used-but-not-relied-upon.]

<judy> draft ACTION: [conformance requirements] On Note 6, we had difficulty understanding what this meant; and it does not seem to belong with the conformance requirements. Please move it as a note under Accessibility Supported Requirements, and re-examine whether all of the sub-notes are necessary and/or belong within this note. For instance, sub-note #2 seems redundant to some, and sub-note #3 does not seem to fit within the concept of non-interference.

<judy> ACTION: [conformance requirements] On Note 6, we had difficulty understanding what this meant; and it does not seem to belong with the conformance requirements. Please move it as a note under Accessibility Supported Technologies, and re-examine whether all of the sub-notes are necessary and/or belong within this note. For instance, sub-note #2 seems redundant to some, and sub-note #3 does not seem to fit within the concept of non-interference. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/13-eo-minutes.html#action03]

Judy: We had not gone through the introduction and were not planning on that in EO at this point but Shawn will talk to the WG chair so we couldinput in on the Introduction section
... Group mainly had confirmed and accepted resolutions plus some new comments. Nothing as fundamental as the last round of comments.

Web accessibility current situation, EOWG short-term focus

Judy: is the only available editor for August.
... what are people seeing in terms of how web accessibity is being perceived right now?

Justin: people want to do more advanced stuff, AJAX, Web 2.0 and be clear on what they should be doing.

<shadi> Henny: lots of commercial sites going AJAX etc, Web applications coming on a lot now

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask if "people not aware of resources" or if there aren't enough or good resources?

<shadi> Henny: no real life examples

<shadi> Henny: when should we start using WCAG 2.0, how to go about it, what resources are there etc

<Andrew> Andrew: also hearing "when do we start using WCAG 2.0"

<shadi> Henny: haven't heard yet, but wondering if people will ask how to write conformance statements

<shawn> [/me notes the these perspectives are from accessibility consultants :]

Andrew: some of the old myths are still there. For example not using multimedia.

Justin: Another esample is that sites must be dull and boring.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask about getting the msg out about new draft... and to say and it's really a whole lot better this time! (and lots of people are saying good things about it)

Shawn: how do we get message out

<shawn> Liam: News item: "New Draft of WCAg 2.0 Much Better" says important [?]

Liam: get important sites to plug it

William: people don't understand on why their authoring tool wont do it for them

Judy: Given the context now and energy we have for July and August what should we focus on.
... lets look at the list of what we have in teh agenda 2.2.

Shawn: a. WAI handouts: should we update and promote these?
... B WCAG 2.0 presentation: should we provide slides so others can use these in their presentations?
... C, refining the quick reference: shall we look at making this a better resouce for both beginners and more advanced users. Should we look at more customization options.
... d: providing guidance for average web developers: we had talked about a simplified version a few months ago.
... proposed changes are 1. Something like the Quick Tips, 2. As an option to display in the Quick Reference and 3 As an appendix to "Improving the Accessibility of Your Web Site"
... Benefits of transitioning is it a priority.
... F Communicating the importance of accessibility support in authoring tools

Updating translations priorities and encouraging translations of

existing material

Updating translations priorities and encouraging translations of

existing material

Shawn: H componants of web accessibility, a tutorial
... I, promotional campaign, integrating accessibility in courses

Liam: E. It's anecdotal and the most useful for me when talking to developers. Helps explain why it's time to start transitioning.

<shawn> e. Writing up the Benefits of WCAG 2.0

<shawn> b. WCAG 2.0 presentation

Andrew: can we combine e with b, WCAG 2.0 slides.
... lots of interest in when do we start, what are the benefits, how do we make a conformance claim? We are asked to present on this.

Justin: I like the ideas of highlighting the benefits in both the WCAG 2 slides (b) and the benefits (e) and reminding people that they are now getting from WCAG 2.0 what they asked for.

*soory for typo of the pint...

Shadi: is it too early to promote benefits?

William: previously Section 508 was not closely related to WCAG but now that it is.

Shadi: In the past we have said WCAG 2 has taken our resources. Now perhaps we can look at other areas of WAI work such as ARIA.

<shawn> [shawn wonders if people have seen http://www.thepickards.co.uk/index.php/200707/wcag-20-testability-testing-times-tetchiness/ ]

Judy: should we move A, the WAI handouts...have we missed anything here. Are we zeroing on the right place?

Shadi: WAI ARIA is an area of big interest so lets add to list.

Shawn: remember that a lot of teh people we talk to are accessibility aware but there are a lot of people who aren't. Getting people who are accessibility aware are important to get on board.

Judy: For b do we want to do a presntation that is widely resuable or a page to look at.

William under F, authoring tools, we need to make people realise that they can't just write something in a text editor. We need to have warnings and communicate pitfalls.

Judy: so if we are doing a presentation on WCAG 2 could we have this flagged in it or do we promote this seperately.

Liam: it is a really big problem to tackle in August. yes it is a problem but not a quick hit and there are other things that are more important.

<shawn> [ shawn's presentation that is mostly on WCAG 2.0, also includes mention of authoring tools & browswers...]

Judy: one concern is that strategically we could turn round accessibility if we can articulate the importance of understanding how authoring tools work.
... agree it is hard to do in August but in September we will have to focus again on WCAG so now may be a good time to focus on authoring tools.

William: When is a good time, it keeps being put off, we have to do something or it will always be there. It is similar to teh issue of cognitive disabilities.

Judy: There is a strong preference for a presentation (b) with care consideration of direction.
... There were 3 themes for the focus.
... theme 2: the benefits of WCAG 2 (we did what you asked for)
... theme 3: WCAG 2.0 goes well with others i.e. WAI ARIA
... theme 3: think about the vehicle that you use to implement WCAG 2.

<shawn> right

<shawn> To find minuting instructions: EOWG home page > "minuting instructions" link (under "Teleconferences", in "Related pages:" line)

ok just looking it up now..

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: [conformance requirements] In Note 5, please link "accessibility supported Web technologies," and the second sentence needs copy-editing for understandability ("Any information or functionality that is implemented in technologies that are not accessibility supported must also be available via technologies that are accessibility supported.") [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/13-eo-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: [conformance requirements] On Note 6, we had difficulty understanding what this meant; and it does not seem to belong with the conformance requirements. Please move it as a note under Accessibility Supported Technologies, and re-examine whether all of the sub-notes are necessary and/or belong within this note. For instance, sub-note #2 seems redundant to some, and sub-note #3 does not seem to fit within the concept of non-interference. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/13-eo-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: jb reply again on thread to WCAG WG regarding clarification of our puzzlement on 3.1.4, using Justin's explanation as further clarification. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/13-eo-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.128 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/07/13 14:42:44 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128  of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/3 Non support/3 Non support. #2 is already a SC. and #1 should be covered./
Succeeded: s/ relying on accessibility/ relying on non-accessibility/
Succeeded: s/ difficulty understanding//
Succeeded: s/ I think they should keep the idea / I think they can keep the idea /
Succeeded: s/Requirements/Techniques/
Succeeded: s/New item: "/Liam: News item: "/
Found Scribe: Henny
Inferring ScribeNick: Henny
Default Present: doyle, Judy, Loughborough, Sylvie_Duchateau\Tanguy_Loh´┐Żac, Shawn, Andrew, +0207391aaaa, Henny, Shadi, Justin, Jack, Liam_McGee, Wayne_Dick
Present: Doyle Judy William_Loughborough Sylvie_Duchateau_(first_part) Shawn Andrew Henny Shadi Justin Jack_(first_part) Liam_McGee Wayne_Dick_(last_few_minutes)
Regrets: Helle Jack Wayne Alan
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007JulSep/0007.html
Got date from IRC log name: 13 Jul 2007
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/07/13-eo-minutes.html

WARNING: No person found for ACTION item: [conformance requirements] on note 6, we had difficulty understanding what this meant; and it does not seem to belong with the conformance requirements. please move it as a note under accessibility supported technologies, and re-examine whether all of the sub-notes are necessary and/or belong within this note. for instance, sub-note #2 seems redundant to some, and sub-note #3 does not seem to fit within the concept of non-interference. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/13-eo-minutes.html#action03]


WARNING: No person found for ACTION item: [conformance requirements] in note 5, please link "accessibility supported web technologies," and the second sentence needs copy-editing for understandability ("any information or functionality that is implemented in technologies that are not accessibility supported must also be available via technologies that are accessibility supported.") [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/13-eo-minutes.html#action02]

People with action items: jb

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]