IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-02-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:54:43 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
20:54:50 [wendy]
agenda+ edits to principles
20:54:59 [wendy]
agenda+ edits to front matter
20:55:04 [wendy]
agenda+ 1.2
20:55:06 [wendy]
agenda+ 1.3
20:55:13 [wendy]
agenda+ 2.3
20:55:17 [wendy]
agenda+ 2.4
20:55:19 [wendy]
agenda+ 2.5
20:55:24 [wendy]
agenda+ 3.1
20:55:28 [wendy]
agenda+ 3.2 (was 3.4)
20:55:36 [wendy]
agenda+ appendix e
20:55:38 [wendy]
agenda+ appendix f
20:55:45 [wendy]
agenda+ formatting
20:57:56 [rellero]
rellero has joined #wai-wcag
20:58:08 [rellero]
20:58:13 [Yvette]
Hi Roberto
20:58:33 [rellero]
I follow in irc only, I am not at home
21:01:30 [wendy]
zakim, this is WCAG
21:01:30 [Zakim]
ok, wendy; that matches WAI_WCAG()4:00PM
21:01:34 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
21:01:34 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Dave_MacDonald, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Kerstin_Goldsmith, Matt, Wendy
21:02:27 [Zakim]
21:03:34 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
21:03:34 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:03:45 [Zakim]
21:03:47 [Yvette]
still echo?
21:03:56 [Yvette]
ok, I'll dial in again
21:04:02 [wendy]
zakim, ??P3 is Gregg
21:04:02 [Zakim]
+Gregg; got it
21:04:04 [Zakim]
21:04:29 [Zakim]
21:04:55 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the call?
21:04:55 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Dave_MacDonald, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Kerstin_Goldsmith, Matt, Wendy, Gregg, Yvette_Hoitink
21:05:08 [Zakim]
21:05:48 [bengt]
bengt has joined #wai-wcag
21:06:36 [wendy]
items with no concerns:
21:06:46 [Zakim]
21:06:51 [wendy]
principles: other than adding "must" for "should" in #4 - any other issues?
21:06:56 [Zakim]
21:07:20 [wendy]
zakim, ??P8 may be Bengt
21:07:20 [Zakim]
+Bengt?; got it
21:07:20 [Yvette]
Bengt did you just join on the phone?
21:07:27 [GVAN]
GVAN has joined #wai-wcag
21:07:31 [wendy]
zakim, Bengt? is Bengt
21:07:31 [Zakim]
+Bengt; got it
21:07:33 [wendy]
21:08:09 [wendy]
take up item 1
21:08:30 [wendy]
adopted with "must" instead of "should" in #4
21:08:33 [wendy]
close item 1
21:08:38 [wendy]
take up edit 2
21:08:44 [wendy]
zakim, take up edit 2
21:08:44 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'take up edit 2', wendy
21:08:49 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 2
21:08:49 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "edits to front matter" taken up [from wendy]
21:10:11 [Yvette]
21:10:12 [wendy]
21:10:49 [Zakim]
21:10:53 [wendy]
ack Dave
21:10:57 [wendy]
add "normative" to glossary
21:11:06 [Zakim]
21:11:31 [Zakim]
21:11:40 [wendy]
adopt John's proposed rewording of editorial note? (about techniques)
21:11:52 [wendy]
Editorial Note: These checklists do not yet exist. At the present
21:11:52 [wendy]
time, it is not clear if the checklists will be normative or
21:11:52 [wendy]
non-normative. Making them non-normative would allow us to change them
21:11:52 [wendy]
over time, if necessary. but that may defeat their purpose by making the
21:11:52 [wendy]
definition of "conformance" change over time. It may therefore be
21:11:53 [wendy]
necessary for them to be normative in order for the guidelines to be
21:11:55 [wendy]
21:12:09 [wendy]
link to text in glossary.
21:12:34 [wendy]
in some cases link to them wherever they occur
21:13:01 [Yvette]
zakim, ??P14 is Gian
21:13:01 [Zakim]
+Gian; got it
21:13:02 [wendy]
zakim, ??P14 is Gian
21:13:02 [Zakim]
I already had ??P14 as Gian, wendy
21:13:04 [Yvette]
21:13:05 [wendy]
21:14:06 [wendy]
"reliably human" should be "by machine or by humans with high consistency"
21:14:51 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
21:15:02 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Gregg (32%), Yvette_Hoitink (14%), Bengt (73%), John_Slatin (62%)
21:15:29 [wendy]
john proposes: are testable. Some are machine-testable. Others require human
21:15:29 [wendy]
judgment. Success criteria that require human testing yield consistent
21:15:29 [wendy]
results among multiple testers.
21:15:39 [wendy]
21:16:09 [wendy]
beg of conformance section: when we say "Level 1 Success Criterion are" we should
21:16:09 [wendy]
say "Level 1 Success Criteria are..."
21:16:26 [Zakim]
21:16:27 [wendy]
21:17:35 [wendy]
21:18:02 [wendy]
1. no need to discuss.
21:20:47 [wendy]
agenda+ "A conformance claim of "WCAG 2.0 AAA" can be made if all level 1 and level 2 success criteria and X% of level 3 success criteria for all guidelines have ben met."
21:22:20 [Zakim]
+ +1.510.237.aaaa
21:23:00 [wendy]
close this item
21:23:45 [Zakim]
+ +1.703.241.aabb
21:24:14 [wendy]
zakim, +1.510.237.aaaa is Kerstin
21:24:14 [Zakim]
+Kerstin; got it
21:24:20 [wendy]
zakim, +1.703.241.aabb is Avi
21:24:20 [Zakim]
+Avi; got it
21:24:46 [wendy]
21:25:37 [wendy]
21:27:19 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 12
21:27:20 [Zakim]
agendum 12. "formatting" taken up [from wendy]
21:27:42 [wendy]
21:27:57 [wendy]
except, add level 2 and level 3 criteria as well to the box
21:28:07 [wendy]
21:28:24 [wendy]
defer formatting to later?
21:29:24 [wendy]
perhaps do it for monday's draft and get reactions.
21:29:29 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
21:29:29 [Zakim]
agendum 12 closed
21:29:30 [Zakim]
I see 11 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
21:29:31 [Zakim]
3. 1.2 [from wendy]
21:30:02 [wendy]
yvette's comment:
21:30:12 [wendy]
link to weather web site as an alternative.
21:30:31 [wendy]
in 1.1 said equivalents should be good. don't think web site is a good equivalent for a web cam.
21:31:39 [wendy]
instead of "equivalent" say "substitute"
21:33:44 [wendy]
5.if the Web content is real-time, non-interactive video (for example,
21:33:44 [wendy]
a Webcam view of surrounding conditions such as weather information), then
21:33:45 [wendy]
one of the following is provided: [I]
21:33:45 [wendy]
*an equivalent that conforms to Guideline
21:33:45 [wendy]
21:33:45 [wendy]
4.html#text-equiv#text-equiv> 1.1 (for example, an ongoing text report of
21:33:48 [wendy]
weather conditions)
21:33:49 [wendy]
*a link to an equivalent that conforms to Guideline
21:33:52 [wendy]
21:33:54 [wendy]
4.html#text-equiv#text-equiv> 1.1 (for example, a link to a weather Web
21:33:55 [wendy]
site that conforms to Guideline 1.1)
21:33:57 [wendy]
21:34:26 [wendy]
real-time captions for real-time broadcast?
21:34:41 [wendy]
21:35:40 [wendy]
deleted audio description, since can't do on real-time broadcast.
21:36:34 [wendy]
add note (what is possible to require for real-time audio descriptions?)
21:37:56 [wendy]
real-time audio description - commentator (like sporting event). if doing good job, don't need audio description.
21:38:06 [wendy]
issue is w/this criterion we're requiring for every live event.
21:39:00 [wendy]
close this item
21:39:15 [wendy]
zakim, close item 3
21:39:15 [Zakim]
agendum 3 closed
21:39:16 [Zakim]
I see 10 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
21:39:17 [Zakim]
4. 1.3 [from wendy]
21:39:21 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 4
21:39:21 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "1.3" taken up [from wendy]
21:40:03 [wendy]
issues from yvette and joe
21:40:24 [wendy]
proposed examples:
21:41:04 [wendy]
examples too html-specific?
21:43:05 [wendy]
adopt yvette's proposed exmaples with note: These examples are improvements on previous examples, but are html-speciic. These will be generalized in future drafts."
21:43:21 [Yvette]
For the record: I tried to make them as generic as possible
21:43:23 [wendy]
save old exmaples, perhaps reconsider in the future
21:43:58 [wendy]
joe's comments:
21:44:52 [wendy]
black and white viewing makes it easier to see "lightness" and "darkness" to determine if readable.
21:44:58 [wendy]
mean "greyscale"
21:45:25 [wendy]
replace "black and white" with "greyscale" as did in other parts of doc.
21:45:54 [wendy]
add, "in order to evaluate the relative contrast independent of color"
21:46:37 [wendy]
to identify places where background would interfere with a character identification
21:47:18 [wendy]
to determine if the bacground interferes with character identificaiton
21:47:50 [wendy]
to determine if the background makes it difficult to identify individual characters.
21:48:23 [wendy]
paragraphs aren't part of hierarchy? they are at the bottom of the hierarchy.
21:49:15 [wendy]
cross-reference is a link? linkage fancy word for link? is a linkage always a link?
21:49:29 [wendy]
a link is something you click on. a linkage could be something editorial. not necessarily always html.
21:49:45 [wendy]
a cross-reference?
21:51:54 [wendy]
cross-references and other associations
21:51:59 [bengt]
21:52:18 [wendy]
"special treatment"?
21:53:17 [Yvette]
zakim, who's making noise?
21:53:27 [Zakim]
Yvette, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Gregg (20%)
21:53:47 [wendy]
emphasis or other formatting (instead of special treatment)
21:54:19 [wendy]
level 2 #1
21:54:21 [wendy]
21:56:44 [wendy]
he didn't suggest delete b/c bad idea, but that if apply similar ideas elsewhere would not be good. it is not a practice we would do with every area of markup.
21:57:32 [wendy]
level 1 would be marked as red that can be identified programmatically. level 2 is marked as red that can be identified programmatically but also marked with *
21:58:14 [wendy]
Separating content and structure from presentation allows Web pages
21:58:34 [Zakim]
21:58:59 [Zakim]
21:59:10 [wendy]
21:59:35 [wendy]
All of these can benefit people with cognitive, physical, hearing,
21:59:35 [wendy]
> and visual disabilities.
21:59:53 [Zakim]
21:59:54 [Zakim]
22:00:04 [MattSEA]
MattSEA has joined #wai-wcag
22:00:11 [MattSEA]
just kidding, mike! :)
22:00:14 [MattSEA]
MattSEA has left #wai-wcag
22:00:32 [wendy]
one of yvette's new examples mentions benefit for mobility impair
22:01:19 [wendy]
rest of comments about examples. decided to delete them, replace with yvette's.
22:01:36 [wendy]
in the future, combine 1.5 and 1.3?
22:02:19 [Zakim]
22:02:22 [wendy]
1.3 - info structure, functionality. 1.5 - only structure.
22:02:39 [wendy]
zakim, ??P14 is Gian
22:02:39 [Zakim]
+Gian; got it
22:02:47 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
22:02:47 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
22:03:24 [wendy]
if level 1is to indicate programmaticaly, level 2 directly (color) - that would mean that "the fields in red are compulsory" complies...if the markup allows ot identify.
22:03:32 [wendy]
could make it overt, in which case don't need markup
22:04:15 [wendy]
meaning doesn't need to be programmatic, that is still through context.
22:04:43 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
22:04:43 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
22:05:43 [wendy]
suggested change to wording?
22:05:47 [wendy]
level 2 should be level 1
22:06:10 [wendy]
cna't with current defn of level 1: it would force author to change presentation
22:06:44 [wendy]
either need suggested edit or note to move fowrad
22:07:59 [wendy]
require people to read the code if they can't determine the color
22:08:07 [Yvette]
zakim, who's making noise?
22:08:17 [Zakim]
Yvette, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Gregg (6%), Bengt (26%), John_Slatin (9%), Gian (73%), Avi (40%)
22:08:27 [Yvette]
Anyone else getting noise?
22:08:33 [Yvette]
perhaps it's avi
22:09:12 [wendy]
zakim, who's muted?
22:09:12 [Zakim]
I see no one muted
22:09:18 [wendy]
zakim, who's muted?
22:09:18 [Zakim]
I see Avi muted
22:09:41 [wendy]
zakim, mute bengt
22:09:41 [Zakim]
Bengt should now be muted
22:09:43 [bengt]
muted in this end
22:10:49 [wendy]
note: markup must be interpretable by user agents not through actually markup.
22:11:16 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
22:11:16 [Zakim]
agendum 4 closed
22:11:17 [Zakim]
I see 9 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
22:11:18 [Zakim]
5. 2.3 [from wendy]
22:11:38 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 5
22:11:38 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "2.3" taken up [from wendy]
22:11:57 [wendy]
only comment: broken link. fixed by taking it out (still finishing documentation)
22:15:00 [wendy]
22:15:06 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
22:15:06 [Zakim]
agendum 5 closed
22:15:07 [Zakim]
I see 8 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
22:15:08 [Zakim]
6. 2.4 [from wendy]
22:15:12 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 6
22:15:12 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "2.4" taken up [from wendy]
22:16:24 [Yvette]
22:16:39 [wendy]
"move about" seems odd
22:17:56 [wendy]
move within the content
22:18:25 [wendy]
lots of editorial notes
22:19:16 [wendy]
"50,000 words" contentious. add to editorial note.
22:19:35 [wendy]
remove "untestable test critera" link
22:20:25 [wendy]
ack John
22:20:33 [wendy]
ack Dave
22:21:21 [wendy]
don't think can leave links to issues, since go to trace site.
22:22:23 [wendy]
@@ to appendix e
22:23:11 [wendy]
goes to appendix f
22:23:30 [wendy]
e - currently attached to 3.4
22:23:39 [wendy]
2.4 was going to create new appendix...
22:23:44 [wendy]
this is e
22:23:52 [wendy]
this a, b, c, etc. is new appendix f
22:24:44 [wendy]
gregg will send proposals to the list
22:25:08 [wendy]
consensus to handle big lists by creating appendices and linking to them from a success criterion
22:25:19 [wendy]
does it get them less attention?
22:25:43 [wendy]
(consensus is a question not a statement of consensus - do we have consensus to handle it in this way for this draft)?
22:25:52 [wendy]
otherwise bring app. e. into the guidelines
22:26:08 [wendy]
more useful comments if in one place and don't have to go to an appendix
22:26:21 [wendy]
consensus to move lists up from apendix and put back into body?
22:26:43 [rellero]
I agree
22:26:50 [wendy]
move up and put editorial note that says "considering putting in appendix"
22:28:08 [wendy]
this draft move it up
22:28:48 [wendy]
does seem to be precedence in other w3c documents to have normative info in appendicies (e.g., normative vs informative references, dtds)
22:28:54 [wendy]
close this item
22:29:07 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 7
22:29:07 [Zakim]
agendum 7. "2.5" taken up [from wendy]
22:31:18 [Zakim]
22:31:42 [Zakim]
22:32:13 [wendy]
no comments on this one
22:34:06 [wendy]
22:34:11 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
22:34:11 [Zakim]
agendum 7 closed
22:34:12 [Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
22:34:13 [Zakim]
8. 3.1 [from wendy]
22:34:18 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 8
22:34:18 [Zakim]
agendum 8. "3.1" taken up [from wendy]
22:35:09 [wendy]
comments about combinign 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 1.4
22:35:32 [wendy]
comments in support, no comments against this approach.
22:35:46 [wendy]
last week, got to Level 2
22:36:27 [wendy]
made one change after the call: instead of "programmatically determined" say "programmatically located"
22:36:39 [wendy]
so instead of determining which defn, locate possible defns
22:37:05 [rellero]
I have to leave now, bye
22:37:11 [wendy]
22:38:05 [wendy]
22:43:22 [wendy]
22:43:34 [wendy]
have to define "i'm"?
22:43:46 [wendy]
by time get to level 1, have already solved for all i'm
22:44:06 [wendy]
22:44:22 [wendy]
first says, "im" but then says, "contraction of i am"
22:45:08 [wendy]
move to 3rd (since has a long list)
22:45:16 [wendy]
john has action item to make those more testable.
22:45:21 [wendy]
add note: attempting to make more testable
22:46:07 [wendy]
"still examining methods to make some or all of these testable"
22:46:30 [wendy]
(Level 3 success criteria for 3.1)
22:47:22 [wendy]
Possible items for additions to level 3
22:48:24 [wendy]
move 1 to appendix e
22:48:32 [wendy]
(which then be moved up, anyway)
22:48:47 [wendy]
2.Section headings and linked text are understandable when read by
22:48:47 [wendy]
themselves (for example, in a screen reader's list of links or a table of
22:48:47 [wendy]
22:50:11 [wendy]
move to level 2?
22:50:27 [wendy]
things other than links that we want to apply this?
22:50:29 [wendy]
menu options?
22:53:07 [wendy]
this doc has something like 180 headings. doesn't meet this right now. several headings say "benefits"
22:53:19 [wendy]
put in list of strategies and deal w/it later
22:53:30 [wendy]
leave as level 3 for now.
22:53:47 [wendy]
3.Page titles are informative and unique.
22:55:35 [wendy]
3.Page titles are informative - level 2
22:55:42 [wendy]
unique - difficult to do
22:55:47 [wendy]
informative - possible, even generated
22:56:16 [wendy]
The following success criteria were removed
22:56:19 [wendy]
The following success criteria were removed
22:56:22 [wendy]
22:56:23 [wendy]
22:56:32 [wendy]
put them in the strategies
22:57:04 [wendy]
The following success criteria are not machine
22:57:08 [wendy]
22:58:06 [Zakim]
22:58:24 [wendy]
add a definition of text to address "representation in Unicode"
22:58:24 [wendy]
issue (and remove need for a checkpoint on this)
22:58:32 [wendy]
refer to al's comment about character model
22:59:03 [wendy]
instead of our own defn of text, we figure out proper phrase to say "text according to w3c char model"
22:59:24 [Yvette]
BTW: Roberto Ellero signed off
22:59:25 [Zakim]
23:00:02 [wendy]
all the other defns (except ascii art) should be covered by char model aciton item/defn
23:00:07 [wendy]
ascii art defn adopted
23:00:33 [wendy]
close this item
23:00:46 [wendy]
23:01:23 [wendy]
zakim, close item 10
23:01:24 [Zakim]
agendum 10 closed
23:01:24 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
23:01:25 [Zakim]
9. 3.2 (was 3.4) [from wendy]
23:01:51 [wendy]
zakim, close item 11
23:01:51 [Zakim]
agendum 11 closed
23:01:52 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
23:01:53 [Zakim]
9. 3.2 (was 3.4) [from wendy]
23:04:27 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
23:04:27 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Dave_MacDonald, Wendy, Gregg, Yvette_Hoitink, JasonWhite, Bengt (muted), [Microsoft]
23:05:29 [wendy]
23:07:20 [wendy]
23:07:35 [bengt]
wendy ... ?
23:08:25 [wendy]
yes bengt?
23:08:42 [wendy]
"page" try to come up with better phrae later
23:08:45 [bengt]
upcoming f2f registration ? not available yet ?
23:08:47 [wendy]
(put ed note)
23:08:50 [wendy]
not yet
23:08:59 [wendy]
(you mean for tp or csun? tp is closed. csun ont yet available)
23:09:03 [Yvette]
"Components that occur together multiple times within a resource"?
23:09:22 [wendy]
move to level 2 (per gregg's comments)
23:10:13 [wendy]
strucrual markup to group - should be deleted? redundant with 1.3
23:10:30 [bengt]
wendy: csun f2f andy_judson will possibly go instead of me
23:10:45 [wendy]
ok. registration should be avail next week.
23:10:59 [wendy]
except for submit buttons...
23:11:35 [wendy]
cxurrent phrasing is ambiguous
23:11:45 [wendy]
move to level2 - tells how to must design page
23:12:02 [wendy]
xforms have submit?
23:12:22 [wendy]
submit buttons - html specific
23:12:42 [wendy]
all elements obtain focus w/out being activated
23:13:29 [wendy]
all components should be able to receive focus w/out being activated
23:13:34 [wendy]
w/out activation
23:15:40 [wendy]
it's onchange and onfocus events that we're talking about
23:17:26 [wendy]
al says, "user should always be able to require separation between select and activate..."
23:17:26 [wendy]
23:17:59 [wendy]
"changing the setting of an input field should not cause person to automatically leave the page"
23:18:57 [wendy]
does not automatically cause extreme change in context
23:19:25 [wendy]
@@make sure "extreme change in context"
23:19:27 [wendy]
is defined
23:20:00 [Yvette]
23:21:00 [Yvette]
zakim, who's on the phone
23:21:00 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who's on the phone', Yvette
23:21:08 [Yvette]
zakim, who is on the phone?
23:21:08 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Dave_MacDonald, Wendy, Gregg, Yvette_Hoitink, JasonWhite, Bengt (muted), [Microsoft]
23:22:37 [wendy]
will attempt to incoproat 1.5 from kerstin into the draft for review. at minimu, 1.5 will go to the mailing list and incorporate in the draft at end of next week
23:22:46 [wendy]
finishing up 3.2...
23:25:00 [wendy]
2.Visual layout is used to group related components. [ so that
23:25:00 [wendy]
behavior is predictable. ]
23:25:03 [wendy]
move to 1.3
23:25:14 [wendy]
3.The target of each link is clearly identified. [how do we do
23:25:14 [wendy]
this?] [ Level 3?]
23:25:38 [bengt]
was it 1.3 ?
23:25:49 [wendy]
avoid "click here"
23:27:11 [wendy]
in 3.1 uber proposal: headings nad links read out of context
23:27:41 [wendy]
leave in as 3 for now, consider deleting later
23:27:50 [wendy]
4.Link text, including alt text for graphical links, includes words or
23:27:50 [wendy]
phrases that occur in the title element of the destination screen. [js note:
23:27:50 [wendy]
Do we need a criterion about informative page titles here? I know we
23:27:50 [wendy]
discussed one somewhere but I don't remember where.] [L3?]
23:27:50 [wendy]
5.Graphical components that appear on multiple screens, including
23:27:51 [wendy]
graphical links, are associated with the same text equivalents wherever they
23:27:53 [wendy]
appear. [these are ok guidelines - but strict adherence is pretty
23:27:56 [wendy]
restrictive since you don't know how they might be used. L3?]
23:27:59 [wendy]
4 - redundant. move to techniques
23:28:39 [wendy]
get rid of "screen"
23:28:41 [wendy]
move to 3
23:28:48 [wendy]
6.Interactive elements that appear on multiple screens, including
23:28:48 [wendy]
graphical elements, are associated with the same functionality wherever they
23:28:48 [wendy]
23:28:54 [wendy]
23:28:58 [wendy]
7.Explicit notice is given in advance of any extreme change of context
23:28:58 [wendy]
such as an automatic redirect or a link that opens a new browser window.
23:30:07 [wendy]
prog. identify is level 1. this easily done by icon that says "open in new window" htmls-pecific.
23:30:09 [wendy]
include note
23:30:44 [wendy]
Success Criteria for Level 3
23:30:51 [wendy]
1.When components such as navigation bars and search forms appear on
23:30:51 [wendy]
multiple pages, users can choose to have those elements presented in a
23:30:51 [wendy]
different visual position or reading-order.
23:31:11 [wendy]
23:31:43 [wendy]
navigation menu
23:32:14 [wendy]
2.There are no extreme changes of context such as automatic redirects
23:32:14 [wendy]
or automatically appearing pop-up windows.
23:32:47 [wendy]
user agent specific
23:33:55 [wendy]
leave at, "2.There are no extreme changes of context"
23:35:28 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
23:35:28 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
23:35:52 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
23:35:52 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
23:37:22 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
23:37:22 [Zakim]
I do not know what agendum had been taken up, wendy
23:37:27 [wendy]
23:37:32 [wendy]
zakim, close item 9
23:37:32 [Zakim]
agendum 9 closed
23:37:33 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
23:37:34 [Zakim]
13. "A conformance claim of "WCAG 2.0 AAA" can be made if all level 1 and level 2 success criteria and X% of level 3 success criteria for all guidelines have ben met." [from wendy]
23:38:12 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 13
23:38:12 [Zakim]
agendum 13. ""A conformance claim of "WCAG 2.0 AAA" can be made if all level 1 and level 2 success criteria and X% of level 3 success criteria for all guidelines have ben met.""
23:38:15 [Zakim]
... taken up [from wendy]
23:39:04 [Zakim]
23:39:07 [Zakim]
23:39:13 [Zakim]
23:39:17 [Zakim]
23:39:18 [Zakim]
23:39:26 [Yvette]
enjoy bengt!
23:39:32 [wendy]
change to: A conformance claim of "WCAG 2.0 AAA" can be made if all level 1, level 2, and level 3 success criteria for all guidelines have been met."
23:39:42 [bengt]
if I can find any :)
23:39:51 [bengt]
23:39:53 [Yvette]
what time is it with you?
23:39:56 [Yvette]
23:39:59 [bengt]
1 am
23:40:03 [Yvette]
me too
23:40:10 [bengt]
bengt has left #wai-wcag
23:40:19 [wendy]
include editorial note: proposal to meet AAA as some percent of Level 3 success criteria.
23:40:22 [Yvette]
bye Wendy, bye Gregg
23:40:24 [wendy]
23:40:30 [wendy]
zakim, close this item
23:40:30 [Zakim]
agendum 13 closed
23:40:31 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
23:40:32 [Zakim]
14. [from wendy]
23:40:42 [wendy]
item 14: cover during the week
23:44:30 [Zakim]
23:44:36 [Zakim]
23:44:37 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
23:44:38 [Zakim]
Attendees were Dave_MacDonald, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Kerstin_Goldsmith, Matt, Wendy, Yvette_Hoitink, Gregg, JasonWhite, John_Slatin, Bengt, Gian, Kerstin, Avi, [Microsoft]
23:44:46 [wendy]
Microsoft was Mike Barta
23:44:49 [wendy]
zakim, bye
23:44:49 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
23:44:52 [wendy]
RRSAgent, bye
23:44:52 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items