21:04:00 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
21:04:01 <bengt> zakim, mute me
21:04:01 <Zakim> Bengt_Farre should now be muted
21:04:51 <bengt> BTW, its 2300 here in europe today
21:05:33 <Zakim> +??P13
21:05:46 <wendy> agenda+ Ian's comments
21:05:51 <wendy> agenda+ conformance
21:06:39 <wendy> ian's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JanMar/0632.html
21:07:05 <wendy> zakim, ??P13 is Kerstin_Goldsmith
21:07:05 <Zakim> +Kerstin_Goldsmith; got it
21:07:07 <Zakim> + +1.703.920.aaaa
21:07:12 <Zakim> +JasonWhite
21:08:07 <wendy> zakim, +1.703.920.aaaa is John_Slatin
21:08:07 <Zakim> +John_Slatin; got it
21:09:45 <wendy> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/03/f2f-summary.html
21:10:42 <bcaldwell> bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
21:16:01 <wendy> wac summarizes some of the topics from the f2f related to levels of conformance claims
21:16:18 <wendy> vpat is a reporting tool, to report what you do, not an assertion that actually met it.
21:16:37 <wendy> concept: be able to say which criteria have met
21:17:34 <wendy> there is a column in the vpat to say if you have met the standard. there is a column to give details "if you wish."
21:18:02 <wendy> that other column: equiv facilitation, etc.
21:18:19 <wendy> says, "support or supports with minor exceptions" it doesn't use conformance or compliance wording.
21:18:34 <wendy> vpat says how support not that meet
21:19:12 <wendy> the concept of reporting in this way, is valuable
21:19:39 <wendy> vpat is information sheet not a conformance claim
21:20:18 <wendy> is it an interesting intermediary? if we want 3 level co nformance scheme but give people way to talk about whether or not they have met minimum, give them a format for describing what they have done. not making a claim, but moving in this direction.
21:20:32 <wendy> then, end user can decide if a site they can visit/use or not.
21:20:53 <wendy> q?
21:20:56 <wendy> ack Kerstin
21:21:43 <wendy> two ideas: 1. have something that looks like vpat but is conformance statement isntead. could state individually which items have met. 
21:21:58 <wendy> q+ to say "idea of A- from the mtg"
21:23:28 <wendy> ack wendy
21:23:28 <Zakim> wendy, you wanted to say "idea of A- from the mtg"
21:23:55 <wendy> at f2f one developer said, "have heard A+ and AA+, what about A-?" in other words, i can't meet minimum, but i do 3 out of 4.
21:24:00 <wendy> that's how vpat discussion came about.
21:24:34 <wendy> proposal to have a conformance level of subminimum (A-). does anyone want to speak for or against this?
21:24:48 <wendy> it's not a conformance claim since doesn't meet minimum.
21:25:22 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
21:25:35 <wendy> separate issue from detailed reporting.
21:25:50 <wendy> q+ to say, "ian joining at bottom of hour"
21:26:18 <wendy> q-
21:27:49 <wendy> there is no conformance level below the minimum if you don't minimum you can not make any claim of conformance.
21:30:40 <wendy> ack kerstin
21:31:34 <wendy> if there are success criteria dns omeone wants to say "i've met 4 out of 5" so there was a suggestion that we help people do that since it will happen anyway.
21:31:48 <wendy> a form for people to list the pieces they have done, no matter how maps to conformance claim.
21:33:03 <wendy> vpat is not a checklist. a checklist is checking off things you have done. vpat does not say you have met something.
21:34:14 <wendy> if we do something, it probably should be a checklist that says "we conform"
21:34:56 <ben> ben has joined #wai-wcag
21:35:18 <Zakim> +Matt
21:35:24 <wendy> however, some companies will never be able to check items because they may not want to publish an itemized statement.
21:35:35 <ben> ben has joined #wai-wcag
21:36:02 <wendy> this could be metadata
21:36:26 <wendy> q+
21:36:34 <bcaldwell> bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
21:36:35 <wendy> q-
21:37:20 <wendy> checklist either tech-specific or of success criteria. 
21:38:23 <bcaldwell> bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
21:38:31 <wendy> if made a listing of success criteria and place to check if met and place to write something.
21:38:38 <wendy> metadata be ok up to checkmark but not beyond.
21:38:43 <wendy> is there any place where that isn't true.
21:38:45 <wendy> ?
21:38:58 <wendy> i.e., the comments beyond the check
21:39:46 <wendy> would that additional info be useful to the user
21:40:12 <wendy> could be a moot point if elements of a success criteria that were independently useful, would probably be separate success criteria
21:40:34 <wendy> if conformance claims were metadata, who useful to and for what?
21:40:54 <wendy> q+ to suggest to get back to + question
21:41:03 <wendy> ack john
21:41:21 <bcaldwell> zakim, [IBM] is Andi
21:41:21 <Zakim> +Andi; got it
21:41:27 <wendy> avoid cramming more angles onto the head of the pin.
21:41:34 <wendy> (or angels? :)
21:41:55 <wendy> q-
21:42:01 <GVAN> q+
21:42:04 <wendy> too fine-grained to work as metadata. prefer human-readable.
21:42:20 <wendy> ack [IBM]
21:42:58 <wendy> other comments from f2f: a developer had huge site, millions of pages. if min level were not automatically testable, could not comply (w/site of that scale)
21:43:44 <wendy> when get into these ranges, use statistical sample of pages?
21:43:58 <wendy> q+ to say "algorithm being developed by Dutch govnt"
21:45:41 <wendy> (also applies to web apps where there may be a large finite number of states the app could be in that need to be tested)
21:46:11 <wendy> ack gvan
21:46:32 <wendy> when we are reporting, what are people going to use the report for?
21:46:48 <wendy> if require in metadata, people could use for searching.
21:46:52 <Ian> Ian has joined #wai-wcag
21:47:20 <Ian> Let me know when I should join the call
21:47:28 <wendy> vpat supports comparison between sites.
21:47:44 <wendy> ian - how about at top of hour?
21:47:54 <Ian> ok
21:47:56 <wendy> what is our role of our standard to make it easy to compare thing?
21:47:58 <wendy> things?
21:48:06 <wendy> comparing doesn't make them more accessible.
21:48:24 <wendy> ian - feel free to join now if you want to be involved in conformance-related discussion. :)
21:48:44 <wendy> comparisons could drive people to attempt higher level of conformance
21:49:05 <wendy> ack wendy
21:49:05 <Zakim> wendy, you wanted to say "algorithm being developed by Dutch govnt"
21:50:49 <wendy> is it not useful for me to take notes?
21:52:31 <wendy> ack jason
21:53:01 <wendy> for lg amounts of content, it's not the content itself but the process that produces it.
21:53:34 <ben> ben has joined #wai-wcag
21:54:57 <wendy> applies to software apps.
21:55:20 <wendy> scope: if can scope in or out parts of it. then say "accessible is everything that has been sampled and checked after it's last modification date"
21:55:42 <GVAN> q+
21:55:43 <wendy> ack paul
21:56:02 <GVAN> [Microsoft] is Michael
21:56:16 <ben> zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta
21:56:16 <Zakim> +Mike_Barta; got it
21:56:17 <wendy> wrt big sites that are update frequently, to claim conformance of template/container/shell
21:56:33 <GVAN> q?
21:56:51 <wendy> it may be good idea for syndicated content to allow people to claim that the template is accessible.
21:57:10 <wendy> q+ to say, "aggregators should put pressure on syndicators. if give them way out, will take it"
21:57:13 <wendy> ack Microsoft
21:57:18 <wendy> ack [Microsoft]
21:57:58 <wendy> if vet template, know site conforms, is not a true statement.
21:58:13 <wendy> can't assume that can vet template and know site conforms.
21:58:17 <wendy> leary of statistical samle.
21:58:19 <wendy> sample
21:58:33 <wendy> like the idea of min level conformance be automatically testable. realize there are issues with that.
21:58:45 <wendy> how are we proposing people make conformance claims if page is not authored by them?
21:58:50 <wendy> q?
21:58:52 <wendy> ack gvan
21:59:19 <wendy> worry about process-oriented. easy to say "went through process" and make a claim even if result is not accessible.
21:59:42 <wendy> how does this comment effect our guidelines?
21:59:52 <wendy> s/this comment/this discussion.
22:00:06 <wendy> hearing each individual comment, not sure how comments effect our work.
22:00:13 <wendy> don't want the ideas to fall off the tables.
22:00:21 <wendy> ack john
22:00:45 <wendy> agree with reservations about certifying the template.
22:01:05 <wendy> statistical sampling is interesting.
22:01:38 <wendy> part of what we can say about syndicated/aggregated content is that people who are interested in making conformance claims should have policies in place about the content they receive.
22:01:46 <wendy> they can enforce that policy when they are buying the content.
22:01:55 <wendy> ack wendy
22:01:55 <Zakim> wendy, you wanted to say, "aggregators should put pressure on syndicators. if give them way out, will take it"
22:03:39 <wendy> ack Mike
22:04:00 <wendy> agree, should not give people an out. however, don't want to test everything that i am syndicating in.
22:04:06 <wendy> discuss the concept of content providers.
22:04:11 <wendy> if providing content, need to conform.
22:04:25 <Zakim> +Ian
22:04:27 <wendy> as aggregator, can sign page off as long as black-box feeds come from places that conform.
22:06:49 <wendy> action: create issue in bugzilla for aggregator issues. assign to mike barta.
22:08:00 <wendy> ack john
22:08:38 <wendy> re: level 1 only being those things that are machine-testable, that creates risk of putting dev convenience ahead of making content accessible to users.
22:09:05 <wendy> zakim, close this item
22:09:05 <Zakim> I do not know what agendum had been taken up, wendy
22:09:08 <wendy> agenda
22:09:11 <wendy> agenda?
22:09:17 <wendy> zakim, take up item 1
22:09:17 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Ian's comments" taken up [from wendy]
22:09:27 <wendy> http://www.w3.org/2003/11/12-ij-wcag20.html
22:09:57 <wendy> how does this relate to our process? 
22:11:00 <wendy> these are not detailed review comments on the document. these are things to consider to help you move forward.
22:11:09 <wendy> originally thought xag and wcag should be separate documents.
22:11:29 <wendy> however, xag isn't progressing and it is important.
22:11:49 <wendy> this was an attempt to help break through some log jams.
22:11:57 <wendy> could help write a cleaner document.
22:12:24 <wendy> some of xag stuff is well-known, could be easy to do.
22:12:31 <wendy> would like to see some part of xag rather than none.
22:14:24 <wendy> latest WCAG 2.0 draft: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-20040311/
22:15:20 <wendy> the essence is: author can't provide emphasis if the format doesn't support it.
22:15:32 <wendy> let the format say "emphasis is an accessibility feature"
22:15:51 <wendy> then in wcag, say, "use the accessibility features of format specs" leave the rest to the spec.
22:16:12 <wendy> this can reduce testing issues is that you won't have to force the author into doing things that are not directly representable in the markup language.
22:16:43 <wendy> authoring responsibilities: use accessibility features of lang, do things that can't do alone in markup (consistentcy, clearn and simple lang, appropriate alt-text)
22:16:50 <wendy> some things are not easily testable.
22:17:04 <wendy> some things will have to be checked by humans.
22:17:11 <wendy> move things to formats and improve testability.
22:17:41 <wendy> ack Loretta
22:18:01 <wendy> clearly organized around markup language, an example? or that only markup languages should apply.
22:18:12 <wendy> XAG is XML Accessibility Guidelines.
22:18:25 <wendy> many of them are general and apply to more than xml-based languages.
22:18:33 <wendy> would like to see independent of xml
22:18:44 <wendy> if format is style sheet, it should allow the following...
22:19:57 <wendy> if you're a format designer and you're working with audio... (xag)
22:20:11 <wendy> in wcag, say "use accessibility features" 
22:20:58 <wendy> if the format doesn't let you say, "this is an acronym"...can't do it.
22:21:23 <wendy> don't know if can put into web content guidelines statements about what must be done by a format designer.
22:21:52 <wendy> perhaps not requirements of wcag, but underlying statemnt.
22:21:59 <wendy> "choose a technology that supports the following..."
22:22:11 <wendy> these all be success criteria 
22:22:30 <wendy> agree that wcag shouldn't say what format designers need to do, that's why xag should be separate doc.
22:23:02 <wendy> then, wcag say "use doc X that says what needs to be done in formats/languages"
22:23:15 <wendy> wcag says "use format that conforms to xag"
22:23:26 <wendy> 1.4 says, "any text presented over a background.." (old wording)
22:23:38 <wendy> that isn't something the author can do unless the technology supports it.
22:23:52 <wendy> you could choose technology that supports, but still need to put it here as well.
22:24:01 <wendy> foreground/background doesn't apply to every spec.
22:24:14 <wendy> xag say, "for this kind of spec...author needs to be able to do X"
22:24:37 <wendy> if wcag says, "use accessibility features. and these are the features of the format . here's what you need to implement"
22:24:56 <wendy> you may only be using a subset of the formats features.
22:25:27 <wendy> we can't write a standard that relies on a non-normative document.
22:25:43 <wendy> the accessibility features of a technology are not xag they are another doc that is not normative.
22:26:04 <wendy> e.g., use accessibility features of pdf. there is no normative document for PDF.
22:26:29 <Zakim> -Michael_Cooper
22:27:07 <wendy> it should be possible to use a tech along w/others to make it accessibl.e
22:27:10 <wendy> xag could say how to do that.
22:27:12 <Zakim> -Mike_Barta
22:27:13 <wendy> xag could be modular.
22:28:03 <wendy> UAAG says, "it may be that you could use this to create accessible content even if non-conforming. there are always exceptions."
22:31:05 <wendy> open captions would not meet requirements.
22:31:22 <wendy> open captions don't use the caption feature of a format.
22:31:53 <wendy> the user needs to have captions. 
22:32:15 <wendy> require author to use accessibility features. in formaat requirements, require caption features.
22:32:30 <wendy> should require that it should be captioned.
22:32:45 <wendy> why not include open captions at xag level?
22:33:28 <wendy> xag should say, "for audio content to be accessble it must have captions. there are 2 ways of satisfying. format needs to support one of them."
22:34:18 <wendy> can use non-accessibility features to meet wcag
22:34:27 <wendy> [like the hn elements in html]
22:34:48 <bengt> Web Content should not require XML ????
22:34:48 <wendy> you may meet accessibility needs by using 1 or more formats.  that's xag
22:34:53 <wendy> xag says, "here's the accessibility need"
22:36:32 <Zakim> -Paul_Bohman
22:36:46 <wendy> ack john
22:37:06 <wendy> merely telling people they should use accessibility features of a format, doesn't do the job.
22:37:16 <wendy> you can use all of the accessibility features and still come up with garbage.
22:37:22 <wendy> it'snot sufficient. it's 1/2 of the challenge.
22:40:20 <wendy> zakim, who's making noise?
22:40:32 <Zakim> wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Loretta_Guarino_Reid (17%), Matt (4%), Andi (32%), Gregg_and_Ben (59%), John_Slatin (33%)
22:40:44 <wendy> ack andi
22:41:00 <wendy> there could be things put into the format that enhance accessibility but perhaps sholdn't be part of min level of conformance.
22:41:07 <wendy> wcag should say "the things you have to do"
22:41:37 <wendy> xag specify diff levels? sure
22:41:45 <wendy> however, xag only specify how do in diff doc
22:41:51 <wendy> zakim, who's making noise?
22:42:02 <Zakim> wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ian (19%), Matt (53%), Gregg_and_Ben (72%)
22:42:10 <Zakim> -Ian
22:42:17 <Zakim> -Matt
22:42:29 <wendy> ack jason
22:42:47 <Ian> zakim, what's the code?
22:42:47 <Zakim> the conference code is 9224, Ian
22:42:54 <Ian> I can't rejoin.
22:42:58 <Ian> Probably since the call is over.
22:42:59 <wendy> "accessibility features" mandated per format requirements. i.e., whatever satisfies format requirements are accessibility features.
22:42:59 <Ian> Oh well.
22:43:05 <Ian> Thanks for having me.
22:43:09 <wendy> we're still here, ian. but closing/ending.
22:43:30 <wendy> ok. thanks for being here.
22:43:32 <Ian> I appreciated the chance to talk. I hope the comments can be useful. Good luck with WCAG 2.0.
22:43:44 <wendy> open captions: just part of video stream.
22:44:49 <wendy> captions, not best example for ian's purposes.
22:44:57 <MattSEA> MattSEA has left #wai-wcag
22:45:02 <wendy> but it shows that the model breaks.
22:45:14 <Zakim> -Wendy
22:45:15 <Zakim> -Kerstin_Goldsmith
22:45:17 <Zakim> -Loretta_Guarino_Reid
22:45:20 <Zakim> -John_Slatin
22:45:21 <Zakim> -Andi
22:45:24 <Zakim> -Gregg_and_Ben
22:45:25 <Zakim> -Bengt_Farre
22:45:26 <Zakim> -JasonWhite
22:45:30 <Zakim> -Takayuki_Watanabe
22:45:49 <nabe> nabe has left #wai-wcag
22:46:22 <wendy> zakim, bye
22:46:22 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Michael_Cooper, Matt, Wendy, Bengt_Farre, Paul_Bohman, Gregg_and_Ben, Takayuki_Watanabe, Kerstin_Goldsmith,
22:46:22 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wai-wcag
22:46:25 <Zakim> ... JasonWhite, John_Slatin, Andi, Mike_Barta, Ian
22:46:32 <wendy> RRSAgent, make logs public-visible
22:46:41 <wendy> RRSAgent, make logs world-access
22:51:42 <bengt> bengt has left #wai-wcag
22:51:57 <wendy> RRSAgent, bye
22:51:57 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item:
22:51:57 <RRSAgent> ACTION: create issue in bugzilla for aggregator issues. assign to mike barta. [1]
22:51:57 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/04/01-wai-wcag-irc#T22-06-49