Phone: Ben Caldwell (scribe), Loretta, Avi Arditti, Bengt Farre, Doyle Burnett, Euginia Slaydon, John Slatin, Jason White, Matt May, Lee Roberts, Gian Sampson-Wild, Paul Bohman
IRC: Ben, bengt, MattBOS, rscano (Robert Scano), PatBertin
Andi, Peter Batchelor, Mauriziio Vittoria, Roberto Scano, Marco Trevisan, Cynthia Shelly, Chris O'Kennon, Wendy Chisholm
JW - changes to draft include moving 5.2 and rewording level 2 success criteria (plus a few minor edits here and there)
JW - are there any general comments in relation to the latest draft? If not, then we can work specifically through some of the changes.
--no comments--
JW - not much to discuss if people haven't looked at it
JW - most of the changes were addressed in last few meetings, not much controversial. review requirements changes may attract some comments
JW - other issue we might look at is rewrite of checkpoint 5.2, which is supposed to reflect decisions already taken any reactions to that?
LGR - 5.3 hasn't changed any work on that?
JW - No, we never had a proposal or action items for it 5.3, so it's something that will need to be discussed shortly.
JW - another open issue is what happens to 3.1 and if we should remove it, but problem is that it is contingent on what we decide to do with 4.1
JW - we'll have to postpone decisions on 3.1 until we make progress on 4.1
JW - 3.2 is now 1.4, which was fairly easy to do
JW - I'm assuming that nobody disagrees with that change.
JS - we should fix the wording for 1.4 for success criteria under level 1
JS - structural elements present have a different visual appearance than other structural elements (which doesn't make sense)
JW - I think we need to review entire document for ambiguous or poorly expressed ideas
JW - another issue in discussion of guidelines is that the examples in the document need review to increase the diversity of them, clarify them where necessary, make sure they are correct and appropriate
JW - I'd suggest that anyone who can, read the document in its entirety and collect issues where they come up
JW - in editing, I've tried to correct minor wording issues (especially in non-normative section)
JW - proposal under new 1.4 first success criteria to change it to read "different structural elements should have distinct presentation" any objections? just a minor clarification
--no objections--
JW - Any other comments on new internal working draft?
JW - there are other issues of course, but are there any comments in relation to revisions on 5.2?
JS - I'd like to straighten out syntax on first success criteria to make the sentence read more easily.
JW - any suggested edits?
JS - not right now, I'll have to sit down and fiddle with it
ACTION JS: to submit proposal for fixing success criteria (minimum level, first item)
JW - any other comments?
Lee - Question. on 5.2, can it be asserted that Flash is required?
JW - Under Level 1, it can be asserted that anything is required, but there are limitations in 5.3
JW - those two checkpoints operate together, which reminds me that we should cross-reference them (5.2 and 5.3) in next draft
JS - where there are relationships like this, they should be flagged in a way that's harder to miss than "see also"
JW - once we're finished cleaning up 5.3, there may be an option of combining them
PB - Another question. Success criteria says "a list of technologies and features" key point, but wondering about a particular scenario. Let's say you have CSS that's not supported all that well in older browser, you could claim that CSS was a required part of accessing page, because CSS in general was supported, but a specific attribute wasn't
JW - there is a definition of what we mean by technologies below to clarify this type of scenario
BBC - (proxying for Robert Scano) and addin 5.2 this: list of technologies and features, that are designed to support accessibility as explained in point 5.3, support for which is required...
ACTION JS - reword level 1 success criteria for 5.2 so that it refers to checkpoint 5.3.
JW - another idea is to add it as a note
JS - can a checkpoint be more than 1 sentence?
JW - yes, but usually it gets introduced as a note when referring to something else
JW - OK, if breaking into several sentences, it would then be easier to break it into a ntoe
JW - any more ideas on 5.3?
JW - basically, the idea here was to require that certain types of user agents exist that support particular features of the content
JW - we're planning to rewrite 5.3 completely anyway
BF - OK
JW - any other suggestions?
JW - consistent wording added to latest draft for review requirements at level 2
JS - is there a heading for these changes?
JW - they're scattered throughout the document
JW - one other change was the introduction of appendix B into the document
JS - question under checkpoint 1.2 level 2 says "level 2 or 3"
JW - that's correct. you can't just say level 2 because when you get to level 3, you will have violated level 2 if you don't
JS - not only is it not clear, it could lead to some serious misunderstandings as it stands right now
JW - what would you suggest that would be applied globally?
JS - turn it into another sentence or a note
JW - I didn't think it was confusing
JS - if you say you can claim level 2 by claiming conformance at level 3, I'm confused
JS - some people might read it as legitimizing a level 3 conformance claim when you haven't done the work
GSW - agrees that it is confusing
GSW - I'll take an action item to reword this and send a note to the list.(1.2, level 2, item 1)
ACTION GSW - reword 1.2, level 2, item 1 and send a note to the list.
JW - unscrupulous readers may misinterpret it
JS - or just unskilled readers
JS - I'm envisioning my students hitting this and wanting to strangle me
JW - Any comments on the requirement that a certain type of review has taken place?
JS - can I take an action item to rework #1 thing to eliminate the parentheticals?
JW - which one
JS - 1.2, level 2, item 1
JW - intent was to make minimal changing because I didn't want to change substance or intent of each checkpoint
JS - listening to that sentence in JAWS makes it hard to follow and I'm afraid people who need to use this will tie themselves in knots
JW - you're welcome to have a good look at it
ACTION JS - reword success criteria for checkpoint 1.3, level 2, item 1
JW - final change is introduction of appendix B, which has been included to give an overview and rationale behind conformance levels
JW - it's a non-normative appendix and is refered to at the end of the conformance section in the introduction
JS - I thought we wanted it in the introduction
JW - there have been concerns about the length of the conformance section, my solution was to put details in the appendix to avoid adding another 4 or 5 paragraphs to conformance section
JS - OK
JW - any comments on appendix B? This is completely new text.
BBC - (proxying for Robert Scano) I suggest for "conformity" of the document to use in Appendix B the same style of paragraph of level 2 and three, starting level one with "At level 1,..."
JW - OK, that's an editorial change, anybody support or not support that type of change?
JS - sounds good
JW - any other comments on appendix B before we move on?
JW - very quiet meeting today
LGR - hard because this is a broad set of issues instead of specific changes to wrestle with
JW - it's really a matter of anyone deciding to take up issues with any of the changes. if anyone objects to any of them, we want to know
JW - John has taken action items on 1.2 and 5.2, loretta and I have action item on 5.3 to look at UA conformance scheme to determine relevence of UA profiles
ACTION JW and LGR - 5.3 look at UA conformance scheme to determine relevence of UA profiles
JW - 3.1 is contingent on changes to 4.1
JW - any other issues people would like to raise in relation to changes or to anything else?
JW - checklist generation is still on the agenda
BBC - should be on agenda for next week
JS - I'm still reviewing doc to find intersections with other technologies for which we might have questions for other groups, am hoping to finish it next week (action from Linz face to face)
BBC - Paul and I working on checklists (draft to list soon) and Wendy to fill out a sample early next week
ACTION JW - add unique id attributes to the draft to support referencing success criteria from checklists
JW - Recent note from Bill Mason about confusion over checkpoint 1.1
JW - so we're saying that we don't see a problem in 1.1
ES - maybe we can ask him to clarify what he means
JW - I don't think there were any other issues around at the moment are there?
JW - any more issues before we close?
JW - next week: checklists, and probably 4.1 as well
JW - any thoughts before we close on modifications to 3.1?
JS - Last week, when we discussed moving 3.2 into 1.4 that we talked about whether items under 3.1 we talked about whether they were accounted for under 4.1
JS - if we do limit 4.1 to written language, then we need 3.1 back to deal with things that aren't text
JW - right. structure in other words
JW - we could consider moving under guideline 4 if we think it has more to do with comprehension than it does with navigation
JS - it depends what media we're talking about. maybe I'll go bother some of my collegues to learn more about structural elements of film
JS - in SMIL, when you syncronize a caption text with a sound track, then you have a way to integrate structure within that audio
JW - SVG has structural elements in it. that's clearly covered
JS - there was an exchange between me, gregg and cynthia about making changes to wording under 1.3
JW - yes, that's currently erroniously under 3.1
JW - there isn't a distinction between providing the structure and providing the markup
JW - in most cases we have a division between providing the strucutre and making it available in machine readable form
JW - any other thoughts about restricting 4.1 to written language?
LGR - I think it's probably a good idea
JW - I suppose it makes for a clearer checkpoint because you get one checkpoint with how many items listed under it
JS - right, we don't want a checkpoint that says "take account of the history of culture in your civilization"
JW - thanks, if no other comments then we'll conclude
Adjourn: 4:30 Central
$Date: 2002/09/04 22:39:31 $ Ben Caldwell