IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-04-15
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 19:48:21 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:48:28 [wendy]
- RRSAgent, make log world-visible
- 19:48:31 [Yvette]
- Hi Bent and Roberto (sorry, was reading my mail)
- 19:49:08 [Yvette]
- s/Bent/Bengt
- 19:55:12 [rellero]
- rellero has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:55:21 [rellero]
- Hi
- 19:55:42 [bengt]
- hi
- 19:56:25 [Yvette]
- Hi Roberto
- 19:57:09 [rcastaldo]
- rcastaldo has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:57:16 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started
- 19:57:23 [Zakim]
- +Katie_Haritos-Shea
- 19:57:27 [rcastaldo]
- HI everybody
- 19:57:30 [rellero]
- Ciao
- 19:57:47 [Yvette]
- Hi Roberto
- 19:57:57 [rcastaldo]
- Ciao Rob
- 19:58:00 [rcastaldo]
- Ciao Yvette
- 19:58:37 [Zakim]
- +??P1
- 19:58:44 [Zakim]
- +Sailesh_Panchang
- 19:59:03 [rscano]
- hi
- 19:59:23 [Zakim]
- +Yvette_Hoitink
- 19:59:36 [Zakim]
- -??P1
- 20:00:05 [Yvette]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:00:05 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
- 20:00:13 [Zakim]
- +??P1
- 20:00:29 [Zakim]
- +??P4
- 20:00:31 [Zakim]
- +Avi
- 20:00:32 [bengt]
- zakim, ??P1 is Bengt_Farre
- 20:00:32 [Zakim]
- +Bengt_Farre; got it
- 20:00:42 [bengt]
- zakim, I am Bengt_Farre
- 20:00:42 [Zakim]
- ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
- 20:01:10 [Zakim]
- +??P6
- 20:01:14 [rellero]
- zakim, ??P6 is Roberto_Ellero
- 20:01:14 [Zakim]
- +Roberto_Ellero; got it
- 20:01:15 [Zakim]
- +Matt
- 20:01:25 [rellero]
- zakim, I am Roberto_Ellero
- 20:01:25 [Zakim]
- ok, rellero, I now associate you with Roberto_Ellero
- 20:01:28 [Zakim]
- +John_Slatin
- 20:01:31 [Zakim]
- +Wendy
- 20:01:32 [rellero]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:01:32 [Zakim]
- Roberto_Ellero should now be muted
- 20:01:44 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 20:01:44 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Katie_Haritos-Shea, Sailesh_Panchang, Yvette_Hoitink (muted), Bengt_Farre, ??P4, Avi (muted), Roberto_Ellero (muted), Matt, John_Slatin, Wendy
- 20:01:47 [rcastaldo]
- 01zakim, ??P4 is Roberto_Castaldo
- 20:01:51 [bengt]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:01:51 [Zakim]
- Bengt_Farre should now be muted
- 20:01:56 [Zakim]
- +Loretta_Guarino_Reid
- 20:02:04 [MattSEA]
- MattSEA has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:02:34 [rcastaldo]
- 01zakim, I am Roberto_Castaldo
- 20:02:45 [Zakim]
- +JasonWhite
- 20:02:48 [nabe]
- nabe has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:03:22 [Zakim]
- +[IBM]
- 20:03:36 [wendy]
- zakim, [IBM] is Andi
- 20:03:36 [Zakim]
- +Andi; got it
- 20:03:43 [Zakim]
- +??P10
- 20:03:43 [bcaldwell]
- bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:04:33 [Zakim]
- +??P11
- 20:04:42 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P11 is Ben-and-Gregg
- 20:04:42 [Zakim]
- +Ben-and-Gregg; got it
- 20:04:45 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 20:04:45 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Katie_Haritos-Shea, Sailesh_Panchang, Yvette_Hoitink (muted), Bengt_Farre (muted), ??P4, Avi (muted), Roberto_Ellero (muted), Matt, John_Slatin, Wendy,
- 20:04:47 [Yvette]
- zakim, unmute me
- 20:04:48 [Zakim]
- ... Loretta_Guarino_Reid, JasonWhite, Andi, ??P10, Ben-and-Gregg
- 20:04:49 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
- 20:05:04 [Zakim]
- +Dave_MacDonald
- 20:05:07 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P4 is Roberto_Castaldo
- 20:05:07 [Zakim]
- +Roberto_Castaldo; got it
- 20:05:20 [wendy]
- takayuki - are you on the phone? i'm wondering if you are ??P10.
- 20:05:37 [Zakim]
- +??P13
- 20:05:54 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P10 is Takayuki_Watanabe
- 20:05:54 [Zakim]
- +Takayuki_Watanabe; got it
- 20:05:56 [sh1mmer]
- Zakim, ??P13 is Tom
- 20:05:56 [Zakim]
- +Tom; got it
- 20:06:01 [sh1mmer]
- Zakim, I am Tom
- 20:06:01 [Zakim]
- ok, sh1mmer, I now associate you with Tom
- 20:06:05 [sh1mmer]
- Zakim, mute me
- 20:06:05 [Zakim]
- Tom should now be muted
- 20:06:07 [sh1mmer]
- that was me
- 20:06:10 [sh1mmer]
- i was getting to muting
- 20:06:11 [sh1mmer]
- ;)
- 20:06:13 [wendy]
- :)
- 20:06:29 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 20:06:29 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Katie_Haritos-Shea, Sailesh_Panchang, Yvette_Hoitink, Bengt_Farre (muted), Roberto_Castaldo, Avi (muted), Roberto_Ellero (muted), Matt, John_Slatin, Wendy,
- 20:06:32 [Zakim]
- ... Loretta_Guarino_Reid, JasonWhite, Andi, Takayuki_Watanabe, Ben-and-Gregg, Dave_MacDonald, Tom (muted)
- 20:06:51 [GVAN]
- GVAN has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:06:55 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 20:06:55 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Katie_Haritos-Shea, Sailesh_Panchang, Yvette_Hoitink, Bengt_Farre (muted), Roberto_Castaldo, Avi (muted), Roberto_Ellero (muted), Matt, John_Slatin, Wendy,
- 20:06:58 [Zakim]
- ... Loretta_Guarino_Reid, JasonWhite, Andi, Takayuki_Watanabe, Ben-and-Gregg, Dave_MacDonald, Tom (muted)
- 20:08:15 [Zakim]
- +??P14
- 20:08:17 [wendy]
- conformance scope
- 20:08:32 [rscano]
- zakim, ?P14 is Roberto_Scano
- 20:08:32 [Zakim]
- sorry, rscano, I do not recognize a party named '?P14'
- 20:08:48 [rscano]
- zakim, ??P14 is Roberto_Scano
- 20:08:48 [Zakim]
- +Roberto_Scano; got it
- 20:08:53 [rscano]
- zakim, I am Roberto_Scano
- 20:08:53 [Zakim]
- ok, rscano, I now associate you with Roberto_Scano
- 20:09:08 [wendy]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0060.html
- 20:09:19 [Yvette]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:09:20 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
- 20:09:34 [sh1mmer]
- q+
- 20:09:40 [wendy]
- basis of proposal: we don't define scope. leave it to policy makers.
- 20:10:11 [sh1mmer]
- q-
- 20:10:22 [wendy]
- only exception is that we have a logo (different from conformance) and would have standards for logo use.
- 20:11:12 [wendy]
- logo - in the guidelines or separate doc
- 20:11:31 [Yvette]
- zakim, unmute me
- 20:11:31 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
- 20:11:35 [wendy]
- (currently, for 1.0 is a separate document - )
- 20:11:37 [wendy]
- ack john
- 20:12:13 [Yvette]
- q+ to say "I like it, good to apply internationally"
- 20:12:15 [wendy]
- e.g., highly accessible navigation that links to inaccessible content.
- 20:12:53 [sh1mmer]
- q+
- 20:13:20 [wendy]
- who cares if it does or doesn't pass if they didn't make accessible, they wouldn't, although someone says they should.
- 20:13:48 [wendy]
- other group say, "we want navigation pages, and xy, but every research paper doesn't have to be made accessible."
- 20:13:49 [Yvette]
- zakim, who's making noise?
- 20:13:56 [wendy]
- that would the institutional policy
- 20:14:08 [Zakim]
- Yvette, listening for 18 seconds I heard sound from the following: Yvette_Hoitink (2%)
- 20:14:27 [wendy]
- ?
- 20:14:31 [wendy]
- zakim, who's talking?
- 20:14:49 [Zakim]
- wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Takayuki_Watanabe (4%), Ben-and-Gregg (4%)
- 20:14:57 [Yvette]
- distinctly odd
- 20:15:30 [wendy]
- it would be up to the organization to set policy. if the institution want to make sure that key instructional pages be accessible, they say "key instructional pages must meet Level a" (for example)
- 20:16:07 [rscano]
- q+ roberto for explain how italy make policy
- 20:16:12 [rscano]
- q+ roberto
- 20:16:20 [wendy]
- we don't want to build all possibilities into our guidelines, but maybe eowg or us make some exmaples/recommendations. or perhaps people come together to agree on way to apply this.
- 20:17:32 [rscano]
- q- roberto
- 20:18:41 [rscano]
- in Italy we will do two testing for two different levels: technical evalutation and human centered evalutation
- 20:19:16 [wendy]
- q+ to say, "like to hear from tool devs, industry"
- 20:19:56 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 20:19:56 [Zakim]
- Yvette, you wanted to say "I like it, good to apply internationally"
- 20:21:14 [sh1mmer]
- ack Tom
- 20:21:31 [Yvette]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:21:31 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
- 20:21:54 [wendy]
- conformance in chunks.
- 20:22:15 [Zakim]
- +Mike_Barta
- 20:22:58 [wendy]
- see people being piecemeal, less effort.
- 20:23:08 [wendy]
- like to see conformance claims encapsulated to diff parts of the site.
- 20:23:50 [wendy]
- identifiable parts of the site, reasonable parts of site
- 20:23:55 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 20:23:55 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say, "like to hear from tool devs, industry"
- 20:25:08 [rscano]
- i like the idea of the content labels like UAAG 1.0
- 20:26:38 [wendy]
- 2 thoughts:
- 20:27:04 [sh1mmer]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0060.html
- 20:27:19 [sh1mmer]
- oh mike isn't on irc
- 20:27:22 [sh1mmer]
- hehe
- 20:27:30 [wendy]
- 1 - content labels, a vocabulary to help people make claims. e.g., "all dcuments are included in this claim, but real-time 'data" is not"
- 20:27:51 [wendy]
- so, documents, multimedia, real-tiem...not sure if could have exhaustive list, but help people scope via keyword
- 20:28:34 [wendy]
- 2 - would like to hear from tool devs. could this fragment? part of goal of harmonization is to give tool devs a stronger argument for incorporating accessibility into tools. would like to think about effects of the proposal on harmonization/fragmentation.
- 20:29:22 [rscano]
- wendy I can prepare a note how we are studying the conformance for italian public administration web sites
- 20:30:22 [wendy]
- currently, orgs don't make whole site compliant. they start with most important pages (e.g., flight reservation now, maybe make another section later).
- 20:31:39 [wendy]
- guidelines should not say that organizations can claim certain parts of site to certain levels. leave that to policy makers. here, just defin deliverables.
- 20:31:55 [sh1mmer]
- ack Tom
- 20:31:56 [wendy]
- someplace have to state what constitutes conformance. need to say ok to do it via scoping or not.
- 20:32:16 [wendy]
- don't even mention scoping
- 20:32:28 [Yvette]
- zakim, unmute me
- 20:32:28 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
- 20:32:32 [sh1mmer]
- q+
- 20:32:40 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#Conformance
- 20:33:31 [wendy]
- in 1.0: The scope covered by the claim (e.g., page, site, or defined portion of a site.).
- 20:34:25 [wendy]
- zakim, set timer to 2 mintues
- 20:34:25 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'set timer to 2 mintues', wendy
- 20:34:28 [wendy]
- zakim, set timer to 2 minutes
- 20:34:28 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'set timer to 2 minutes', wendy
- 20:34:29 [sh1mmer]
- ack Tom
- 20:34:36 [wendy]
- zakim, give each speaker 2 minutes
- 20:34:36 [Zakim]
- ok, wendy
- 20:34:46 [wendy]
- q+ tom
- 20:34:48 [wendy]
- ack tom
- 20:35:05 [wendy]
- worry that if we don't say anything about scope, people will use the logo w/out appropriately scoping the site.
- 20:35:16 [wendy]
- give different logos, one for full site one for partial site
- 20:36:28 [sh1mmer]
- ack Andi
- 20:36:30 [wendy]
- ack andi
- 20:36:38 [wendy]
- do we have to have a logo? what if we don't have a logo?
- 20:37:43 [wendy]
- it's not necessarily logo, but text that makes it clear what the conformance scope is.
- 20:37:56 [wendy]
- +1 to keep the logo
- 20:38:11 [wendy]
- in netherlands, never seen one of the logos
- 20:38:29 [rscano]
- here in Italy too much logos that show conformance AAA that is not reached instead :-/
- 20:38:38 [Zakim]
- +[Microsoft]
- 20:38:41 [Zakim]
- -Mike_Barta
- 20:38:57 [wendy]
- if someone using logo, and they don't deserve to, could alleviate that problem.
- 20:39:02 [wendy]
- is logo usage an open issue?
- 20:39:21 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1-Conformance.html
- 20:39:29 [wendy]
- currently a separate thing already
- 20:39:35 [wendy]
- action: gv take logo issue to WAI CG
- 20:40:29 [wendy]
- harmonization: not worried about this as diff countries implementing diff technical requirements.
- 20:40:37 [wendy]
- today, can scope diff things. doesn't seem to be much of a problem.
- 20:40:49 [wendy]
- author has to decide what type of page they are creating, and still need to make call as to what applies or not.
- 20:41:25 [wendy]
- easy to create a set of checks for a subset of countries that you want to conform to? (thinking about authoring tools)
- 20:42:14 [sh1mmer]
- q+
- 20:42:36 [sh1mmer]
- ack Tom
- 20:43:04 [wendy]
- make sure that people have common way to look at sites
- 20:43:11 [wendy]
- zakim, stop timing
- 20:43:11 [Zakim]
- ok, wendy
- 20:43:42 [wendy]
- 1. follow lead of wcag 1.0 wrt conformance scoping, which is to allow it in the conformance claim
- 20:44:03 [wendy]
- objections?
- 20:44:21 [wendy]
- 2. wrt logo: refer to CG to determine if we or EOWG should deal with logo use?
- 20:44:26 [wendy]
- objections?
- 20:44:31 [wendy]
- no objections to either
- 20:44:41 [rellero]
- rellero has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:46:08 [wendy]
- if a logo exists, can easily see how page conforms. if scoping is genuinely there, there should be a way for the user to easily identify the accessibility. either via accessibility statement or something on the page.
- 20:46:34 [Yvette]
- q+ to say "requiring logo and/or accessibility statement is limiting presentation and cant be lvl 1"
- 20:47:05 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 20:47:05 [Zakim]
- Yvette, you wanted to say "requiring logo and/or accessibility statement is limiting presentation and cant be lvl 1"
- 20:47:38 [wendy]
- we don't want to require people to limit presentation or how they express themselves, and if we require a visible statement, then violates our principles.
- 20:47:49 [sh1mmer]
- 1+
- 20:47:50 [wendy]
- "easy to find" w/out metadata, is via presentation to the user.
- 20:47:51 [sh1mmer]
- q+
- 20:47:53 [wendy]
- ack andi
- 20:48:06 [wendy]
- not requiring to make, but if they do, should be easy to find
- 20:48:16 [wendy]
- limit the way people express conformance?
- 20:48:47 [sh1mmer]
- ack Tom
- 20:48:47 [wendy]
- if we don't require people to state conformance, it's up to them to state how to do it,
- 20:49:29 [wendy]
- when people have mixed claims b/c of scope and it is not being declared. thus, at a minimum, if you make a scoped claim, it should be clearly defined.
- 20:49:43 [wendy]
- so that people don't have to search through what is inaccessible to find it (it = the claim?)
- 20:50:13 [wendy]
- it = the scope of the claim
- 20:50:22 [wendy]
- ack john
- 20:52:07 [wendy]
- ack jason
- 20:52:19 [sh1mmer]
- Zakim, who is talking
- 20:52:19 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'who is talking', sh1mmer
- 20:52:24 [sh1mmer]
- Zakim, who's talking
- 20:52:24 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'who's talking', sh1mmer
- 20:52:34 [sh1mmer]
- Zakim, who's talking?
- 20:52:53 [Zakim]
- sh1mmer, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ben-and-Gregg (83%)
- 20:55:08 [wendy]
- definitions of levels:
- 20:55:38 [wendy]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0034.html
- 20:56:21 [wendy]
- level 1: do not specify how information is presented (by user agents completes the thought)
- 20:57:51 [wendy]
- main diff: john adds, "achieve a minimum level of accessibility through markup,
- 20:57:51 [wendy]
- scripting, or other technologies that interact with user agents,
- 20:57:51 [wendy]
- including assistive technologies;
- 20:57:52 [wendy]
- "
- 20:58:38 [wendy]
- q+ to say "reasonably applicable"
- 20:58:54 [wendy]
- trying to make explicit our assumptions
- 20:59:00 [wendy]
- zakim, who's making noise?
- 20:59:14 [Zakim]
- wendy, listening for 14 seconds I heard sound from the following: John_Slatin (6%), Andi (20%), Ben-and-Gregg (71%), [Microsoft] (3%)
- 20:59:25 [wendy]
- ack dave
- 21:00:32 [wendy]
- 1 is what you must do or user agent can't do anything
- 21:01:40 [wendy]
- is a proxy server a user agent?
- 21:02:04 [wendy]
- user agent WG would not consider a proxy server a user agent.
- 21:02:14 [wendy]
- what if the server is on your own computer?
- 21:02:16 [sh1mmer]
- q+
- 21:02:18 [rscano]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/glossary.html#def-user-agent
- 21:02:32 [sh1mmer]
- zakim, who's making noise?
- 21:02:37 [rscano]
- "Any software that retrieves and renders Web content for users. This may include Web browsers, media players, plug-ins, and other programs including assistive technologies that help in retrieving and rendering Web content.
- 21:02:38 [rscano]
- "
- 21:02:42 [Zakim]
- sh1mmer, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Tom (4%)
- 21:03:06 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 21:03:06 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say "reasonably applicable"
- 21:03:18 [MattSEA]
- User Agent (from UAAG 1): 2. Any software that retrieves and renders Web content for users. This may include Web browsers, media players, plug-ins, and other programs ? including assistive technologies ? that help in retrieving and rendering Web content.
- 21:03:52 [rscano]
- yep just posted :)
- 21:04:05 [wendy]
- zakim, who is making noise?
- 21:04:17 [Zakim]
- wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: John_Slatin (69%), [Microsoft] (24%)
- 21:04:24 [wendy]
- zakim, mute [Microsoft]
- 21:04:24 [Zakim]
- [Microsoft] should now be muted
- 21:04:34 [Yvette]
- q+ to say "can / may sounds like deciding what is optional and what not"
- 21:05:09 [wendy]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0062.html
- 21:06:25 [wendy]
- ack sailesh
- 21:06:27 [GVAN]
- q+
- 21:06:38 [sh1mmer]
- q-
- 21:07:03 [wendy]
- 11 march 2004 draft doesn't say that if you do level 1, that is min accessible.
- 21:07:07 [wendy]
- doesn't say "minimum level"
- 21:07:39 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 21:07:39 [Zakim]
- Yvette, you wanted to say "can / may sounds like deciding what is optional and what not"
- 21:07:53 [wendy]
- "can do" makes level 2 sound optional.
- 21:08:06 [wendy]
- should leave it up to the policy makers which level your should aim for.
- 21:08:32 [wendy]
- ala email, there are many diff things at level 3: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0074.html
- 21:08:39 [wendy]
- some are applicable to all sites, but too much effort
- 21:08:48 [wendy]
- ack andi
- 21:08:50 [Zakim]
- -Katie_Haritos-Shea
- 21:09:15 [wendy]
- like john's clarification of how we put things into levels, but to communicate outside the group, propose:
- 21:09:17 [wendy]
- level 1 - required
- 21:09:20 [wendy]
- level 2 - recommended
- 21:09:24 [wendy]
- level 3 - ??
- 21:09:31 [wendy]
- ack gvan
- 21:09:48 [wendy]
- don't want to overload the word "recommendation"
- 21:10:04 [wendy]
- and if they are required for level 2, then gets confusing
- 21:10:11 [wendy]
- (level 2 conformance)
- 21:10:19 [wendy]
- 2 - generally doable and applicable
- 21:10:27 [Yvette]
- q+ to say "level 1 - minimum, level 2 - basic, level 3 - advanced"
- 21:10:30 [wendy]
- 1 - must be done
- 21:10:48 [wendy]
- q+ to say, "must be done to conform - don't need to say to increase accessibility or user agents..."
- 21:11:04 [wendy]
- 3 - goes beyond levels 1 and 2
- 21:11:09 [rscano]
- level 2: suggested
- 21:11:13 [wendy]
- ack john
- 21:11:45 [wendy]
- reword the 1st item, "level 1 allow content to be made accessible by user agents"
- 21:11:49 [wendy]
- 2 enhance accessibility
- 21:12:21 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 21:12:21 [Zakim]
- Yvette, you wanted to say "level 1 - minimum, level 2 - basic, level 3 - advanced"
- 21:12:26 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 21:12:26 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say, "must be done to conform - don't need to say to increase accessibility or user agents..."
- 21:13:42 [wendy]
- ack andi
- 21:13:58 [wendy]
- yes, could say, "level 1 is the min that is required"
- 21:14:07 [wendy]
- people say, "how did you divide them"
- 21:15:13 [bcaldwell]
- ack Sailesh
- 21:15:33 [wendy]
- author might use a level 2 criteria to make the content accessible and not use markup.
- 21:15:51 [wendy]
- for many guidelines, there is not a level 1 criteria.
- 21:16:01 [wendy]
- when say, level 1is required and level 2 is optional, we have a problem.
- 21:16:07 [wendy]
- we havce a guideline for which there is no min requirement.
- 21:16:12 [wendy]
- how do we deal w/thath?
- 21:17:24 [wendy]
- originally, main distinction between level 1 and level 2 was level 1 - freedom to present info however. level 2, some restritions.
- 21:17:40 [wendy]
- right?
- 21:19:31 [wendy]
- for those guidelines that dont' have level 1, should say something like, "min conformance means meeting level 1. for those that don't have level 1, don't have to do level 2"
- 21:21:13 [Yvette]
- q+ to say "Wouldn't a phrase like 'necessary prerequisites' work in explaining what level 1 is? "
- 21:21:50 [wendy]
- ack john
- 21:22:12 [wendy]
- ack jason
- 21:22:32 [wendy]
- share concern of "reasonably applicable"
- 21:23:00 [wendy]
- applicable to all types of content - no notion of reasonable. it is either applicable or not.
- 21:23:25 [wendy]
- we don't define what "hard" means - something that is difficult in tech y could be easy in tech x
- 21:23:38 [GVAN]
- q+
- 21:23:56 [wendy]
- only things that are hard are those that require a great deal of human effort and there is no expected tech to be available in reasonable time to make things easier
- 21:24:14 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 21:24:14 [Zakim]
- Yvette, you wanted to say "Wouldn't a phrase like 'necessary prerequisites' work in explaining what level 1 is? "
- 21:24:37 [wendy]
- we define what's hard. if we put it in level 1, people will create tools to make it easier.
- 21:25:31 [wendy]
- necessary prerequisites - level 1 don't define accessiblity, but base level to build on.
- 21:25:36 [wendy]
- ack gvan
- 21:25:45 [sh1mmer]
- q+
- 21:26:24 [wendy]
- all levels: testable, etc.
- 21:26:59 [wendy]
- level 1: do not effect presentation, etc. (other things from john's proposal)
- 21:27:17 [wendy]
- level 3: may be applied [reasonably] to all web resources
- 21:27:27 [wendy]
- if lose reasonable, then must be applicable to all sites
- 21:27:38 [wendy]
- [need to say reasonable if not dealing w/scope?]
- 21:27:53 [wendy]
- the WCAG WG reasonably felt could be applied to all content
- 21:28:50 [wendy]
- q+ to say, "yes, the WCAG WG felt that these were reasonable for level 1"
- 21:28:57 [Yvette]
- q+ to say "can be applied to a wide range of web content"
- 21:29:40 [wendy]
- ack tom
- 21:30:07 [wendy]
- level 1 as "the minimum to make site usable" not reasonable accessible equivalent
- 21:30:36 [wendy]
- almost a prerequisite. useful to describe that.
- 21:30:44 [wendy]
- not until get to level 2 that site is fully accessible.
- 21:32:15 [wendy]
- people that meet level 1 - basic access
- 21:32:24 [wendy]
- there are no "blocker"
- 21:37:22 [Yvette]
- q-
- 21:37:29 [MattSEA]
- zakim, close the queue
- 21:37:29 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 21:37:31 [Zakim]
- ok, MattSEA, the speaker queue is closed
- 21:37:32 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say, "yes, the WCAG WG felt that these were reasonable for level 1"
- 21:37:39 [wendy]
- q-
- 21:37:49 [wendy]
- ack jason
- 21:38:34 [wendy]
- guideline 4.2: Accessibility conventions of the markup or programming language (API's or specific markup) are used.
- 21:38:44 [wendy]
- this would not fit into the level 2 defn being discussed
- 21:39:36 [wendy]
- which is exactly why if we just say, "this is what the group determined reasonable..."
- 21:40:05 [wendy]
- action: gregg send summary to list to start discussion (about conformance)
- 21:41:18 [Zakim]
- -Wendy
- 21:41:55 [bengt]
- bye
- 21:41:57 [rellero]
- Bye
- 21:41:58 [Zakim]
- -Andi
- 21:41:58 [rcastaldo]
- 01bye
- 21:41:59 [rscano]
- bye
- 21:42:00 [Zakim]
- -Sailesh_Panchang
- 21:42:01 [Zakim]
- -[Microsoft]
- 21:42:01 [Zakim]
- -Matt
- 21:42:02 [Zakim]
- -Dave_MacDonald
- 21:42:03 [rcastaldo]
- rcastaldo has left #wai-wcag
- 21:42:04 [Zakim]
- -Bengt_Farre
- 21:42:05 [Zakim]
- -Tom
- 21:42:06 [Zakim]
- -Yvette_Hoitink
- 21:42:07 [Zakim]
- -John_Slatin
- 21:42:09 [Zakim]
- -Ben-and-Gregg
- 21:42:11 [Zakim]
- -Takayuki_Watanabe
- 21:42:13 [Zakim]
- -Loretta_Guarino_Reid
- 21:42:15 [Zakim]
- -Avi
- 21:42:17 [Zakim]
- -Roberto_Scano
- 21:42:19 [Zakim]
- -Roberto_Castaldo
- 21:42:21 [Zakim]
- -Roberto_Ellero
- 21:42:38 [Zakim]
- -JasonWhite
- 21:42:40 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
- 21:42:40 [nabe]
- nabe has left #wai-wcag
- 21:42:41 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Katie_Haritos-Shea, Sailesh_Panchang, Yvette_Hoitink, Avi, Bengt_Farre, Roberto_Ellero, Matt, John_Slatin, Wendy, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, JasonWhite, Andi,
- 21:42:43 [Zakim]
- ... Ben-and-Gregg, Dave_MacDonald, Roberto_Castaldo, Takayuki_Watanabe, Tom, Roberto_Scano, Mike_Barta, [Microsoft]
- 21:42:59 [wendy]
- zakim, bye
- 21:42:59 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #wai-wcag
- 21:43:02 [wendy]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 21:43:02 [RRSAgent]
- I see 2 open action items:
- 21:43:02 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: gv take logo issue to WAI CG [1]
- 21:43:02 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/04/15-wai-wcag-irc#T20-39-35
- 21:43:02 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: gregg send summary to list to start discussion (about conformance) [2]
- 21:43:02 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/04/15-wai-wcag-irc#T21-40-05