See also: IRC log
<ben> issues and techniques for Guideline 1.2
<Yvette> Hi y'all
<rellero> for Gregg: Roberto Scano says regrets by phone :-)
<rellero> 10 01zakim, [IP is rellero
<rellero> sorry i'm setting audio
<Michael> scribe: Michael
<Yvette> scribe: Yvette
issues and techniques for Guideline 1.2
Resolution: accept all resolutions that were unanimous in the survey or unanimous with edits only
todo: add numbers
<Zakim> Yvette, you wanted to say "Lots of things at level 1 don't have an acceptable alternative"
<rellero> captions and transcr L1
<rellero> sorry i've currently audio problems
<judy> roberto, do you mean "and" or "or"?
<rellero> pair surely
<rellero> but i prefer and
<rellero> if posssible
<rellero> excuse me, i notice now that my preference for "and" is near first answer, captions only
<rellero> captions are necessary in my opinion, L1
<rellero> Yes, captions L1
<judy> reference: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#def-Consensus
<judy> Consensus: A substantial number of individuals in the set support the decision and nobody in the set registers a Formal Objection.
<bengt> the relevant part is: Abstention is either an explicit expression of no opinion or silence by an individual in the set.
A Formal Objection to a group decision is one that the reviewer requests that the Director consider as part of evaluating the related decision
<bengt> no means abstention unless one goes formal
<scribe> ACTION: Gregg to document techniques for captioning when you don't have access to the source file [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-wai-wcag-irc]
<scribe> ACTION: Gregg to research techniques for easier captioning [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-wai-wcag-irc]
Resolution: retain current wording about captions at level 1
Vote was 8 for requiring captions at level 1 versus 5 for requiring captions or corrected screenplay at level 1 AND captions at level 2
<Michael> scribe: Michael
Question: Audio descriptions at level 1, or option of audio descriptions or edited screenplay at level 1 plus audio descriptions at level 2
<Zakim> Michael_Cooper, you wanted to say I think our decision should be consistent with the previous one, so maybe we can fast-trak?
<Zakim> judy, you wanted to address question of skillset
<rellero_> sorry for line, I agree with consistency with previous, my vote is Audio descriptions at level 1, text transcript of all audio intermixed with a text description is not a acceptable experience for blind people (not synchronized and spoken by synthesis not by actor: loss of expression, not multimedia experience)
<rellero_> problems with mic
<Zakim> Michael_Cooper, you wanted to pass on Roberto's comment
<rellero_> Audio descriptions at level 1
<rellero_> i've made tests and a compatibility table in progress
resolution: No change to SC 1.2.2 (vote 6 for no change, 5 for change, 4 abstentions)
<rellero_> results are good with 2 audio tracks in win http://www.webaccessibile.org/argomenti/documento.asp?DocID=570
resolution: reason for abstentions usually because need more info
vote adjusted: 6 for solo, 6 for pair, 3 abstentions, no change to resolution
chair breaks tie with a vote for solo, making it 7
final vote: 7 for solo, 6 for pair, 3 abstentions
skipping this in favor of ones we're prepared for today
resolution: close 1618, making the changes proposed in the survey
<Zakim> Yvette, you wanted to say "do not require visual, title etc should suffice"
<Andi> scribe: Andi
resolution: 1842A accept proposal to move 1.3.4, "Any information that is conveyed by color is visually evident when color is not available" to L1
... 1.3.2 is referred back to committee to determine whether it is still required.
... 1842b reject proposal to move 1.4.1, "Text or diagrams, and their background, have a luminosity contrast ratio of at least 5:1" to L1?
... 1842c reject proposal to move 1.4.3, "Text or diagrams, and their background, have a luminosity contrast ratio of at least 10:1" to L2
<Zakim> judy, you wanted to say that this doesn't just affect kids
When content violates either the general flash threshold or the red flash threshold, users cannot access the content without first seeing and dismissing a warning.
resolution: delete 2.3.1 and move 2.3.1 to Level 1
resolution: replaces last resolution - delete 2.3.1 and move 2.3.2 to Level 1
<ben> above resolution closes 1785, 1796 and 1793
resolution: close issue 1104 as proposed in the survey
<Michael> * 1665
<Michael> * 1668
<Michael> * 1670
<Michael> * 1776
<Yvette> I got kicked off
<Yvette> but want to vote against closing
resolution: close 1666 as proposed but modify comment as proposed by John
... close issue 1667 with modified rationale
... add an advisory technique to GL 1.3 called "providing resizable fonts"
resolution: accept proprosal for "Failure due to using plugins in a way that traps users inside plugin content." with edits to address Loretta's and Andi's comments. Examples would be really helpful.