IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-06-02
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 13:56:42 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
- 13:56:54 [sh1m]
- RRSAgent, make visible world
- 13:56:54 [sh1m]
- I'm logging. I don't understand 'make visible world', sh1m. Try /msg RRSAgent help
- 13:57:17 [sh1m]
- Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
- 13:57:17 [Zakim]
- ok, sh1m, I see WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM already started
- 13:57:34 [MichaelC]
- rrsagent, make log world-visible
- 13:57:49 [sh1m]
- Thats the one. :)
- 13:58:01 [MichaelC]
- :)
- 13:58:04 [sh1m]
- Zakim, who's on the phone?
- 13:58:04 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Jim_Thatcher
- 13:58:09 [bcaldwell]
- bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
- 13:58:11 [wendy]
- wendy has joined #wai-wcag
- 13:58:32 [Zakim]
- +Michael_Cooper
- 13:59:08 [Zakim]
- +Wendy
- 13:59:25 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 13:59:25 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Jim_Thatcher, Michael_Cooper, Wendy
- 13:59:26 [Zakim]
- +??P6
- 13:59:33 [Zakim]
- +[Microsoft]
- 13:59:34 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P6 is Tom
- 13:59:34 [Zakim]
- +Tom; got it
- 13:59:46 [wendy]
- zakim, [Microsoft] is Jenae
- 13:59:46 [Zakim]
- +Jenae; got it
- 13:59:59 [Zakim]
- +??P10
- 14:00:10 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P10 is Ben
- 14:00:10 [Zakim]
- +Ben; got it
- 14:01:48 [Zakim]
- +??P12
- 14:01:58 [wendy]
- regrets: chris ridpath, john slatin, don evans
- 14:02:06 [JimT]
- JimT has left #wai-wcag
- 14:02:08 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P12 is David_MacDonald
- 14:02:08 [Zakim]
- +David_MacDonald; got it
- 14:02:20 [JimT]
- JimT has joined #wai-wcag
- 14:03:02 [Zakim]
- +Sailesh_Panchang
- 14:03:11 [wendy]
- regrets: roberto scano
- 14:04:07 [wendy]
- agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0546.html
- 14:04:53 [Zakim]
- +??P17
- 14:05:05 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P17 is Lisa
- 14:05:05 [Zakim]
- +Lisa; got it
- 14:05:42 [wendy]
- chris' mapping: http://www.aprompt.ca/docs/WcagToTechs.html
- 14:05:56 [Becky]
- Becky has joined #wai-wcag
- 14:06:31 [wendy]
- alt for area is not mentioned wrt 1.1.
- 14:06:33 [sh1m]
- Zakim, I am Tom
- 14:06:33 [Zakim]
- ok, sh1m, I now associate you with Tom
- 14:06:34 [Zakim]
- +Becky_Gibson
- 14:07:37 [wendy]
- longdesc for iframe as level 2 vs longdesc for object as level 1?
- 14:08:01 [wendy]
- chris is deliberately trying to provoke discussion by assigning levels
- 14:08:32 [wendy]
- longdesc of image as p3?
- 14:08:45 [wendy]
- [many comments about adjusting priorities]
- 14:09:17 [wendy]
- techs have to map to a success criterion and thus inherit the priority.
- 14:09:32 [wendy]
- he wanted to see if the priorities make sense for the techniques.
- 14:09:54 [wendy]
- (using "priority" as shorthand...to refer to levels)
- 14:10:30 [wendy]
- perhaps assigning some to level 2if they effect presentation.
- 14:11:00 [wendy]
- primary focus was likely impact on accessibility to assign levels. but we have to go per the definition of success criteria.
- 14:11:22 [wendy]
- d-links, since deprecated, definitely fall into level 3?
- 14:11:31 [wendy]
- should deprecation effect level assignment?
- 14:11:42 [wendy]
- could be level 1 and deprecated?
- 14:11:53 [wendy]
- however, effects presentation, thus map to level 3.
- 14:11:58 [wendy]
- however - there is not a level 3 criterion.
- 14:12:16 [wendy]
- questions of using longdesc instead of d-link?
- 14:12:22 [wendy]
- s/questions/question
- 14:13:32 [wendy]
- we're providing transition from 1.0 to 2.0 techniques. want to ack d-links (since disucssed in 1.0) and want to give guidance about moving to longdesc.
- 14:13:52 [wendy]
- however, even if use deprecated technique can still conform.
- 14:15:02 [wendy]
- when there are not success criterion should we expect that box to be empty in the table?
- 14:15:31 [wendy]
- the box should be empty, but in some cases, chris found that problematic.
- 14:16:00 [wendy]
- he's created 3 levels of the guidelines w/out considering the existing success criteria
- 14:16:10 [wendy]
- summaries for tables as level 3 - is that appropriate?
- 14:18:20 [wendy]
- 3.1 level 3 techniques are not relevant.
- 14:19:17 [wendy]
- since chris is gone for two weeks, should someone else take action item to repropose?
- 14:20:04 [wendy]
- this helps us determine where we are missing techniques. maps to success criteria.
- 14:20:16 [wendy]
- traffic cop has mapping
- 14:20:48 [wendy]
- ben writing xslt that will generate traffic cop automatically
- 14:20:51 [wendy]
- (coooool!)
- 14:22:47 [wendy]
- action: michael propose update to http://www.aprompt.ca/docs/WcagToTechs.html that ties to specific success criteria. expect to have done by 4 June 2004 for discussion at next week's telecon.
- 14:30:24 [wendy]
- ===
- 14:30:58 [wendy]
- ben describes xslt created to generate "big picture" of guidelines/techniques. similar to traffic cop.
- 14:36:12 [wendy]
- 5 columns: level, success criteria, gateway, html, css
- 14:36:32 [wendy]
- a step towards the traffic cop
- 14:36:59 [wendy]
- trying to generate complex table layout (row/colspan)
- 14:37:26 [wendy]
- via xslt was bit of bear (col/rowspan ala david's traffic cop proposal)
- 14:37:33 [wendy]
- with tweaking could become the traffic cop
- 14:37:57 [wendy]
- tweaking table layout is not high priority - top priority it to get all the info into this table
- 14:38:19 [wendy]
- chris' mappings would magically appear (once have all that data in the xml)
- 14:38:28 [wendy]
- ready to do this mapping in gateway techniques?
- 14:39:02 [wendy]
- 1/3 of the criteria don't have html techniques - because they are gateway techniques?
- 14:39:08 [wendy]
- don't need html-specific?
- 14:40:39 [wendy]
- (in some cases, don't need an html-specific technique if have gateway)
- 14:42:06 [wendy]
- renaming gateway? common, general,
- 14:42:30 [wendy]
- common techniques, general techniques, core techniques, technology-independent (no-no b/c of acronym)
- 14:43:00 [wendy]
- traffic cop becomes "gateway"
- 14:44:59 [wendy]
- technology-independent examples and techniques
- 14:45:36 [wendy]
- would then rename others? e.g., html examples and techniques for wcag 2.0
- 14:46:15 [wendy]
- based on usability study, "techniques" didn't have any "scent" people were looking for "examples"
- 14:46:31 [wendy]
- cross-technology techniques
- 14:46:58 [wendy]
- does that mean multiple technologies?
- 14:47:09 [wendy]
- "General" good term b/c says how to accomplish generally.
- 14:47:21 [wendy]
- to do something, will need to use some technology.
- 14:47:27 [wendy]
- they are the principles that underly the techniques
- 14:48:02 [wendy]
- Techniques Principles and Examples
- 14:48:57 [bcaldwell]
- history on naming - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003AprJun/0207.html
- 14:49:39 [wendy]
- move forward with "general" and "gateway" - let ferment for a while. this was good brainstorming session, but let's move forward for now. make decision before publish drafts in july.
- 14:51:14 [wendy]
- ===
- 14:51:23 [wendy]
- tables
- 14:51:45 [wendy]
- complex table
- 14:53:02 [wendy]
- layered tables
- 14:53:14 [wendy]
- "irregular" tables
- 14:54:59 [wendy]
- table headers instead of putting inline
- 14:55:28 [wendy]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0544.html
- 14:56:55 [sh1m]
- Zakim, who's on the phone?
- 14:56:55 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Jim_Thatcher, Michael_Cooper, Wendy, Tom, Jenae, Ben, David_MacDonald, Sailesh_Panchang, Lisa, Becky_Gibson
- 14:57:30 [wendy]
- classes of table for which to require different aspects of markup.
- 14:57:35 [wendy]
- e.g., if complex, require a summary.
- 14:58:01 [wendy]
- agreed upon classes of tables and what is required for them.
- 14:58:16 [wendy]
- seem to have agreement (with minor objections) that all data tables should have th element.
- 14:58:22 [wendy]
- complex tables should have additional markup for headers.
- 14:58:31 [wendy]
- that's when decided need for defn of complex tables.
- 14:58:41 [wendy]
- think we decided that complex tables should have a caption
- 14:58:51 [wendy]
- s/caption/summary
- 14:59:18 [wendy]
- no agreement about caption? required on all data tables? only complex data tables? optional?
- 15:00:07 [wendy]
- irregular (headings are not in row or col), layered (more than one row and/or col of headings), simple (one of each)
- 15:00:13 [wendy]
- a table could be irregular and layered.
- 15:01:39 [wendy]
- in large part, these are working definitions for us.
- 15:01:46 [wendy]
- if we don't define, will be difficult to write test cases for them.
- 15:03:09 [wendy]
- defns at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0557.html but replace "complex" with "irregular"
- 15:03:23 [wendy]
- irregular that uses rowspan? just irregular
- 15:03:42 [wendy]
- if it meets of defn of irregular, then irregular regardless of use of spanning
- 15:04:02 [wendy]
- layout talbes are not part of this discussion.
- 15:04:33 [wendy]
- 2 types of tables 1. data (with 3 classes: irregular, layered, simple) 2. layout
- 15:05:11 [wendy]
- think have agreement w/th. not agreement: extended header markup, summary and caption
- 15:05:17 [JimT]
- Irregular tables have cells for which header cells are not in the same row
- 15:05:17 [JimT]
- or same column as the cell.
- 15:05:17 [wendy]
- those issues dependent on these definitions
- 15:05:45 [wendy]
- in html spec, says, "if cell is both header and data it should be marked up with td"
- 15:05:52 [JimT]
- Layered tables have more than one column of row headers and/or more than one row of column headers and header cells are in the same row and/or column as the data cell
- 15:06:12 [JimT]
- Simple tables have at most one row and at most one column of headings and
- 15:06:12 [JimT]
- header cells are in the same row and/or column as the data cell
- 15:07:44 [MichaelC]
- Possible TH rule: simple data tables must have TH
- 15:08:01 [MichaelC]
- layered and irregular must have TH and/or extended header markup
- 15:08:38 [MichaelC]
- irregular must use extended header markup
- 15:09:15 [wendy]
- <!-- TH is for headers, TD for data, but for cells acting as both use TD -->
- 15:09:28 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/tables.html#h-11.2.6
- 15:10:40 [wendy]
- when simple, use scope
- 15:10:58 [wendy]
- we'll need a technique for each of them
- 15:11:03 [wendy]
- we'll log user agent issues with each
- 15:11:13 [wendy]
- have tech for scope, but document the UA issues
- 15:12:11 [wendy]
- col headings use th, row headings use td w/scope=row
- 15:13:19 [wendy]
- scope http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/tables.html#adef-scope
- 15:15:37 [wendy]
- can a cell be irregular? if header info not in the same col or row?
- 15:15:47 [wendy]
- thus, require that markup only on that cell?
- 15:16:17 [wendy]
- then defn of irregular table is one that contains irregular cells
- 15:18:51 [wendy]
- [scribe misses discussion due to reading xhtml 2.0 spec - http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/]
- 15:19:32 [wendy]
- layered: no req to use extended header markup, but not forbidding it. if use it, don't need th.
- 15:19:42 [sh1m]
- brb
- 15:19:47 [wendy]
- say same for simple?
- 15:20:05 [wendy]
- to support current AT you should... [insert jim's comment here]
- 15:20:25 [wendy]
- we're requiring some semantic to identify header info
- 15:20:42 [wendy]
- if th element is present, here is the algorithm for which it is a header.
- 15:20:52 [JimT]
- To support current AT, you should use headers/id markup on layered tables
- 15:20:54 [wendy]
- if that algorithm works in your table, if not use extended header markup
- 15:20:59 [wendy]
- (thanks jim)
- 15:21:18 [wendy]
- rule is, "headers must be identified" but how you do that depends on your table
- 15:22:01 [wendy]
- that (headers must be identified) is the success criterion. these are all techniques that support it.
- 15:25:59 [wendy]
- take issue to PF? - if cell is data and header, make td (is only a comment in html 4.01 spec). since dtd not compmlete for xhtml 2.0 - not there yet.
- 15:26:08 [wendy]
- suggest that if a cell is both th and td, should be th?
- 15:26:22 [wendy]
- if style is an issue, use style.
- 15:27:58 [wendy]
- encourage html wg to make a clearer distinction about layout tables.
- 15:28:07 [wendy]
- also, ask for defn of "simple"
- 15:29:35 [wendy]
- we could advise pfwg on our use of terms and definitions and use that in response to html wg about xhtml 2.0.
- 15:30:15 [wendy]
- somewhere are we saying that a table can only be one of the 3 classes?
- 15:30:20 [Zakim]
- -Jim_Thatcher
- 15:31:00 [wendy]
- action: wendy summarize what we would like to take to pfwg as advice for html wg.
- 15:31:30 [JimT]
- Phone went out!
- 15:32:57 [MichaelC]
- That sucks, we're talking about summary now
- 15:33:44 [JimT]
- "The conference is restricted"
- 15:33:50 [wendy]
- restricted?
- 15:34:05 [wendy]
- ben or tom - could you take minutes for a couple minutes?
- 15:34:54 [sh1m]
- sure
- 15:35:19 [JimT]
- Reason - schedule for 90 minutes
- 15:35:20 [MichaelC]
- summary to describe how to navigate table, caption to identify purpose of table?
- 15:35:26 [Zakim]
- +Jim_Thatcher
- 15:35:33 [wendy]
- jim are you here now?
- 15:35:44 [JimT]
- yes
- 15:36:15 [wendy]
- great. yes, the issue seems to be that we are "over". (i'm off to send an email to our phone admin to formally extend time from now on)
- 15:37:10 [sh1m]
- Summary was not designed to be a visible interface, it is designed to describe the design of the table for people using AT or audio interfaces
- 15:39:39 [sh1m]
- Caption provides a title for the table
- 15:39:50 [sh1m]
- There should always be a caption?
- 15:40:48 [sh1m]
- If there is a title it should be implemented as a captioin
- 15:40:53 [sh1m]
- caption
- 15:42:12 [wendy]
- we need to poll screen reader users about use of summary.
- 15:42:22 [sh1m]
- Need to talk to screen reader users so that we properly understand before we talk to PF/HTML WG
- 15:42:26 [wendy]
- summary might say, "rainfall decreased" - like longdesc of a picture.
- 15:42:48 [sh1m]
- hehe ok
- 15:43:09 [sh1m]
- summary should describe and should be required on iregular and layered tables
- 15:43:18 [sh1m]
- describe layout
- 15:44:24 [sh1m]
- shouldnt misuse summary, should leave it according to spec even though there may be other needs for a 'summary' of the table
- 15:44:35 [sh1m]
- a summary of the content
- 15:45:42 [MichaelC]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#h-11.2.1
- 15:46:34 [sh1m]
- never seen a summary used to do that
- 15:50:16 [Zakim]
- -Lisa
- 15:52:02 [wendy]
- need common terminology?
- 15:52:18 [wendy]
- examples of how summaries are written
- 15:52:52 [wendy]
- agree that summary required on x types of tables, but open space about how describe what should go into summary?
- 15:53:15 [wendy]
- expect people will continue to put unuseful in summary
- 15:53:39 [wendy]
- think we're leaning towards: meaningful summary required on irregular and layered
- 15:53:43 [wendy]
- optional on simple data tables?
- 15:53:49 [wendy]
- later, determine what the content should be?
- 15:54:13 [wendy]
- steer us away from someone using, "this is a layout table" since should not be used on layout table
- 15:54:44 [wendy]
- action: tom and sailesh write techniques for writing effective data table summaries
- 15:55:04 [JimT]
- Real life Example: summary="The rows represent non-stop, 1 stop, and 2+ stops (a single row is provided for Multi-Destination itineraries) itineraries. The columns represent your choice of airlines. Clicking on the price shown in each cell will redisplay this page with only flights matching the airline and number of flights selected. Clicking on a stop category or airline will display all flights within that category."
- 15:55:11 [wendy]
- summary: absent or null on data. may be used on simple. must be used on irregular and layered.
- 15:55:21 [wendy]
- caption?
- 15:55:33 [wendy]
- if table is title, the title should be implemented via caption
- 15:55:51 [wendy]
- talk to pf that should have something else to deal with summaries?
- 15:56:32 [wendy]
- summary should be limited to purpose and layout
- 15:57:03 [wendy]
- lisa's question about summary that is more than title, but interpret content of table
- 15:57:12 [wendy]
- perhaps another tag?
- 15:59:12 [wendy]
- purpose: does that mean a summary (an interpretation of the data, the conclusion)...
- 15:59:17 [wendy]
- however, purpose gets in way of layout
- 16:01:38 [wendy]
- summary: is it for summary of data or of layout? if author marks up table correctly, shoiuldn't asst. tech be able to generate layout summary?
- 16:01:57 [wendy]
- the asst. tech summary would be very general. perhaps not very useful.
- 16:02:21 [wendy]
- however, it could read the header information as associated via markup to be less general.
- 16:03:01 [wendy]
- jim's example - asst. tech not know "delta" is an "airline"...unless use axis attribute.
- 16:04:37 [wendy]
- today's tech: they are not reliably or consistently implementing markup. generating summaries is a long ways off.
- 16:04:43 [Zakim]
- -Jenae
- 16:04:59 [wendy]
- getting author's to implement that informatio is a long ways off.
- 16:05:10 [wendy]
- if it's required by wcag 2.0, will get more.
- 16:05:24 [wendy]
- if humans can do it, perhaps then asst. tech more likely to do automatically.
- 16:05:48 [wendy]
- put issue on hold. if sailesh and tom come up with techs, if looks like easy for UA, then do that.
- 16:06:09 [wendy]
- in addition, come up with something concrete, may seem more reasonable for humans to do.
- 16:06:46 [wendy]
- ===
- 16:06:59 [wendy]
- next week: pick up on summary discussion
- 16:07:03 [wendy]
- also revised mapping
- 16:07:18 [wendy]
- and css techs
- 16:07:23 [wendy]
- action wendy: send review of css techniques
- 16:07:48 [Zakim]
- -Becky_Gibson
- 16:07:49 [Zakim]
- -Tom
- 16:07:49 [Zakim]
- -Michael_Cooper
- 16:07:50 [Zakim]
- -Jim_Thatcher
- 16:07:50 [Zakim]
- -David_MacDonald
- 16:07:51 [Zakim]
- -Ben
- 16:07:52 [Zakim]
- -Sailesh_Panchang
- 16:08:02 [Zakim]
- -Wendy
- 16:08:03 [wendy]
- RRSAgent, make log world-visible
- 16:08:03 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has ended
- 16:08:04 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Jim_Thatcher, Michael_Cooper, Wendy, Tom, Jenae, Ben, David_MacDonald, Sailesh_Panchang, Lisa, Becky_Gibson
- 16:09:17 [sh1m]
- im off home
- 16:09:18 [sh1m]
- ttfn
- 16:09:20 [sh1m]
- back soon
- 16:10:28 [wendy]
- zakim, bye
- 16:10:28 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #wai-wcag
- 16:10:31 [wendy]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 16:10:31 [RRSAgent]
- I see 4 open action items:
- 16:10:31 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: michael propose update to http://www.aprompt.ca/docs/WcagToTechs.html that ties to specific success criteria. expect to have done by 4 June 2004 for discussion at next week's telecon. [1]
- 16:10:31 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/06/02-wai-wcag-irc#T14-22-47
- 16:10:31 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: wendy summarize what we would like to take to pfwg as advice for html wg. [2]
- 16:10:31 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/06/02-wai-wcag-irc#T15-31-00
- 16:10:31 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: tom and sailesh write techniques for writing effective data table summaries [3]
- 16:10:31 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/06/02-wai-wcag-irc#T15-54-44
- 16:10:31 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: wendy to send review of css techniques [4]
- 16:10:31 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/06/02-wai-wcag-irc#T16-07-23