IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-04-29
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 19:49:44 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:49:53 [wendy]
- RRSAgent, make log world-visibe
- 19:49:59 [wendy]
- RRSAgent, make log world-access
- 19:54:44 [MichaelC]
- MichaelC has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:57:50 [MichaelC]
- zakim, list conferences
- 19:57:50 [Zakim]
- I see WAI_WCAG()4:00PM active
- 19:57:51 [Zakim]
- also scheduled at this time is WAI_UAWG()2:00PM
- 19:58:06 [MichaelC]
- zakim, this is wai_wcag
- 19:58:06 [Zakim]
- ok, MichaelC; that matches WAI_WCAG()4:00PM
- 19:58:14 [MichaelC]
- zakim, I am Michael_Cooper
- 19:58:14 [Zakim]
- ok, MichaelC, I now associate you with Michael_Cooper
- 19:58:19 [MichaelC]
- zakim, mute me
- 19:58:19 [Zakim]
- sorry, MichaelC, muting is not permitted when only one person is present
- 19:58:24 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 19:58:24 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Michael_Cooper
- 19:59:24 [Zakim]
- +??P1
- 19:59:35 [bcaldwell]
- bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:59:40 [sh1mmer]
- Zakim, ??P1 is Tom
- 19:59:40 [Zakim]
- +Tom; got it
- 19:59:44 [Zakim]
- +Wendy
- 19:59:44 [MichaelC]
- zakim, mute me
- 19:59:45 [Zakim]
- Michael_Cooper should now be muted
- 19:59:50 [sh1mmer]
- Zakim, I am Tom
- 19:59:50 [Zakim]
- ok, sh1mmer, I now associate you with Tom
- 20:00:01 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 20:00:01 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Michael_Cooper (muted), Tom, Wendy
- 20:00:03 [sh1mmer]
- MichaelC can you hear me?
- 20:00:08 [Zakim]
- +??P2
- 20:00:12 [nabe]
- nabe has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:00:13 [rcastaldo]
- rcastaldo has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:00:18 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P2 is David_MacDonald
- 20:00:19 [rcastaldo]
- Hi folks
- 20:00:20 [Zakim]
- +David_MacDonald; got it
- 20:00:23 [Zakim]
- +??P3
- 20:00:31 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P3 is Ben_and_Gregg
- 20:00:31 [Zakim]
- +Ben_and_Gregg; got it
- 20:00:31 [sh1mmer]
- Zakim, mute me
- 20:00:32 [Zakim]
- Tom should now be muted
- 20:00:43 [Zakim]
- +??P5
- 20:00:45 [Zakim]
- +??P4
- 20:00:58 [MichaelC]
- roberto first
- 20:00:58 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P5 may be Yvette
- 20:00:58 [Zakim]
- +Yvette?; got it
- 20:01:09 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P4 may be Roberto_Castaldo
- 20:01:09 [Zakim]
- +Roberto_Castaldo?; got it
- 20:01:20 [Zakim]
- +??P6
- 20:01:28 [Zakim]
- +John_Slatin
- 20:01:37 [nabe]
- good morning
- 20:01:47 [sh1mmer]
- maybe Yvette could check the port number when she connects to irc
- 20:01:48 [wendy]
- Takayuki - are you on the phone?
- 20:01:56 [nabe]
- yes
- 20:02:02 [GVAN]
- GVAN has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:02:34 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P6 is Takayuki_Watanabe
- 20:02:34 [Zakim]
- +Takayuki_Watanabe; got it
- 20:03:06 [Zakim]
- +Sailesh_Panchang
- 20:03:15 [rellero]
- rellero has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:03:22 [rellero]
- Hi
- 20:03:34 [Zakim]
- +JasonWhite
- 20:03:35 [MichaelC]
- zakim, unmute me
- 20:03:35 [Zakim]
- Michael_Cooper should no longer be muted
- 20:03:40 [rellero]
- today I can follow only in IRC
- 20:03:42 [Zakim]
- +Becky_Gibson
- 20:04:04 [MattBOS]
- MattBOS has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:04:17 [sh1mmer]
- q+
- 20:04:19 [wendy]
- reports on action items
- 20:04:29 [Zakim]
- +[Microsoft]
- 20:04:35 [wendy]
- david has played telecon tag with kansas accessibility center
- 20:04:44 [sh1mmer]
- Zakim, mute [Microsoft]
- 20:04:44 [Zakim]
- [Microsoft] was already muted, sh1mmer
- 20:04:55 [Zakim]
- +[IBM]
- 20:04:59 [wendy]
- zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta
- 20:04:59 [Zakim]
- +Mike_Barta; got it
- 20:05:00 [sh1mmer]
- q+
- 20:05:02 [sh1mmer]
- acxk
- 20:05:06 [sh1mmer]
- ack Tom
- 20:05:07 [bengt]
- bengt has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:05:13 [wendy]
- zakim, [IBM] is Andi_Snow-Weaver
- 20:05:13 [Zakim]
- +Andi_Snow-Weaver; got it
- 20:05:26 [Zakim]
- +??P12
- 20:05:55 [bengt]
- zakim, ??P12 is Bengt_Farre
- 20:05:55 [Zakim]
- +Bengt_Farre; got it
- 20:06:09 [Becky]
- Becky has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:06:09 [bcaldwell]
- ack Tom
- 20:06:15 [bengt]
- zakim, I am Bengt_Farre
- 20:06:18 [Zakim]
- ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
- 20:06:25 [bengt]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:06:25 [Zakim]
- Bengt_Farre should now be muted
- 20:07:12 [Zakim]
- +Paul_Bohman
- 20:07:25 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/2004/04/wcag-charter.html
- 20:08:12 [Zakim]
- +Vivien|Simon
- 20:08:21 [MattBOS]
- zakim, Vivien|Simon is temporarily me
- 20:08:21 [Zakim]
- sorry, MattBOS, I do not recognize a party named 'Vivien|Simon'
- 20:08:30 [MattBOS]
- zakim, Viv is temporarily me
- 20:08:30 [Zakim]
- +MattBOS; got it
- 20:11:03 [Zakim]
- +Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 20:11:06 [Zakim]
- -Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 20:12:02 [Zakim]
- +Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 20:12:03 [Zakim]
- -Sailesh_Panchang
- 20:13:11 [silvia]
- silvia has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:13:16 [bengt]
- where did mailing list go ?
- 20:13:43 [sh1mmer]
- the mailing list?
- 20:14:17 [bengt]
- there is no direct link anymore
- 20:14:34 [bengt]
- found it in my history ...
- 20:14:39 [sh1mmer]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/
- 20:14:42 [Zakim]
- +Sailesh_Panchang
- 20:15:31 [bengt]
- the new layout only lists public_comments ...
- 20:16:44 [wendy]
- the link to mail archives is at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/#About
- 20:16:48 [wendy]
- under "mailing lists"
- 20:16:53 [wendy]
- 1st is public-comments
- 20:16:57 [wendy]
- 2nd is working group
- 20:17:16 [bengt]
- yep found it now
- 20:19:53 [rcastaldo]
- -q
- 20:19:55 [rcastaldo]
- q-
- 20:23:42 [wendy]
- ack Roberto
- 20:23:51 [wendy]
- zakim, Roberto_Castaldo is Yvette
- 20:23:51 [Zakim]
- +Yvette; got it
- 20:24:06 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 20:24:06 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Michael_Cooper, Tom (muted), Wendy, David_MacDonald, Ben_and_Gregg, Yvette?, Yvette, Takayuki_Watanabe, John_Slatin, JasonWhite, Becky_Gibson, Mike_Barta
- 20:24:09 [Zakim]
- ... (muted), Andi_Snow-Weaver, Bengt_Farre (muted), Paul_Bohman, MattBOS, Kerstin_Goldsmith, Sailesh_Panchang
- 20:24:15 [wendy]
- zakim, Yvette? is Roberto_Castaldo
- 20:24:15 [Zakim]
- +Roberto_Castaldo; got it
- 20:29:17 [MichaelC]
- q+
- 20:29:28 [wendy]
- ack kerstin
- 20:30:30 [wendy]
- wac and gv summarize changes in charter and w3c process
- 20:30:34 [wendy]
- questions from wg:
- 20:30:44 [wendy]
- 1. when will this go into effect? about one month
- 20:31:04 [wendy]
- 2. what about face-to-faces and Good Standing? up to chair, but fairly lax b/c of travel constraints.
- 20:31:38 [wendy]
- 3. can i be an invited expert and in good standing and vote? yes. all current people in good standing will be invited as experts
- 20:31:55 [wendy]
- ack michael
- 20:33:19 [wendy]
- 4. what about participants who are deaf? if someone who is deaf wants to participate, we will set up real-time captioning (ala the RDIG telecon that used web-streaming)
- 20:33:23 [wendy]
- relay may be another possibility
- 20:33:52 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2003/06/event01-proceedings.html
- 20:34:35 [wendy]
- transcription: http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2003/04/28-captions.html
- 20:34:49 [wendy]
- ack john
- 20:35:37 [wendy]
- ack Andi
- 20:39:04 [wendy]
- looks like typo in milestones to list css and scripting techs twice in 3Q
- 20:39:14 [wendy]
- resolved: we approve this charter
- 20:39:40 [wendy]
- ===
- 20:39:42 [wendy]
- conformance
- 20:40:31 [wendy]
- should all success criteria be testable?
- 20:40:37 [wendy]
- ok for level 3 not to be testable
- 20:40:51 [sh1mmer]
- q+
- 20:41:04 [MattBOS]
- q+
- 20:41:56 [MichaelC]
- q+
- 20:42:24 [sh1mmer]
- ack Tom
- 20:42:26 [wendy]
- level 3 exist, but don't create a conformance level. not likely that people will claim.
- 20:42:46 [wendy]
- is the question that they are testable but testable to the same degree as level 1 and level 2?
- 20:43:11 [MichaelC]
- q+ : if we have untestable items at a given conformance level, it is not meaningful to call that "conformance"
- 20:43:29 [wendy]
- ack matt
- 20:44:19 [wendy]
- if it's hard to make sure you did it, and there's a lot of stuff to do, then tools won't likely do well and the only people who claim will be wrong.
- 20:44:47 [wendy]
- you can create 3 levels of guidelines, but only 1 and 2 should have a name applied that you can claim conformance to
- 20:44:50 [wendy]
- ack michael
- 20:44:50 [Zakim]
- Michael_Cooper, you wanted to if we have untestable items at a given conformance level, it is not meaningful to call that "conformance"
- 20:44:56 [GVAN]
- q+
- 20:45:13 [wendy]
- don't object to presence of untestable criteria, but they shouldn't be success criteria.
- 20:45:53 [wendy]
- 2 conformance levels + additional suggestions? or 3 conformance levels plus additional suggestions? or x # of conformance levels without additional suggestions?
- 20:46:15 [wendy]
- mc supports any as long as we don't confound conformance w/idea of untestable items.
- 20:46:18 [wendy]
- ack john
- 20:47:20 [wendy]
- don't care how many levels of conformance. do care that difficult items related to language (guideline 3). can't support dropping them out.
- 20:47:24 [wendy]
- q+ to say, "style guide"
- 20:47:29 [wendy]
- ack kerstin
- 20:47:54 [wendy]
- don't care about how many levels, but conformance is inherently about testing
- 20:48:29 [wendy]
- ok to leave in as suggestions, but not part of conformance.
- 20:48:32 [wendy]
- testability is key.
- 20:49:06 [wendy]
- ack gvan
- 20:49:22 [wendy]
- if call it conformance and success criteria, it has to be testable.
- 20:49:33 [wendy]
- good idea to have "additional suggestions"
- 20:50:09 [wendy]
- checkpoints?
- 20:50:36 [wendy]
- if don't allow anything in between levels, each is all or nothing.
- 20:51:12 [wendy]
- level 3 of 3.1 is cognitive and learning and disability, but it is not the only guideline. over 1/2 of the guidelines cover cognitive and learning disabilities.
- 20:51:18 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 20:51:18 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say, "style guide"
- 20:52:27 [wendy]
- ack andi
- 20:52:53 [wendy]
- would like one level (in interest of world harmonization), realize radical idea but...would likely help harmonization
- 20:53:03 [wendy]
- agree w/kerstin - if it's part of a conformance scheme, ithas to be testable
- 20:53:26 [wendy]
- chance it will end up in legislation. if have to defend from legal perspective, has to be testable
- 20:53:45 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 20:54:13 [rellero]
- What about (3.3) actually deleted "Content is no more complex than is necessary" (>14.1), I think that not considering it at least at the level as 3 is inopportune
- 20:54:22 [wendy]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0074.html
- 20:54:31 [wendy]
- listed different types of level 3 criteria
- 20:54:41 [wendy]
- some are testable, others might be better off as best practices
- 20:54:56 [wendy]
- first decide, which guidelines are testable (w/out thinking about testability)
- 20:55:03 [wendy]
- and those things that are good for accessibility
- 20:55:08 [wendy]
- that should be in best practice
- 20:55:14 [wendy]
- think about how to really help web accessiblity
- 20:55:19 [wendy]
- w/out thinking about which is what level already
- 20:55:31 [wendy]
- ack pau
- 20:55:41 [GVAN]
- q+
- 20:56:07 [wendy]
- must have missed discussions of style guide. think it could be something valuable.
- 20:57:30 [wendy]
- could be a reality check for people who are trying to make a difference vs comply w/rules
- 20:57:34 [wendy]
- ack gv
- 20:57:51 [rcastaldo]
- q+
- 20:57:56 [Zakim]
- -Michael_Cooper
- 20:58:47 [wendy]
- suggest (to move forward) by saying we'll look at 3 levels and only put testable things in them. also have "other recommendations and measures"
- 20:58:55 [wendy]
- other things you can do that don't fall into one of the success criteria
- 20:59:06 [DoyleB]
- DoyleB has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:59:38 [wendy]
- first, we shouild build them, then later decide whether they should go into guidelines or gateway or style guide/something similar.
- 20:59:55 [DoyleB]
- Sorry I am late, did not think I'd make it to a computer, cannot call-in. This will haev to do for today. Sorry I am late.
- 20:59:55 [wendy]
- at that time, could also decide if 3 levels of criteria should be in 2 or 3 levels.
- 21:00:39 [wendy]
- ack rob
- 21:00:43 [wendy]
- ack rc
- 21:00:51 [wendy]
- agree w/the suggestion.
- 21:00:55 [wendy]
- in italy, have issues w/new law.
- 21:01:43 [wendy]
- not all checkpoints in wcag 1.0 are testable.
- 21:02:21 [wendy]
- yvette: we should focus on the guideliens and not get hung up on levels
- 21:06:07 [wendy]
- ben: we've been here before.
- 21:06:20 [wendy]
- gv would like to postpone discussion about sorting out until we know what we're sorting.
- 21:06:22 [wendy]
- ack john
- 21:06:29 [wendy]
- how many untestable items are there in level 3?
- 21:07:16 [Zakim]
- -MattBOS
- 21:09:46 [wendy]
- q+
- 21:10:10 [wendy]
- not falling off the table - they are getting fixed or moving to gateway
- 21:10:12 [MattBOS]
- MattBOS has left #wai-wcag
- 21:10:14 [wendy]
- suggest a timelimit
- 21:10:25 [wendy]
- for when they get moved out of conformance scheme into someplace lese
- 21:10:29 [wendy]
- s/lese/else
- 21:12:22 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 21:14:23 [wendy]
- propose that we draft a style guide. let's try a new way forward. we've talked about it, but never tried constructing it.
- 21:15:08 [wendy]
- don't think putting it in general techniques gives it the profile that people would like to see. don't think we could get agreement on that as a compromise. think style guide different from general techniquyes
- 21:15:29 [wendy]
- (propose wendy, paul, and matt work on propoal - if they are interested. think matt was first to propose a while ago)
- 21:17:24 [Zakim]
- -Sailesh_Panchang
- 21:17:29 [wendy]
- yvette - put non-testable stuff in one place
- 21:19:28 [wendy]
- can imagine that several people have thought up guidelines but decided not to post since not testable.
- 21:19:41 [wendy]
- what about an appendix in the working document that says, "items which are currently felt to be untestable?"
- 21:19:49 [wendy]
- we could gather them there so we dn't lose track of them.
- 21:20:56 [bengt]
- that would mean that evry level will be testable in the end ?
- 21:21:10 [wendy]
- 4 voices say, "would like to see style guide"
- 21:21:18 [wendy]
- do we have to do one or the other?
- 21:21:21 [wendy]
- do both?
- 21:21:42 [wendy]
- while we explore the style guide idea, let's have a place to store the untestable items so we don't lose them.
- 21:22:02 [wendy]
- is the idea to solicit ideas for more ntestable stuff?
- 21:22:10 [wendy]
- no, it's just a place to put the ones that we have
- 21:22:28 [DoyleB]
- Are we pulling the untestable items from the main guidelines document?
- 21:22:50 [wendy]
- do we move it or just link to it? move it
- 21:23:04 [wendy]
- we are moving untestable items from success criteria to an appendix at the end
- 21:23:43 [DoyleB]
- I'd prefer moving as opposed to linking - movign to the end sounds good to me.
- 21:23:44 [wendy]
- consensus: all success criteria should be testable
- 21:24:12 [DoyleB]
- yes on teh consensus call
- 21:24:49 [wendy]
- gv reads language from: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0180.html
- 21:25:13 [wendy]
- sailesh had good edits: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0186.html
- 21:26:15 [wendy]
- action: john propose defn of testable
- 21:26:54 [wendy]
- do we want advisory items in teh document or not? do not have consensus. will put in appendix for now.
- 21:27:42 [wendy]
- ack david
- 21:27:50 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 21:27:51 [wendy]
- ack john
- 21:28:17 [wendy]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0182.html
- 21:28:37 [wendy]
- delete #1 under the defn of level 1 success criteria
- 21:28:45 [wendy]
- "Do not set limits on content or presentation;"
- 21:28:57 [wendy]
- not worded the way it is meant.
- 21:29:04 [wendy]
- should be clarified to mean "default presentatioN"
- 21:29:42 [wendy]
- s/resources/something less techy
- 21:30:35 [Zakim]
- -Roberto_Castaldo
- 21:30:43 [wendy]
- does anyone disagree w/deleting this item?
- 21:30:59 [wendy]
- not that *is* invisible, but it can be
- 21:31:10 [wendy]
- if there, it will be manifest in one way or another.
- 21:31:19 [wendy]
- possible to implement in way that is not visible in some presentations
- 21:32:27 [wendy]
- it presupposes a default user agent
- 21:32:28 [rcastaldo]
- 01I'm trying to re-enter in the meeting, but a voice says that "the conference is restricted at this time"
- 21:32:37 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 21:32:37 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Tom (muted), Wendy, David_MacDonald, Ben_and_Gregg, Yvette, Takayuki_Watanabe, John_Slatin, JasonWhite, Becky_Gibson, Mike_Barta (muted), Andi_Snow-Weaver,
- 21:32:40 [Zakim]
- ... Bengt_Farre (muted), Paul_Bohman, Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 21:32:41 [bengt]
- over time
- 21:33:01 [wendy]
- hmm.
- 21:33:05 [wendy]
- we're close to ending
- 21:33:15 [wendy]
- consensus: will drop the 1st item of defn of level 1 success criteria
- 21:33:21 [rcastaldo]
- ok
- 21:33:27 [rellero]
- I agree
- 21:34:01 [wendy]
- 1. Build on Level 1;
- 21:34:01 [wendy]
-
- 21:34:01 [wendy]
- 2. Increase accessibility both though additional facilitation of user
- 21:34:01 [wendy]
- agent based
- 21:34:01 [wendy]
- accessibility and through content and/or presentation that provides direct
- 21:34:02 [wendy]
- accessibility without requiring intervention by user agents or
- 21:34:04 [wendy]
- assistive technology;
- 21:34:06 [wendy]
-
- 21:34:08 [wendy]
- 3. The working group felt could be reasonably be applied to all Web resources;
- 21:34:10 [wendy]
- ack john
- 21:34:18 [wendy]
- not consistent that all level 2 build on level 1, since some guidelines don't have level 1 cirteria
- 21:34:44 [wendy]
- consensus: delete first item in proposed defn of level 2
- 21:34:45 [Zakim]
- -Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 21:34:46 [Zakim]
- -Mike_Barta
- 21:34:52 [Zakim]
- -John_Slatin
- 21:35:43 [bengt]
- ok
- 21:36:07 [rcastaldo]
- ok
- 21:36:20 [wendy]
- consensus to use this as existing set of criteria? just lost a few people, ask again at beginning of next week's call
- 21:36:21 [Zakim]
- -Bengt_Farre
- 21:36:45 [Zakim]
- -Becky_Gibson
- 21:36:49 [Zakim]
- -Andi_Snow-Weaver
- 21:36:53 [Zakim]
- -Tom
- 21:36:55 [Zakim]
- -Yvette
- 21:36:56 [Zakim]
- -Paul_Bohman
- 21:36:57 [Zakim]
- -Wendy
- 21:36:57 [Zakim]
- -David_MacDonald
- 21:36:59 [Zakim]
- -Ben_and_Gregg
- 21:36:59 [bengt]
- bye
- 21:37:01 [rellero]
- bye
- 21:37:03 [Zakim]
- -JasonWhite
- 21:37:06 [rcastaldo]
- bye folks
- 21:37:06 [silvia]
- bye bye!
- 21:37:06 [Zakim]
- -Takayuki_Watanabe
- 21:37:07 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
- 21:37:08 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Michael_Cooper, Tom, Wendy, David_MacDonald, Ben_and_Gregg, Roberto_Castaldo?, John_Slatin, Takayuki_Watanabe, Sailesh_Panchang, JasonWhite, Becky_Gibson,
- 21:37:10 [Zakim]
- ... Mike_Barta, Andi_Snow-Weaver, Bengt_Farre, Paul_Bohman, Vivien|Simon, MattBOS, Kerstin_Goldsmith, Yvette, Roberto_Castaldo
- 21:37:15 [silvia]
- silvia has left #wai-wcag
- 21:37:21 [rcastaldo]
- rcastaldo has left #wai-wcag
- 21:37:28 [wendy]
- zakim, bye
- 21:37:28 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #wai-wcag
- 21:37:31 [wendy]
- RRSAGent, bye
- 21:37:31 [RRSAgent]
- I see 1 open action item:
- 21:37:31 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: john propose defn of testable [1]
- 21:37:31 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/04/29-wai-wcag-irc#T21-26-15