IRC log of wai-wcag on 2003-07-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

07:07:29 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
07:07:36 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #wai-wcag
07:07:58 [rellero]
rellero has joined #wai-wcag
07:09:59 [wendy]
plan for the day
07:10:11 [wendy]
- finish reports from yesterday's small groups
07:11:36 [wendy]
what is the impact of what we are doing?
07:11:54 [wendy]
in about a year, we hope wcag 2.0 will become a w3c recommendation. what effect will that have?
07:12:40 [silvia]
silvia has joined #wai-wcag
07:12:52 [wendy]
for the log: <rscano> some photos of yesterday : :)
07:15:51 [wendy]
summaries from yesterday:
07:17:12 [bengt]
bengt has joined #wai-wcag
07:17:32 [wendy]
italy: yesterday in the parliament, 5 proposals have been merged into one proposal. one refers to w3c (ATAG, WCAG, UAAG). one does not. another refers to only a part of WCAG.
07:17:46 [lloydi]
lloydi has joined #wai-wcag
07:18:01 [wendy]
the proposals have been compiled into one document, not "merged" in that they haven't been combined into one proposal.
07:18:48 [wendy]
12 proposals, but in commission only 4 or 5 main proposals.
07:19:09 [wendy]
government web sites are about 3% accessible.
07:22:54 [wendy]
there will be a law by the end of the year, but not sure what it says.
07:24:04 [wendy]
israel: no regulation.
07:24:41 [wendy]
a braille reader works in hebrew, but screen readers are not affordable and don't read well.
07:24:49 [wendy]
(i.e., mispronounces many words)
07:26:48 [wendy]
sweden: probably prefer for EU to make a law.
07:27:38 [chaalsVCE]
chaalsVCE has joined #wai-wcag
07:27:48 [wendy]
scotland: 1999 discrimination act, wcag is using law. oftentimes (in the university), don't have people specific for accessiblity but often use consultants.
07:28:24 [wendy]
government bodies also use consultants to create and evaluate web sites. had several workshops for people about creating accessible sites.
07:28:42 [wendy]
spain: not rewriting, but interpreting what wcag 1.0 means.
07:29:21 [wendy]
i.e., "until user agents..." they say "user agents do it, so we won't worry about it." they are running with it. would be good to have more formal interpretation.
07:29:37 [wendy]
when 2.0 comes out, they'll eventually write a law that will adopt 2.0 and eventually will be applied.
07:29:56 [wendy]
it will take some time after it comes out to adopt.
07:30:55 [wendy]
scotland: after 2.0 comes out, what is likely to happen? eventually adopt, once cases are introduced that use the act people will likely take more seriously.
07:31:53 [wendy]
they'll be looking for most up-to-date information (when cases come out). but they are efficient. will also be looking to rest of europe.
07:31:58 [wendy]
(european union)
07:32:09 [wendy]
efficient in making changes and updating.
07:32:46 [wendy]
australia: law - must be accessible or have to fix it. following wcag 1.0 is best prevention from problems with the law.
07:33:09 [wendy]
many govnts watching and anticipating wcag 2.0.
07:33:37 [wendy]
when reaches last call, that's the time to start taking seriously and to begin making changes to it.
07:34:27 [wendy]
public must be (unless cost too much, although doesn't usually wash as an argument), private should be
07:35:40 [wendy]
s/public/private (i.e., no exemtion on public but the exemtion is private)
07:35:53 [wendy]
public == government
07:36:19 [wendy]
public accomodation - anything that offers services to the public
07:37:17 [glapis]
glapis has joined #wai-wcag
07:37:22 [wendy]
germany: laws and regulation at national level, but universities and schools follow state law
07:38:19 [wendy]
took WCAG 1.0 and sorted into 2 priorities. p1 is a must for everything that goes online after everything publisehd after the law into effect.
07:38:38 [wendy]
p2 required for navigation path and key areas onthe site.
07:39:01 [wendy]
entry pages
07:39:20 [wendy]
legacy content has until end of 2005 to be changed or will be deleted. also navigation path to that doc.
07:39:24 [wendy]
07:39:50 [wendy]
no civil discrimination act. act does not cover public places.
07:40:11 [wendy]
will have civil disc. act maybe next year.
07:40:21 [wendy]
then provisions will extend to private sector.
07:41:26 [wendy]
tomas intends to create a mapping between the germany p1s and the WCAG 1.0 checkpoints match up
07:43:47 [bengt] <-- UK Disability and Discrimination Act
07:44:15 [m3mVCE]
m3mVCE has joined #wai-wcag
07:44:17 [wendy]
germany policies:
07:44:48 [wendy]
federalized system. states have authority over culture, education. so whole education sector not covered by federal law.
07:45:02 [wendy]
7 states that have discrimination act and 9 don't.
07:45:17 [wendy]
2 states are older than federal provison and have nothing about IT accessibility.
07:45:29 [wendy]
2 others have adopted the federal regulation.
07:45:51 [wendy]
others waiting for 2.0 or take federal law and make state law? don't know.
07:47:13 [wendy]
federal regulation will be evaluted in next 3 years. one appendix (reform of wcag 1.0) **could be** dropped and replaced by 2.0.
07:47:53 [wendy]
(national) disability discrimination act, based on chapter 3 of constitution (race, religion, disability, etc.)
07:48:24 [wendy]
also interesting to map current checkpoints to wcag 2.0 to see how close they are
07:50:00 [wendy]
belgium: nothing in law. some sites work on, not many. most going with wcag 1.0 A.
07:50:53 [wendy]
negotiations, such that earliest something happen next year. if a law, will be based on WAI guidelines.
07:51:30 [wendy]
in french speaking parts, more initiatives butlocal. in flemish, a label "blind surfer" from org who is part of EuroAccessibility.
07:52:00 [wendy]
Marc propose they look at 2.0 rather than 1.0. w/e-govnt initiatives next year, good point to look at.
07:52:15 [wendy]
earliest have law is late 2004
07:52:37 [wendy]
some govnt sites asked for audit, not sure what they do with it.
07:55:53 [wendy]
07:58:34 [wendy]
07:59:17 [glapis]
glapis has joined #wai-wcag
08:00:12 [andi]
andi has joined #wai-wcag
08:00:24 [lloydi]
A bit more about the DRC (Disability Research Council) briefing on forthcoming survey of 1000 sites:
08:00:44 [GVAN]
GVAN has joined #wai-wcag
08:01:30 [wendy]
UK: in particular, refer to the conclusion section of the sloan paper:
08:01:48 [wendy]
prediction for 2.0: see what happens in u.s. and australia
08:01:55 [wendy]
currently, using level A from 1.0 as a model
08:02:03 [wendy]
hopefully adopt 2.0 in the same way
08:04:16 [wendy]
U.S. 508 revised with right of private action (i.e., the govnt can be sued)
08:05:27 [wendy]
if govnt buys a web site it has to be accessible & right of private action. however, if make their own no right of private action.
08:06:12 [wendy]
(more on UK from yesterday's notes 15:14:43)
08:07:05 [wendy]
private sector had been following WCAG b/c they wanted it clear that didn't have to follow 508, but then some felt 508 easier to follow. so in the private sector, no defn.
08:07:56 [wendy]
question about web sites being covered by u.s. law.
08:08:03 [wendy]
current case about an airline.
08:08:52 [wendy]
(508 revised in 1998, final rule published 2001 - update dates in yesterday's minutes)
08:09:05 [wendy]
if web covered is ambiguous.
08:09:34 [wendy]
in practice in govnt - 508. great effort to comply. trying to set a good example.
08:09:41 [wendy]
want to get things done before there is a suit.
08:10:23 [wendy]
getting rid of clutter makes sites more accessible and professional. so, trend towards getting rid of eye-candy
08:10:38 [wendy]
accessibility helped advance usability of sites
08:10:54 [wendy]
private/u.s. heading towards 508 or Level A WCAG 1.0
08:11:33 [wendy]
the tools support 508. people look to lowest common denominator that gives safe harbor.
08:12:04 [giorgio_brajnik]
giorgio_brajnik has joined #wai-wcag
08:13:08 [wendy]
state dept seems to have a more positive attitude about making sites accessible and being innovative. other agencies seem to be more concerned about being sued than doing it because it is a good idea.
08:14:06 [wendy]
what about legacy content?
08:14:32 [jason]
jason has joined #wai-wcag
08:14:41 [wendy]
hey jason!
08:14:58 [rscano]
hi Jason :)
08:15:01 [jason]
Hello Wendy
08:15:26 [wendy]
particularly, "photo pdf" that are images of text, not actual text.
08:15:27 [andi]
Jason, aren't you supposed to be sleeping?
08:15:50 [wendy]
some pdf is locked and assistive technologies can't get info out of them.
08:16:26 [jason]
Not yet, no. I expect to be going to bed early, though, as I caught the family cold this week. It's 6:16 PM here.
08:16:41 [jason]
I thought I would join for a while.
08:16:56 [wendy]
difficult to keep up with everything. there are 300 sites that are in some process of review.
08:22:36 [wendy]
discussion about examples from the state dept of u.s. (cyrillic site)
08:22:47 [wendy]
current state of the state dept.
08:23:26 [wendy]
what happened to the ADA?
08:23:56 [wendy]
1996 ruling:
08:24:57 [wendy]
hearing in 2000
08:25:25 [wendy]
recent suit related to an airline
08:26:24 [wendy]
w3c amicus brief:
08:28:04 [wendy]
the question of this case is: does the ada cover internet sites?
08:29:12 [giorgio]
giorgio has joined #wai-wcag
08:29:21 [rscano]
Apply ada for internet:
08:31:59 [wendy]
another case at same time, found for. all headlines only about case that found against.
08:32:48 [wendy]
question: in wcag 2.0 is there anything that would make it easier or better for adoption in european union or member countries?
08:33:02 [wendy]
in germany, if p1 and p2 lined up with core and extended, would be helpful. :)
08:33:55 [wendy]
2.0: clear separation between minimum and best practice. have a solid basis, start with something "more legal"
08:34:05 [wendy]
some of the phrases and terminology is difficult to understand.
08:34:21 [wendy]
if have to translate, might be difficult to get the same meaning in other language.
08:34:34 [wendy]
in englihs, might have very specific meaning.
08:34:42 [wendy]
when try to find variation could have different meaning.
08:35:00 [wendy]
(marc has an example passage that could be difficult to explain in dutch)
08:35:16 [wendy]
perhaps first translate the glossary.
08:35:33 [wendy]
the structure seems to be a good step. clear.
08:36:42 [wendy]
committees within union have just adopted 1.0, perhaps might take a while to move to 2.0.
08:37:10 [wendy]
could one person from each country take current wcag 2.0 and read to a friend. each time hit a phrase that is difficult to translate, highlight it.
08:39:09 [jason]
Perhaps this would best be done after the editors have taken one more editorial pass through the 2.0 document, which has recently been reorganized and I think would benefit from a little more editorial work.
08:39:14 [RylaDog]
RylaDog has joined #wai-wcag
08:39:51 [wendy]
08:39:58 [jason]
By all means, though, if you find problematic expressions or sentences while at the face to face meeting it would be helpful to highlight them.
08:40:09 [wendy]
q+ giorgio
08:41:11 [wendy]
ack giorgio
08:41:21 [wendy]
recently translated LIFT to Italian.
08:41:32 [wendy]
translated text resources.
08:42:03 [wendy]
main difficulty was determining the lexicon and determing how to represent terms like "form"
08:42:49 [wendy]
decided not to translate into italian, used english as technical word
08:43:14 [wendy]
could be ambiguous
08:43:34 [wendy]
took 2 months, 2 persons to translate
08:44:32 [wendy]
had to markup all of the foreign words with span. did not anticipate this. "browser" is not translatable
08:46:12 [wendy]
need to label so they are pronounced the correct way (by a screen reader)
08:46:25 [wendy]
jaws doesn't work with span
08:47:21 [wendy]
are borrowed words in english mispronounced or have they been around long enough?
08:47:55 [wendy]
ghoti == fish?
08:48:21 [m3mVCE]
ghoti ~ fish :)
08:48:54 [wendy]
1.0 seemed specific, 2.0 too general. difficult to apply.
08:49:07 [wendy]
technology-specific checklists will be important (for 2.0)
08:49:28 [wendy]
q+ katie, patrizia
08:49:47 [wendy]
q+ cmn
08:50:07 [wendy]
coord w/w3c offices?
08:50:24 [wendy]
not curerntly translating. this is informal exercise to look for difficult phrases.
08:50:36 [mcappelli]
mcappelli has joined #wai-wcag
08:50:39 [wendy]
(w3c offices are not currently translating)
08:50:53 [mcappelli]
good morning
08:51:04 [rscano]
hi michela
08:51:05 [rellero]
08:51:07 [wendy]
ack katie
08:51:28 [wendy]
had ideas for short phrases for checkpoints (like short phrases used on guidelines)
08:51:42 [wendy]
08:51:49 [wendy]
katie will send to the list her suggestions
08:51:54 [wendy]
ack patrizia
08:52:59 [wendy]
useful to have information that would help convince sites that are not govnt sites to be accessible
08:53:40 [wendy]
08:54:02 [wendy]
hierarchy of the most important parts of sites to be accessible.
08:54:16 [wendy]
q+ to respond to patrizia
08:54:26 [wendy]
ack chaals
08:54:26 [Zakim]
chaalsVCE, you wanted to note about translations after the break
08:54:33 [wendy]
that work is done by eowg
08:55:09 [wendy]
translations: if you translate a w3c document, there are formal requirements.
08:55:37 [wendy]
08:57:05 [wendy]
ack wendy
08:57:05 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to respond to patrizia
08:57:39 [wendy]
08:57:42 [wendy]
08:57:56 [wendy]
over break - what do you want to discuss during the next session
08:58:24 [wendy]
gv reads possible topics (from draft agenda)
09:05:11 [wendy]
+ francesco
09:08:56 [jason]
jason has joined #wai-wcag
09:35:04 [wendy]
09:35:11 [wendy]
when do people need to leave?
09:35:55 [wendy]
12:00 daniela, silvia
09:36:08 [wendy]
lisa, francesco, ian
09:36:13 [daniela]
daniela has joined #wai-wcag
09:36:18 [andi]
andi has joined #wai-wcag
09:36:53 [wendy]
09:37:00 [wendy]
server techniques/rdf
09:38:09 [wendy]
lisa's tool: she'll send link to list
09:39:02 [wendy]
conformance testing or imp testing framework
09:40:07 [bengt]
09:42:10 [bengt]
09:56:20 [mcappelli]
mcappelli has left #wai-wcag
09:56:44 [wendy]
breaking for lunch and into small groups
09:56:57 [wendy]
server-side techniques:
09:59:19 [glapis2]
glapis2 has joined #wai-wcag
10:01:57 [glapis2]
glapis2 has left #wai-wcag
10:06:14 [wendy]
lisa, maurizio, andi, enrico, lisa, patrizia, bengt, katie, gregg, charles, giuseppe, etc...
11:58:08 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
11:58:30 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #wai-wcag
12:08:03 [rscano]
rscano has joined #wai-wcag
12:10:15 [wendy]
wendy has joined #wai-wcag
12:12:20 [wendy]
back from lunch
12:13:34 [wendy]
12:13:36 [wendy]
could you minute?
12:14:11 [andi]
RDF Techniques
12:14:32 [andi]
Should these be independent techniques or part of server side techniques?
12:14:47 [wendy]
group (lisa, maurizio, andy, enrico, lisa, patrizia, bengt, katie, gregg, charles, giuseppe, wendy
12:15:33 [andi]
Related to server side techniques but doesn't really matter because technology specific techniques can be compiled into a single checklist
12:15:45 [andi]
Will bounce any proposed techniques off RDF working group
12:15:55 [andi]
want draft sooner rather than later
12:16:21 [andi]
introduction (how you use it, advantage, general examples) followed by individual techniques with lots of working examples.
12:16:51 [andi]
renderer can be open source, proprietary but freely available, or paid for
12:20:21 [giorgio]
giorgio has joined #wai-wcag
12:20:32 [wendy]
wendy has joined #wai-wcag
12:20:53 [wendy]
for the log:
12:20:54 [wendy]
<wendy> i think we all just got disconnected
12:20:54 [wendy]
[08:18] <wendy> we'll be using editors note to point out some techniques that we're including (so that we don't lose them) but htat might end up in a better place
12:20:54 [wendy]
[08:18] <wendy> ===
12:20:54 [wendy]
[08:19] <wendy> techniques group: tomas and ian
12:20:56 [glapis2]
glapis2 has joined #wai-wcag
12:21:25 [RylaDog]
RylaDog has joined #wai-wcag
12:21:32 [andi]
andi has joined #wai-wcag
12:21:38 [GVAN]
GVAN has joined #wai-wcag
12:21:52 [wendy]
we went through the early draft of the html techniques.
12:21:57 [andi]
want me to minute again?
12:22:02 [wendy]
please. thx
12:22:16 [andi]
reviewed HTML techniques working draft against WCAG 2.0 draft
12:22:29 [andi]
ideas of useful things to add but didn't try to reinvent the wheel
12:23:09 [andi]
alt text is given for 1.1 so didn't bother with that one.
12:23:40 [andi]
D link - shouldn't be a standard because there are lots of problems with it.
12:23:58 [andi]
perhaps a better technique is to provide a caption for the image that is a link to a long description
12:24:40 [andi]
could put description under the image that is styled in a way that it doesn't interfere with the visual design of the page
12:25:05 [andi]
looked at some examples
12:25:35 [andi]
should we add an example of using an image to provide a skip navigation link
12:25:48 [andi]
12:26:07 [andi]
very few people know you can actually style the alt attribute
12:26:20 [andi]
can render in a different color, size, etc.
12:26:23 [bengt]
bengt has joined #wai-wcag
12:26:55 [andi]
is it worth recommending different classes for image types depending on function? i.e. bullets, etc.
12:27:28 [andi]
questions can be put in the issues list for followup discussion in techniques working group (Wednesdays)
12:27:50 [andi]
should post proposals to WCAG mailing list
12:27:56 [rscano]
rscano has joined #wai-wcag
12:28:06 [rellero]
rellero has joined #wai-wcag
12:28:51 [andi]
captions are a good idea for some pictures, but not all
12:29:14 [andi]
most browsers now support longdesc
12:29:38 [andi]
UIs range - only available through ATs to robust support
12:29:48 [m3mVCE]
m3mVCE has joined #wai-wcag
12:30:19 [andi]
WCAG 1.0 specs say you should support older ATs. WCAG 2.0 says it differently.
12:30:43 [andi]
sometimes have to use presentational markup in order to support older technologies
12:31:25 [andi]
example where older technology did not support block level HTML elements
12:31:35 [andi]
rendered as one long line.
12:32:13 [andi]
what does it mean if you use depracated markup
12:32:31 [andi]
WCAG 1.0 errata proposed to resolve this issue
12:33:09 [andi]
lot of times where you have to support older technologies; e.g. EU requirement to use Netscape 4
12:33:22 [andi]
errata needed to build exceptions into WCAG 1.0
12:53:28 [andi]
andi has joined #wai-wcag
12:53:31 [m3mVCE]
m3mVCE has joined #wai-wcag
12:53:33 [giorgio]
giorgio has joined #wai-wcag
12:53:37 [wendy]
wendy has joined #wai-wcag
12:53:49 [wendy]
updating the log:
12:53:52 [RylaDog]
RylaDog has joined #wai-wcag
12:53:58 [wendy]
(we lost connectivity at: 08:34
12:53:58 [bengt]
bengt has joined #wai-wcag
12:54:01 [andi]
GV suggests expanding circle of reviewers
12:54:15 [wendy]
(@@WAC paste log here...)
12:54:34 [rscano]
rscano has joined #wai-wcag
12:54:38 [rellero]
rellero has joined #wai-wcag
12:55:16 [andi]
need to be careful about selecting implementors to work closely with. Don't want to choose only those people that want to work with us because their site is already accessible.
12:55:35 [andi]
want to be able to say "we fixed some really bad stuff"
12:56:06 [andi]
using guidelines, can take something that is really inaccessible and end up with something that is accessible but is still "robust"
12:56:45 [andi]
example: transportation site in Seattle - partnership between e-gov and university
12:57:07 [andi]
should start document on home page to collect categories of sites
12:57:56 [glapis]
glapis has joined #wai-wcag
12:58:22 [andi]
need a way to measure whether or not a site is more accessible after applying the guidelines
12:58:35 [andi]
difficult to define objective guidelines to do this
12:58:59 [andi]
test is not whether a site got more accessible
12:59:33 [andi]
test is "can the principles be applied to a site?" and "were there parts of the website that seemingly don't have any guidelines that apply?
13:00:00 [andi]
e.g. if we said all video has to be captioned in real time, then discovered web cams
13:00:45 [andi]
intent is that criteria we put into it is indicative of more accessible content, not "user testing"
13:01:14 [andi]
usability testing guidelines themselves? testing sites tests the "guidelines", not the "guidelines document"
13:02:05 [andi]
have to define audiences that "should" be able to use it and see if the "can" use it
13:02:39 [andi]
may have to define primary and secondary audiences
13:03:38 [andi]
wendy believes primary authors should be developers of authoring tools because that's where we will make the most impact on accessible content
13:04:29 [andi]
primary audiences - people who develop authoring tools, people who create web sites, people who create policy
13:05:01 [wendy]
create accessible and innovative web sites
13:05:45 [wendy]
13:05:47 [andi]
conformance group
13:05:55 [wendy]
conformance - giorgio, andi, francesco, charmaine
13:06:08 [wendy]
sorry - habit. :)
13:06:16 [andi]
started with definition of conformance vs. compliance
13:06:25 [andi]
conform to standard, comply with law or regulation
13:07:02 [andi]
good to distinguish requirements into CORE set that is absolutely required and additional optional set to push up level of accessibility of web site
13:07:55 [andi]
could base CORE set on testability and impact to person with disability
13:08:19 [wendy]
q+ cmn
13:08:24 [andi]
freedom of expression could be another one
13:08:46 [andi]
user testing should not be a technique, testability must be independent of user testing
13:09:27 [andi]
another criteria was whether or not it is appropriate for all sites or whether it is practical with current technology
13:09:42 [andi]
two audiences
13:10:00 [andi]
policy makers - WCAG should suggest that policy makers only look at CORE requirements
13:10:23 [andi]
as a way to achieve some sort of standardization across the world
13:10:38 [andi]
avoids different regulation in each country
13:10:59 [andi]
for EXTENDED checkpoints, assign point value to each.
13:11:26 [andi]
point value should measure impact; i.e. all checkpoints are not equal
13:12:34 [andi]
suggestion for policy makers is "compliance". may be premature to do this when haven't settled on conformance scheme yet.
13:12:37 [wendy]
(who is the 2nd audience if 1st is policy?)
13:13:35 [wendy]
do checkpoints that impact people who are blind have a higher weight since more of them?
13:13:57 [andi]
2nd audience is organizations who have web sites
13:14:35 [andi]
defining criteria for assigning point value is difficult
13:14:52 [andi]
is it the number of people or number of difficulties it affects?
13:15:01 [andi]
difficulties = disabilities
13:15:39 [andi]
suppose each checkpoint has one point
13:15:42 [wendy]
if each checkpoint is critical for at least one disability group, then there is not diff in weight.
13:15:51 [andi]
benefit is that it still promotes web masters to do more
13:16:13 [andi]
disadvantage - are costs higher than benefits?
13:17:49 [andi]
disadvantage is it is difficult to compare sites because there is not information about what features were implemented
13:18:42 [andi]
also suggest different scales if you want to target particular disability group
13:19:32 [andi]
WAI does not want to promote a conformance scheme by disability type
13:19:45 [andi]
grading should not be "certified"
13:20:19 [GVAN]
GVAN has joined #wai-wcag
13:20:57 [andi]
what about UAAG style of conformance? CORE set of checkpoints plus "keyword" for others
13:21:07 [rscano]
13:21:26 [andi]
browser supports "visual rendering" or "speech output"
13:22:40 [andi]
could use "label" idea proposed by Katie
13:22:56 [andi]
labels = handles
13:23:12 [wendy]
i support core plus structure and error recovery
13:24:29 [andi]
could have CORE+ logo that links to conformance statement that identifies "+" handles
13:26:15 [andi]
discussion about having different labels for CORE+
13:26:40 [andi]
what about best practices?
13:26:52 [andi]
no ideas on table yet for allowing people to make claims about best practices
13:27:32 [andi]
consultants think that unless people can make claims about best practices, no one will be incented to do them
13:27:50 [andi]
concern about making claims on best practices because they are not testable
13:28:15 [andi]
but some best practice items are testable
13:57:38 [andi]
andi has joined #wai-wcag
13:58:09 [andi]
I can do it
13:58:16 [rscano2]
rscano2 has joined #wai-wcag
13:59:11 [andi]
reason "best practices" are not in "required" is because we don't ever want them to be in law
13:59:28 [andi]
concerned that if we define a conformance scheme for them, they may end up in a law somewhere.
13:59:47 [andi]
Chaals disagrees
14:00:11 [glapis]
glapis has joined #wai-wcag
14:00:16 [andi]
might be okay in "common law" situation but in "codified" system, it doesn't work
14:00:43 [andi]
Chaals agrees that best practices should stay out of conformance scheme.
14:01:01 [andi]
important but no reliable way to determine that you have done them
14:01:32 [andi]
W3C can't prohibit something from becoming policy
14:02:07 [rellero]
rellero has joined #wai-wcag
14:02:08 [andi]
can make it clear that best practices are not testable
14:03:17 [andi]
andi has joined #wai-wcag
14:03:27 [andi]
14:04:50 [GVAN]
GVAN has joined #wai-wcag
14:04:55 [GVAN]
14:05:00 [rellero]
14:05:16 [wendy]
wendy has joined #wai-wcag
14:05:38 [bengt]
bengt has joined #wai-wcag
14:05:50 [andi]
if we end up in situation where laws in two countries conflict or union of two law sets is impossible, that is real problem for industry
14:05:53 [wendy]
[i was not connected from break until disconnected. intergrate notes from andi]
14:06:08 [andi]
WCAG should be careful not to give conflicting advice
14:06:34 [andi]
lots of things that would be okay if just a standard but because countries adopt standard as law, much more concern
14:06:49 [andi]
some elements in best practice are testable but can't be applied to all sites
14:07:18 [andi]
reasons we couldn't make them "required" are also reasons why they shouldn't be codified into law
14:08:17 [andi]
probably are items in current best practices that could be put into law but when we're done, there shouldn't be
14:08:39 [andi]
some may be generally applicable to certain types of web sites
14:08:58 [andi]
need to be very explicit about what we are creating for the policymaker audience
14:09:20 [andi]
have to be careful that we don't appear to be telling policy makers how to make their laws
14:09:37 [andi]
policy makers don't always have technical knowledge
14:09:56 [andi]
likewise, WCAG doesn't have policy making knowledge
14:10:09 [wendy]
Developing Organizational Policies on Web Accessibility -
14:10:37 [andi]
should anyone get credit for it since you can't test for it
14:11:19 [andi]
awards, competitions, training classes can reward web sites who implement best practices
14:11:47 [mcappelli]
mcappelli has joined #wai-wcag
14:11:57 [mcappelli]
14:12:02 [rellero]
14:12:13 [andi]
anything people say about best practices has to be separate from conformance claims
14:14:46 [andi]
confuses the issue about what they are saying can be proven and what can't
14:15:11 [wendy]
(the opinion of one person is...[see above statements])
14:15:40 [andi]
clear that we don't want to have something that is "required" that is not testable
14:15:41 [wendy]
(s/one/at least one)
14:16:21 [andi]
why is it bad for sites who have done "best practices" to list them in their META data?
14:16:55 [andi]
will be some who will claim to have done more than they have but this can also happen with the required ones
14:17:42 [andi]
table this until we define what conformance claims look like
14:18:27 [andi]
GV summarizes discussion
14:18:36 [andi]
entire set of CORE is required
14:18:43 [andi]
to claim anything
14:19:01 [andi]
if do all EXTENDED, claim EXTENDED
14:19:18 [andi]
CORE+ and define what + means using handles
14:19:58 [rscano2]
wendy shows
14:20:39 [wendy]
14:20:53 [andi]
could provide link to separate information on best practices claims
14:21:22 [andi]
concern that if link from "conformance claim" to "best practices claim", could be misinterpreted as part of conformance claim
14:21:40 [andi]
and someone could misuse when formulating a policy
14:23:32 [andi]
would guidelines for policy makers section in WCAG 2.0 alleviate concern?
14:24:02 [andi]
not sure
14:24:30 [andi]
don't want advisory statements to get mixed up with conformance
14:25:01 [andi]
could have conformance logo and best practice logo
14:25:09 [andi]
objections to best practice logo
14:26:21 [andi]
one of the things to consider is a best practice statement that is separate and sufficiently different from conformance statement
14:27:46 [andi]
ACTION: GV to check with AC and coordination group on whether or not we can have a section on guidelines for policy makers
14:28:43 [wendy]
not AC, just CG
14:28:44 [andi]
ACTION: If yes, Andi will help work on this section
14:28:49 [andi]
14:29:59 [andi]
under CORE checkpoints, there are some best practice items that ARE testable. We just put them in best practices for other reasons
14:30:49 [andi]
ACTION for everyone: review the guidelines with the thought that everything in best practices is off the table. Rethink whether or not we should make some of them EXTENDED checkpoints.
14:31:25 [andi]
14:31:32 [andi]
discussion on handles
14:32:08 [andi]
text equivalents
14:32:15 [andi]
synchronized media equivalents
14:32:47 [wendy]
14:32:50 [wendy]
14:32:59 [andi]
will post complete handle lists to mailing list for discussion
14:33:55 [wendy]
q+ katie
14:34:12 [wendy]
ack cmn
14:34:14 [andi]
one-word labels are really hard to translate
14:34:31 [andi]
literal translations are often not correct according to the original meaning
14:34:50 [wendy]
q+ to ask about translation of some of the proposed handles
14:35:14 [wendy]
ack katie
14:35:28 [andi]
handles have to have meaning, not just be labels
14:36:19 [wendy]
q+ giorgio
14:36:26 [wendy]
q+ gv
14:36:27 [andi]
people use them today but they are not "defined". WCAG should define them so that everybody uses the same set.
14:36:48 [wendy]
ack wendy
14:36:48 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to ask about translation of some of the proposed handles
14:37:23 [andi]
would be worth it to experiment here with translating proposed handles to see how well they translate
14:37:43 [andi]
UAAG uses phrases, not necessarily single words
14:38:11 [andi]
but these phrases are not what they use for conformance claims
14:38:21 [wendy]
ack giorgio
14:40:30 [bengt_]
bengt_ has joined #wai-wcag
14:41:11 [bengt_]
online ?
14:41:15 [wendolyn]
wendolyn has joined #wai-wcag
14:41:27 [wendolyn]
lost connectivity at 10:38
14:41:37 [rscano2_]
rscano2_ has joined #wai-wcag
14:41:42 [wendy]
short labels should remind what it is, but not long enough that you won't
14:41:42 [wendy]
learn the long phrase.
14:41:48 [wendy]
might be that we have 2 lengths - figure out which are more useful in which
14:41:48 [wendy]
14:41:50 [wendy]
14:41:51 [rellero]
rellero has joined #wai-wcag
14:41:53 [wendy]
ack gv
14:41:57 [wendy]
q+ giorgio
14:42:11 [glapis2]
glapis2 has joined #wai-wcag
14:42:31 [wendy]
everyone: read the guideline then in your own language, write a 2-3 word phrase the essence of the checkpoint.
14:43:11 [wendy]
q- giorgio
14:43:15 [wendy]
checkpoint 1.1:
14:43:23 [wendy]
1.1 [CORE] All non-text content that can be expressed in words has a text equivalent of the function or information that the non-text content was intended to convey. [was 1.1]
14:43:29 [wendy]
short phrase?
14:43:36 [wendy]
text equivalent
14:43:57 [wendy]
how does that translate into any language?
14:44:05 [rscano2_]
equivalente testuale
14:44:05 [wendy]
is there a better phrase for your language?
14:44:35 [rscano2_]
testo equivalente (italian)
14:44:55 [wendy]
spanish and french be similar
14:45:18 [wendy]
in german: text equivalent - but umlaut, etc.
14:45:43 [wendy]
one word: non-text, equivalent
14:45:44 [bengt]
14:46:09 [wendy]
1.2 [CORE] Synchronized media equivalents are provided for time-dependent presentations. [was 1.2]
14:46:16 [wendy]
synchronized equivalents
14:46:36 [wendy]
australian: synchronised equivalents
14:46:49 [wendy]
synchronized media
14:48:26 [wendy]
synchronized presentation
14:48:38 [rscano2_]
media sincronizzati (italian)
14:51:47 [Cyberfox]
Cyberfox has joined #wai-wcag
15:10:02 [mcappelli]
mcappelli has left #wai-wcag
15:12:33 [giorgio]
giorgio has joined #wai-wcag
15:14:57 [bengt]
bengt has joined #wai-wcag
15:18:09 [wendy]
wendy has joined #wai-wcag
15:18:43 [Cyberfox]
zakim, start timing
15:18:43 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'start timing', Cyberfox
15:18:55 [Cyberfox]
zakim, help
15:18:55 [Zakim]
Please refer to for more detailed help.
15:18:57 [Zakim]
Some of the commands I know are:
15:18:58 [Zakim]
xxx is yyy - establish yyy as the name of unknown party xxx
15:19:00 [Zakim]
if yyy is 'me' or 'I', your nick is substituted
15:19:02 [Zakim]
xxx may be yyy - establish yyy as possibly the name of unknown party xxx
15:19:04 [Zakim]
I am xxx - establish your nick as the name of unknown party xxx
15:19:06 [Zakim]
xxx holds yyy [, zzz ...] - establish xxx as a group name and yyy, etc. as participants within that group
15:19:08 [Zakim]
xxx also holds yyy - add yyy to the list of participants in group xxx
15:19:10 [Zakim]
who's here? - lists the participants on the phone
15:19:12 [Zakim]
who's muted? - lists the participants who are muted
15:19:14 [Zakim]
mute xxx - mutes party xxx (like pressing 61#)
15:19:16 [Zakim]
unmute xxx - reverses the effect of "mute" and of 61#
15:19:19 [Zakim]
is xxx here? - reports whether a party named like xxx is present
15:19:22 [Zakim]
list conferences - reports the active conferences
15:19:23 [Zakim]
this is xxx - associates this channel with conference xxx
15:19:24 [Zakim]
excuse us - disconnects from the irc channel
15:19:25 [Zakim]
I last learned something new on $Date: 2003/04/02 17:04:07 $
15:19:36 [wendy]
RRSAgent, stop logging
15:28:26 [m3mVCE]
gv: We ask for help fairly often. Without help, we won't make our 1-year deadline.
15:28:34 [wendy]
[11:24] <m3mVCE> gv This has been a successful meeting. Very happy with the number and quality of interaction of the
15:28:34 [wendy]
[11:24] <m3mVCE> participants. We are a year from kickoff, and need to get more international participation. We spent
15:28:34 [wendy]
[11:24] <m3mVCE> a lot of time lingering over things. The editors need your input and feedback. We're looking for
15:28:34 [wendy]
[11:24] <m3mVCE> experts in the field to step forward. It's going to be a big, long year for this. The last 20% takes
15:28:37 [wendy]
[11:24] <m3mVCE> 80% of the effort. We have to plot out how to get to something that is in fact done. Best Practice
15:28:40 [wendy]
[11:24] <m3mVCE> under core: we'll have to see if it should be pulled, moved into Extended, etc. We'll need to map it
15:28:43 [wendy]
[11:24] <m3mVCE> all out. Who would be interested in leading the effort to do something?
15:29:12 [m3mVCE]
cynthia: Is this 1 year until CR, or 1 year to Rec?
15:29:47 [m3mVCE]
wac: If implementation testing begins in September, then Last Call early next year, a quick Candidate Rec, we can get it done by the end of 2004.
15:29:54 [wendy]
15:30:01 [m3mVCE]
gv: This will require work on the checklists, ec.
15:30:07 [m3mVCE]
15:30:55 [m3mVCE]
gv: Thanks to everyone, the host for treating us like royalty, Maurizio for the booklets.
15:31:49 [m3mVCE]
khs: Next meeting ideas?
15:32:28 [m3mVCE]
wac: Some interesting offers for the January time frame. We need to have a meeting in Asia, and we may do that in November. It would be good to have another techniques-specific meeting.
15:33:08 [m3mVCE]
gv: February would be an interesting time to be back in Europe.
15:41:19 [wendy]
RRSAgent, stop logging