IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-04-08
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 20:03:53 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:04:45 [Zakim]
- +Michael_Cooper
- 20:05:39 [MichaelC]
- MichaelC has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:06:19 [rscano]
- http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/
- 20:06:23 [rscano]
- hi Michael
- 20:08:20 [Zakim]
- +Paul_Bohman
- 20:08:47 [wendy]
- agenda+ ian's proposal
- 20:10:15 [wendy]
- agenda+ Confirm consensus from last week (no conformance level lower than minimum (e.g., A-), should not prevent peopel from reporting intermediat eprogress.
- 20:10:27 [wendy]
- agenda+ process claims?
- 20:10:42 [wendy]
- agenda+ formal conformance statements between levels?
- 20:10:43 [Zakim]
- +Loretta_Guarino_Reid
- 20:10:58 [wendy]
- agenda+ Definition of Levels?
- 20:11:05 [wendy]
- zakim, take up item 1
- 20:11:05 [Zakim]
- agendum 1. "ian's proposal" taken up [from wendy]
- 20:13:17 [wendy]
- zakim, who's making noise?
- 20:13:21 [wendy]
- (are others hearing echo?)
- 20:13:29 [Zakim]
- wendy, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
- 20:13:32 [rscano]
- (nope)
- 20:13:34 [wendy]
- ?
- 20:14:20 [MattSEA]
- MattSEA has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:14:32 [wendy]
- gregg summarizes discussion form last week (scribe missed :\ dealing w/other stuff)
- 20:14:53 [wendy]
- zakim, close this item
- 20:14:53 [Zakim]
- agendum 1 closed
- 20:14:54 [Zakim]
- I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
- 20:14:55 [Zakim]
- 2. Confirm consensus from last week (no conformance level lower than minimum (e.g., A-), should not prevent peopel from reporting intermediat eprogress. [from wendy]
- 20:15:18 [wendy]
- zakim, take up item 2
- 20:15:18 [Zakim]
- agendum 2. "Confirm consensus from last week (no conformance level lower than minimum (e.g., A-), should not prevent peopel from reporting intermediat eprogress." taken up [from
- 20:15:21 [Zakim]
- ... wendy]
- 20:16:05 [wendy]
- level lower than minimum?
- 20:16:39 [rscano]
- no please :( otherwise what we make: pkzip-wcag ?
- 20:17:42 [GVAN]
- GVAN has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:17:50 [bcaldwell]
- q?
- 20:17:57 [wendy]
- some organizations feel unlikely to meet minimum and suggested A-
- 20:18:04 [wendy]
- related to scoping issue
- 20:18:06 [wendy]
- ack Loretta
- 20:18:18 [sh1mmer]
- q+
- 20:18:33 [wendy]
- also, related to aggregation, number of pages, and how often content updated
- 20:18:40 [wendy]
- ack Tom
- 20:19:02 [rscano]
- if these organization don't meet minimum, they don't declare conformance... why if they are unable to make accessible web site we need to agree to give them possibility to put a conformance logo?
- 20:19:23 [wendy]
- there is nothing stopping them from saying, "we don't meet minimum, but here' what we've done"
- 20:19:27 [wendy]
- ack Microsoft
- 20:19:33 [wendy]
- ack [Microsoft]
- 20:19:41 [bcaldwell]
- zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta
- 20:19:41 [Zakim]
- +Mike_Barta; got it
- 20:19:46 [wendy]
- if minimum is not testable, then if site more than 100K suddently, doesn't bother?
- 20:19:59 [wendy]
- testable - someone can verify it.
- 20:20:17 [Zakim]
- -Roberto_Ellero
- 20:20:44 [wendy]
- consensus: we do not want to define a "lower than minimum" conformance claim (e.g., A-)
- 20:20:53 [sh1mmer]
- q+
- 20:21:03 [rscano]
- q?
- 20:21:17 [wendy]
- ack Tom
- 20:21:20 [sh1mmer]
- ack Tom_Croucher
- 20:21:24 [Zakim]
- +??P1
- 20:21:31 [rellero]
- zakim, ??P1 is Roberto_Ellero
- 20:21:31 [Zakim]
- +Roberto_Ellero; got it
- 20:21:46 [rellero]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:21:46 [Zakim]
- sorry, rellero, I do not see a party named 'rellero'
- 20:21:50 [wendy]
- we should actively encourage people to do as much as possible.
- 20:21:54 [rellero]
- zakim, I am Roberto_Ellero
- 20:21:54 [Zakim]
- ok, rellero, I now associate you with Roberto_Ellero
- 20:22:00 [rellero]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:22:00 [Zakim]
- Roberto_Ellero should now be muted
- 20:22:04 [wendy]
- "do as much as you can & write that down"
- 20:22:29 [bcaldwell]
- hand up
- 20:22:39 [wendy]
- ack David
- 20:23:04 [wendy]
- don't encourage people calim conformance below min. level, but we don't discourage people to report progress between levels.
- 20:23:09 [wendy]
- give people the option.
- 20:23:15 [wendy]
- "give them permission"
- 20:23:17 [wendy]
- ack John
- 20:23:18 [rscano]
- so these make a conformance claim to single guidelines, not to a conformance level?
- 20:23:42 [wendy]
- actively encourage report progress. perhaps provide a tool that they can use to make it easy to make comparisons.
- 20:23:56 [wendy]
- ack bcaldwell
- 20:24:14 [wendy]
- encourage claims via metadata (that implies intermediate steps), not useful to encourage what you did if not in metadata.
- 20:24:34 [wendy]
- anyone feel that we should not encourage people to report in between.
- 20:24:40 [wendy]
- hard enough to get people to report levels.
- 20:25:35 [wendy]
- publicize progress between levels and further encourage them to do it in metadata.
- 20:25:41 [wendy]
- q+ to ask clarification on john's q
- 20:25:49 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 20:25:49 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to ask clarification on john's q
- 20:27:14 [wendy]
- last week talked about vpat, "we support this criterion" - could go into metadata. also human description of what we've done.
- 20:27:15 [wendy]
- ack mike
- 20:27:44 [wendy]
- are we specifying a metadta scheme? or metadata policy? is it part of conformance? or just a good idea to do something like this?
- 20:27:54 [wendy]
- a "good idea" - not must. not success criteria.
- 20:28:02 [ben]
- ben has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:28:43 [wendy]
- metadata: if people were in the stream of content they are emitting, would make aggregation problem simpler.
- 20:29:01 [wendy]
- then aggregated content could aggregate conformance info. makes it clearer about legal liability.
- 20:29:12 [wendy]
- specifying communication means like that could be messy.
- 20:29:28 [wendy]
- vpat would be one mechanism to publicize what you have done.
- 20:29:36 [rscano]
- Like in P3P?
- 20:29:38 [wendy]
- vpat is 508-specific
- 20:29:41 [sh1mmer]
- q+
- 20:30:04 [sh1mmer]
- ack Tom_Croucher
- 20:30:23 [wendy]
- perhaps we recommend that someone develop tools
- 20:30:31 [rscano]
- yep this could be good
- 20:30:47 [wendy]
- EARL is ideal format.
- 20:30:54 [wendy]
- q+ EARL update
- 20:30:56 [Zakim]
- -Roberto_Ellero
- 20:31:13 [wendy]
- useful to say something specific is specified to avoid interoperability problems.
- 20:31:18 [wendy]
- q-
- 20:31:23 [wendy]
- ack EARL
- 20:31:25 [wendy]
- :)
- 20:31:27 [rscano]
- :)
- 20:31:35 [wendy]
- ack update
- 20:32:03 [Zakim]
- +??P1
- 20:32:04 [rellero]
- zakim, ??P1 is Roberto_Ellero
- 20:32:04 [Zakim]
- +Roberto_Ellero; got it
- 20:32:18 [rellero]
- zakim, I am Roberto_Ellero
- 20:32:18 [Zakim]
- ok, rellero, I now associate you with Roberto_Ellero
- 20:32:22 [rellero]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:32:22 [Zakim]
- Roberto_Ellero should now be muted
- 20:32:36 [GVAN]
- We encourage people to document and publicize progress between conformance levels. Further we encourage them to do so via metadata when and as it is possible.
- 20:34:01 [wendy]
- zakim, close this item
- 20:34:01 [Zakim]
- agendum 2 closed
- 20:34:02 [Zakim]
- I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
- 20:34:03 [Zakim]
- 3. process claims? [from wendy]
- 20:34:08 [wendy]
- zakim, take up item 3
- 20:34:08 [Zakim]
- agendum 3. "process claims?" taken up [from wendy]
- 20:35:31 [sh1mmer]
- q+
- 20:35:50 [sh1mmer]
- ack Tom_Croucher
- 20:36:13 [wendy]
- shouldn't we say "look at ATAG" and that will guide you?
- 20:36:24 [wendy]
- ATAG are authoring tool. we're talking about web apps.
- 20:36:31 [wendy]
- it's a web app behaving as an authoring tool.
- 20:36:54 [Zakim]
- +??P13
- 20:36:57 [rscano]
- if Web App generate contents, these are authoring tools :)
- 20:37:18 [wendy]
- q?
- 20:37:20 [wendy]
- q+ matt
- 20:37:28 [wendy]
- ack David
- 20:37:52 [wendy]
- learning from 508, can we encourage the huge sites to push the responsibility of the content onto their service providers.
- 20:37:59 [wendy]
- e.g., reuters, and other news agencies.
- 20:38:35 [wendy]
- ack matt
- 20:38:47 [wendy]
- in ATAG 2.0, guideline 1 is "make interface accessible"
- 20:38:56 [rscano]
- ISO TS/16071
- 20:39:06 [wendy]
- working on ISO 16071 is benchmark for accessibility of s/w apps
- 20:39:18 [wendy]
- for web apps, we'll point to wcag
- 20:39:32 [rscano]
- ISO/TS, not ISO :)
- 20:39:45 [wendy]
- will atag cover all dynamically generated content as well as all web apps?
- 20:40:05 [wendy]
- atag addresses the interface of the input mechanism. the output is how test quality of tools.
- 20:40:10 [wendy]
- it's output must conform to wcag
- 20:40:29 [wendy]
- how does someone test output when content to output doesn't exist at time of test?
- 20:40:37 [wendy]
- atag has stuff for templates and collateral built into wcag
- 20:40:55 [wendy]
- if producing content from a template, that template musst be accessible ala wcag
- 20:40:58 [wendy]
- ack loretta
- 20:41:48 [wendy]
- pushing the requirement to contributor, but conerne that needs a way to make sure that contractor has fulfilled obligation. thus, need a way to test.
- 20:41:50 [wendy]
- ack mike
- 20:42:13 [ben]
- zakim, [IBM] is Andi
- 20:42:13 [Zakim]
- +Andi; got it
- 20:42:16 [wendy]
- atag is covering the tool is accessible, output conform to wcag. if the tool is using template of productin, it's still content the author is producing
- 20:42:44 [wendy]
- if using something at build-time (fed in from diff system), the only testable way to handle is "person providing the feed is responsible for claim about feed"
- 20:42:48 [wendy]
- ack [IBM]
- 20:42:49 [GVAN]
- q+
- 20:43:04 [wendy]
- our mailing list is good e.g., of web app that takes data from somewhere and presents.
- 20:43:23 [rscano]
- also a Blog is an authoring tool, because it publish content input by an user?
- 20:43:38 [rscano]
- also forum, chat, etc.?
- 20:43:44 [wendy]
- 1.3 "struct sep from presenation" - "derive programmatically"
- 20:43:57 [MattSEA]
- q+
- 20:44:08 [wendy]
- mailing list is flat text. mailing list doesn't conform
- 20:44:19 [wendy]
- it takes html markup out of messages
- 20:44:55 [wendy]
- how do we apply this atag discussion to the mailing list discussion?
- 20:45:16 [wendy]
- ack gvan
- 20:45:23 [wendy]
- ack matt
- 20:45:41 [wendy]
- not much of a stretch to call a mailing list an authoring tool. however, wouldn't.
- 20:45:55 [wendy]
- the intent of posting to mailing list is not to create web content, it is ancillary.
- 20:45:56 [GVAN]
- q+
- 20:46:45 [wendy]
- it isn't intended to be created as web content. thus, person creating web content is not using an authoring tool. if that the case, atag would apply to mail clients or anything that has a text area that could end up on the web.
- 20:47:03 [wendy]
- question is: is the archiving tool an authoring tool? similar to aggregator issue.
- 20:48:12 [wendy]
- ack gvan
- 20:48:15 [MattSEA]
- q+ to talk about ATAG and conversion tools
- 20:48:43 [wendy]
- ack andi
- 20:48:49 [wendy]
- ack mike
- 20:49:24 [wendy]
- if you include something that you didn't author, you can only say it is accessible if the thing you include claims it is accessible.
- 20:49:29 [ben]
- q+
- 20:50:02 [wendy]
- in most cases, have a contract. if they claim conformance and don't, then should not be afraid of user suing, should be afraid of aggregator suing them.
- 20:50:16 [wendy]
- you are responsible to use accessible content and create accessible content.
- 20:50:26 [rellero]
- An important problem about backoffice is that it is necessary to be able to use also without js support
- 20:50:28 [wendy]
- ack matt
- 20:50:28 [Zakim]
- MattSEA, you wanted to talk about ATAG and conversion tools
- 20:50:31 [rscano]
- and the problem returns with backoffice :)
- 20:51:01 [wendy]
- atag 1 has "converstion tools"
- 20:51:07 [wendy]
- atag 2 "indirect authoring functions"
- 20:51:11 [wendy]
- matt reads from draft
- 20:51:17 [wendy]
- (could you put uri of what you read?)
- 20:52:10 [wendy]
- only 4 cps in atag 1 that apply to conversion tools in atag 1. (since so limited)
- 20:52:15 [wendy]
- (tools are so limited)
- 20:52:30 [wendy]
- likely more applicable to wcag as a web app (e.g., of mailing list)
- 20:52:33 [wendy]
- q?
- 20:53:19 [wendy]
- atag is wcag-checking and repair+the user interface to prompt the author.
- 20:53:29 [wendy]
- if there is no prompting, then value of atag is limited.
- 20:54:19 [rellero]
- (about js support in backoffice) Even if the embedded editors (textarea, object) actually work only with recent versions of the browser, then the js support is less relevant than browser compatibility
- 20:54:58 [wendy]
- you can only claim the lowest level of conformance of the materials you accept.
- 20:55:11 [wendy]
- i.e., could not claim level 2 if 3rd party content on your site that only meets level 1
- 20:55:15 [wendy]
- q?
- 20:55:45 [wendy]
- "synthetic" falls between the cracks of atag and wcag.
- 20:56:05 [wendy]
- if have a tool that converts word docs to html, should be covered by wcag?
- 20:56:09 [wendy]
- b/c of the output.
- 20:56:31 [wendy]
- conversion tool type in atag that uses microsoft word as an example.
- 20:56:37 [wendy]
- and there are techniques
- 20:56:46 [rellero]
- in cut&paste?
- 20:56:48 [wendy]
- the user interface should meet atag, and output should meet wcag
- 20:56:52 [rellero]
- or as an application?
- 20:57:15 [wendy]
- reiterate in wcag that when we say 'authored' don't necessarily mean notepad. if author includes things from another source, other source should make assertion.
- 20:57:24 [wendy]
- q?
- 20:58:00 [Zakim]
- -Matt
- 20:58:08 [wendy]
- ack ben
- 20:58:25 [wendy]
- the flexibility that we allow for scoping is important.
- 20:58:46 [wendy]
- scope: can w3c claim that mails sent to mailing list is not accessible, but archives are conforming?
- 20:59:15 [wendy]
- "we are accessble but x, y are not accessible"
- 20:59:23 [rscano]
- for "user interface" intend also the HTML page content in a backoffice?
- 20:59:24 [wendy]
- scope in such a way that can exclude content that have no control over.
- 20:59:27 [wendy]
- q+
- 21:00:22 [wendy]
- ack mike
- 21:00:29 [nabe]
- nabe has joined #wai-wcag
- 21:00:29 [wendy]
- ack andi
- 21:01:10 [wendy]
- if have a portal, portlet is a mail app, can't say that it is wcag compliant.
- 21:01:24 [wendy]
- it's a web app
- 21:01:32 [wendy]
- it's an aggregator question
- 21:01:35 [Zakim]
- +??P7
- 21:03:16 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 21:03:49 [wendy]
- ack john
- 21:04:32 [wendy]
- we can't recover intent, can't make it part of a test.
- 21:05:02 [wendy]
- conformance claims between levels?
- 21:05:19 [sh1mmer]
- q+
- 21:05:25 [wendy]
- who feels we should have conformance claims in between?
- 21:05:26 [sh1mmer]
- ack Tom_Croucher
- 21:05:54 [wendy]
- talked earlier about being open about what done between levels.
- 21:06:05 [wendy]
- that suitable replacement for conformance claim (between levels)
- 21:06:17 [wendy]
- could say "A" but never "A+"
- 21:07:18 [wendy]
- consensus to remove statement in requirement doc that says
- 21:07:19 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-req/
- 21:09:48 [wendy]
- C1 - We want to have recognition for accomplishment beyond baseline.
- 21:10:00 [wendy]
- interpret: that we have Level 1, levle2,3
- 21:10:12 [wendy]
- C2 - It is good to have levels of conformance rather than just all or nothing.
- 21:10:36 [wendy]
- seems redundant with C2
- 21:11:32 [wendy]
- s/C2/C1
- 21:11:38 [wendy]
- combine them?
- 21:11:46 [wendy]
- one gives rationale, second says what should be
- 21:11:54 [rscano]
- good idea
- 21:12:46 [wendy]
- c8
- 21:13:28 [wendy]
- delete, " However, there is no agreement on whether, if checkpoints beyond the core set have been implemented, these need to be listed individually, with an "A+" conformance label associated with a list of additional checkpoints, or whether higher "discrete" levels of conformance (double-a, triple-a etc.) should be defined. "
- 21:13:30 [wendy]
- ?
- 21:13:50 [nabe1]
- nabe1 has joined #wai-wcag
- 21:14:09 [rscano]
- hi Takayuki
- 21:14:27 [wendy]
- change statement from "If the working group defines a core set of checkpoints which must be satisfied before any conformance claim can be made, these will constitute a minimum level of conformance (e.g. "Level A")."
- 21:15:20 [nabe1]
- good morning. Today's discussion is difficult. ;-)
- 21:15:20 [wendy]
- to "the WG will define a core set of criteria that must be satisfied before any conformance claim can be made, these will constitute a min. level of conformance (e.g., "Level A")."
- 21:15:39 [wendy]
- s/criteria/success criteria
- 21:19:27 [wendy]
- consensus statements are to help people coming onboard. keep track of where we have been and where we are.
- 21:25:37 [Zakim]
- -Michael_Cooper
- 21:29:43 [wendy]
- action: wendy send proposals to changes in requirements document to the mailing list
- 21:30:26 [wendy]
- consensus to publish consensus items in separate document. link to from home page.
- 21:31:15 [wendy]
- heads up: will be redesigning home page per new WAI activity design.
- 21:32:06 [wendy]
- RRSAgent, make log world-visible
- 21:32:47 [rscano]
- http://www.w3.org/2004/04/08-wai-wcag-irc
- 21:34:37 [wendy]
- ack David
- 21:35:00 [wendy]
- perhaps separating conformance criteria (rules we set for ourselves) from definition of levels of conformance.
- 21:35:06 [Zakim]
- -Andi
- 21:35:09 [wendy]
- currently, combined and confusing for people not involved in the process
- 21:36:01 [wendy]
- everyone think about this is where we'll start next time
- 21:36:08 [wendy]
- then, start out scope, before can clean up 1.2
- 21:36:51 [Zakim]
- -Paul_Bohman
- 21:36:52 [Zakim]
- -??P13
- 21:36:54 [Zakim]
- -Mike_Barta
- 21:36:54 [rscano]
- good night!
- 21:36:55 [Zakim]
- -Loretta_Guarino_Reid
- 21:36:55 [bengt]
- bye
- 21:36:56 [Zakim]
- -Tom_Croucher
- 21:36:57 [Zakim]
- -Wendy
- 21:36:57 [Zakim]
- -John_Slatin
- 21:36:57 [rellero]
- Happy Easter! http://protty.it/images/prottybonsai1_JPG.jpg
- 21:36:58 [Zakim]
- -David_McDonald
- 21:36:59 [Zakim]
- -Ben_and_Gregg
- 21:37:00 [Zakim]
- -Roberto_Scano
- 21:37:02 [Zakim]
- -Bengt_Farre
- 21:37:25 [Zakim]
- -??P7
- 21:37:32 [Zakim]
- -Roberto_Ellero
- 21:37:33 [Zakim]
- -JasonWhite
- 21:37:34 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
- 21:37:35 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Roberto_Scano, Bengt_Farre, Wendy, Roberto_Ellero, John_Slatin, Tom_Croucher, JasonWhite, Matt, David_McDonald, Ben_and_Gregg, Michael_Cooper, Paul_Bohman,
- 21:37:37 [Zakim]
- ... Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Mike_Barta, Andi
- 21:38:09 [nabe1]
- Are you in summer time?
- 21:38:40 [wendyout]
- yes. u.s. switched to summer time on sunday, europe the week before.
- 21:39:15 [nabe1]
- Wow. so telecon starts at 5 am in Japan.
- 21:39:22 [rscano]
- wow :)
- 21:39:35 [rellero]
- :-)
- 21:39:43 [rscano]
- good night from Venice :)
- 21:40:38 [rscano]
- rscano has left #wai-wcag