IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-07-22
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 20:07:44 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:07:48 [wendy]
- zakim, mute Bengt
- 20:07:48 [Zakim]
- Bengt_Farre should now be muted
- 20:07:54 [wendy]
- zakim, mute Loretta
- 20:07:54 [Zakim]
- Loretta_Guarino_Reid should now be muted
- 20:07:56 [nabe]
- ok david. :-)
- 20:08:22 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q?
- 20:08:42 [Zakim]
- +Mike_Barta
- 20:08:43 [wendy]
- Meeting: WCAG WG
- 20:08:49 [wendy]
- Chair: Gregg Vanderheiden
- 20:08:56 [wendy]
- Scribe: Wendy Chisholm
- 20:09:14 [sh1mmer]
- Zakim, who's making noise?
- 20:09:24 [Zakim]
- sh1mmer, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Takayuki (6%), Yvette_Hoitink (4%), Gregg_and_Ben (30%), Kerstin (25%), Mike_Barta (100%), Wendy (25%)
- 20:09:44 [wendy]
- Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0173.html
- 20:09:54 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:09:54 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
- 20:10:08 [wendy]
- Topic: text for conformance section
- 20:10:45 [wendy]
- gv from discussion, though 'authored unit' could contain other authored units.
- 20:11:40 [wendy]
- pb how small can an authored unit be?
- 20:11:59 [wendy]
- jason's comment: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0129.html
- 20:12:38 [wendy]
- pb that could lead to multiple conformance claims per page
- 20:13:02 [wendy]
- ack mike
- 20:13:23 [wendy]
- mb multiple conformance claims per page should not be made, since page itself is an authored unit.
- 20:13:48 [wendy]
- mb while diff areas of page may have a claim, those are aggregated for a claim for the page
- 20:14:14 [wendy]
- gv it might be possible that someone could post a page which does not have a claim, although parts of the page could have claism.
- 20:14:39 [wendy]
- gv perhaps say "composed of pieces from other authors" clarify that can't make claim on pieces of page w/out other parts.
- 20:14:46 [wendy]
- mb perhaps need to clarify "authored unit"
- 20:14:52 [wendy]
- mb it is "whatever you authored"
- 20:15:15 [wendy]
- mb if a page, then that is what you authored.
- 20:15:18 [wendy]
- q?
- 20:15:24 [wendy]
- ack jason
- 20:15:26 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+
- 20:15:39 [wendy]
- jw there are problems with concept of authored unit.
- 20:15:47 [wendy]
- jw the defn from the diwg glossary doesn't address them.
- 20:16:07 [wendy]
- jw it fails to specify what is or is not covered in an authored unit.
- 20:16:24 [wendy]
- jw a uri is not sufficient to identify the unit
- 20:17:10 [gregg]
- q+
- 20:17:16 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q-
- 20:17:28 [wendy]
- jw authored unit does not clarify what the scope of the claim is
- 20:17:43 [wendy]
- ack loretta
- 20:18:09 [wendy]
- lgr since a claim is for a uri, can you have a uri for part of a page?
- 20:18:14 [sh1mmer]
- yes
- 20:18:14 [wendy]
- gv can have a uri for a graphic on the page
- 20:18:42 [wendy]
- q+ to ask, "jw to you disagree with the concept? if not, then let's adopt and ask for comment in the draft"
- 20:19:00 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, unmute me
- 20:19:00 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
- 20:19:17 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:19:17 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
- 20:19:20 [Zakim]
- +[Microsoft]
- 20:19:22 [wendy]
- ack gregg
- 20:19:24 [Zakim]
- -Mike_Barta
- 20:19:52 [wendy]
- gv what examples illustrat ambiguity of 'authored unit?"
- 20:19:57 [Zakim]
- +James_Craig
- 20:20:02 [wendy]
- jw uris are clear. but it is unclear what is covered by the 'unit'
- 20:20:27 [sh1mmer]
- that isn't a uri
- 20:20:44 [wendy]
- jw examples: uri where there are diff versions of the content (depends on the delivery context). does the authored unit include all of the versions retrieved by one uri?
- 20:20:53 [cookiecrook]
- zakim, i am James_Craig
- 20:20:53 [Zakim]
- ok, cookiecrook, I now associate you with James_Craig
- 20:21:13 [sh1mmer]
- q+
- 20:21:35 [wendy]
- jw the uri of an html web page has several resources associated with it (style sheets, images, etc). which are retrieved separately.
- 20:22:17 [wendy]
- zakim, who's making noise?
- 20:22:30 [Zakim]
- wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: David (10%), Paul_Bohman (40%), Gregg_and_Ben (4%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (4%)
- 20:22:36 [wendy]
- zakim, mute Paul
- 20:22:36 [Zakim]
- Paul_Bohman should now be muted
- 20:23:17 [wendy]
- [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta
- 20:23:21 [wendy]
- zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta
- 20:23:21 [Zakim]
- +Mike_Barta; got it
- 20:23:38 [wendy]
- ack Mike
- 20:23:46 [wendy]
- q- [Microsoft]
- 20:24:06 [wendy]
- mb is an individual portion of the page addressable, you can use a # to set focus there, but when you get that uri, you get the whole page.
- 20:25:33 [wendy]
- mb if you have uri?gimmeflash (that is not accessible) can not make a claim.
- 20:25:56 [wendy]
- mb since passing arguments, makes it a different uri
- 20:26:30 [wendy]
- tc urls are not equivalent to uris.
- 20:26:38 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "We have no guidelines about supplying inaccessible alternatives as non-default"
- 20:26:39 [wendy]
- tc if have a url that includes content negotiation, that is not a uri.
- 20:26:46 [wendy]
- tc there are specific defns of when a url is a uri.
- 20:26:58 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 20:26:58 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to ask, "jw to you disagree with the concept? if not, then let's adopt and ask for comment in the draft"
- 20:27:31 [gregg]
- q+
- 20:27:44 [wendy]
- wac include ednotes re: authored unit, but move forward w/next draft.
- 20:27:48 [wendy]
- ack tom
- 20:27:48 [ben]
- ack Tom
- 20:28:11 [wendy]
- tc get clarification on when uri is url and how relates to web resources. other than that, mostly clarification rather than invalid point.
- 20:28:16 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 20:28:18 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "We have no guidelines about supplying inaccessible alternatives as non-default"
- 20:28:39 [wendy]
- yh "default has to be accessible..." we don't have any SC related to that.
- 20:28:56 [wendy]
- ack gregg
- 20:29:40 [wendy]
- ack jason
- 20:29:44 [wendy]
- q+ gv
- 20:30:11 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "why not use 'web content' for the time being?"
- 20:30:29 [wendy]
- jw content negotiation example is a problem. if a UA accesses a resource and gets a diff version, via protocol negotiation, then seriously problematic.
- 20:31:15 [wendy]
- jw objecting to anything that would exclude b/c some versions can be retrieved via content negotiation.
- 20:31:26 [wendy]
- q+ to say, "propose that we include jason's point as an ednote"
- 20:32:01 [wendy]
- jw at moment, ednote would be reasonable, but should revisit.
- 20:32:20 [wendy]
- jw don't want consensus that we'll use the concept b/c could be serious problems.
- 20:32:46 [wendy]
- gv propose we say, "the uri of whose default authored unit..."
- 20:33:19 [wendy]
- gv then add editor's note that says, "when the authored units generates multiple resources the default is the one that meets it"
- 20:33:57 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 20:33:57 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "why not use 'web content' for the time being?"
- 20:34:17 [wendy]
- yh if "authored unit" is too narrow or has an issue
- 20:34:35 [wendy]
- gv "the uri of the web content..." then "authored unit being considered.."
- 20:34:53 [wendy]
- ack mike
- 20:35:04 [wendy]
- mb 'authored unit' has meaning that 'web content' does not.
- 20:35:20 [wendy]
- mb 'web content' only makes sense when dealing with some dynamic content.
- 20:36:03 [wendy]
- mb if meta-negotiation results in inaccessible page, then url+args always results in conformance claim is true.
- 20:36:32 [wendy]
- jw yes, that would need to be the case or we've excluded accessible server-side techniques.
- 20:36:41 [wendy]
- mb way to annotate, "this is the scheme i'm using"
- 20:36:50 [wendy]
- jw that would be a scope claim
- 20:36:54 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:36:54 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
- 20:37:19 [wendy]
- jw better to get rid of the concept and have the scope of the claim specified in the conformance claim
- 20:37:48 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 20:37:48 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say, "propose that we include jason's point as an ednote"
- 20:41:25 [wendy]
- wac we don't have anything about content negotiation, text-only pages, and the "after best efforts.." ala WCAG 1.0
- 20:45:18 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "Best effort of owner of website to make community contributed content is providing ATAG tools"
- 20:45:34 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, unmute me
- 20:45:34 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
- 20:47:03 [sh1mmer]
- q+
- 20:47:04 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q-
- 20:47:14 [sh1mmer]
- ack gv
- 20:47:16 [sh1mmer]
- ack jason
- 20:47:25 [sh1mmer]
- ack Tom
- 20:47:56 [wendy]
- resolution: we'll use the term authored unit w/a note that says
- 20:49:03 [MichaelC]
- :)
- 20:49:15 [Zakim]
- +Michael_Cooper
- 20:50:01 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:50:01 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
- 20:52:09 [wendy]
- Topic: Issue #322 - Requirement for full text script of all movies?
- 20:52:19 [MichaelC]
- zakim, I am Michael_Cooper
- 20:52:19 [Zakim]
- ok, MichaelC, I now associate you with Michael_Cooper
- 20:52:23 [MichaelC]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:52:23 [Zakim]
- Michael_Cooper should now be muted
- 20:52:56 [wendy]
- include at all? move to 1.2?
- 20:53:23 [sh1mmer]
- q+
- 20:53:26 [sh1mmer]
- ack Tom
- 20:53:49 [wendy]
- tc don't think a full transcript has been done very often
- 20:55:28 [wendy]
- gv want a place for items that we don't want to lose, but if have at level 3 - how many people will do?
- 20:56:23 [wendy]
- ack jason
- 20:56:24 [wendy]
- ack mike
- 20:56:32 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0074.html"
- 20:56:43 [wendy]
- jw if a screenplay exists, then it is satisfied. disagree that it isn't done...just not put online regularly.
- 20:57:35 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:57:35 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink was already muted, Yvette_Hoitink
- 20:57:46 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, unmute me
- 20:57:46 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
- 21:01:50 [ben]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0844.html
- 21:02:37 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 21:02:37 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0074.html"
- 21:02:43 [wendy]
- yh please translate
- 21:02:49 [wendy]
- "For multimedia where link or invocation is non-text, text alternatives
- 21:02:49 [wendy]
- identify the multimedia and multimedia alternatives are provided per
- 21:02:49 [wendy]
- Guideline 1.2.
- 21:03:15 [wendy]
- For multimedia where the link or invocation is non-text, text alternatives identify the multimedia and multimedia alternatives are provided per Guideline 1.2.
- 21:03:25 [wendy]
- ensuring that multimedia does not fall into this guideline
- 21:03:54 [gregg]
- For multimedia where link or invocation is non-text, text alternatives
- 21:03:54 [gregg]
- identify the multimedia and multimedia alternatives are provided per
- 21:03:54 [gregg]
- Guideline 1.2.
- 21:04:06 [wendy]
- yh interpret this as, "is the link itself is an image, i don'thave to give an alt-text, but do for the media"
- 21:05:24 [wendy]
- yh "if you have multimedia, you have to identify it (at level 1). The rest is covered under 1.2"
- 21:05:41 [gregg]
- d. Multimedia alternatives are provided per Guideline 1.2 For multimedia where link or invocation is non-text a text alternatives identifying the multimedia is provided as per above provisions.
- 21:05:57 [David_MacDonald]
- take me off queue thanks
- 21:06:07 [wendy]
- david, you can type "q-"
- 21:06:09 [gregg]
- d. Multimedia alternatives are provided per Guideline 1.2 For multimedia where the link or invocation is non-text a text alternatives identifying the multimedia is provided as per above provisions.
- 21:06:17 [David_MacDonald]
- q-
- 21:06:20 [wendy]
- :)
- 21:06:39 [wendy]
- it didn't associate your irc nick w/your phone id
- 21:06:49 [wendy]
- therefore, type, "q- david"
- 21:07:00 [David_MacDonald]
- q- david
- 21:07:12 [bengt]
- or do zakim, I am Da........
- 21:07:22 [wendy]
- gv leave it as "multimedia included under 1.2"
- 21:07:32 [gregg]
- d. Multimedia alternatives are provided according to Guideline 1.2
- 21:07:36 [wendy]
- jw agree. it should say something that there is an explicit exclusion from 1.1
- 21:07:55 [wendy]
- yh 1.2 only deals w/synchronized multimedia
- 21:09:08 [wendy]
- wac text of 1.2 is "provide synchronized..."
- 21:09:23 [wendy]
- jw if add level 3 requirement, then full script will not be synchronized.
- 21:10:18 [wendy]
- bc this rewrite on 1.1 dependent on rewrite of 1.2 that isn't ready for this draft
- 21:10:39 [wendy]
- wac then put an ednote in 1.2 that says moving "collated text transcript to this guideline after rewritten"
- 21:11:02 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q_
- 21:11:03 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+
- 21:12:01 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 21:12:37 [wendy]
- zakim, who's making noise?
- 21:12:39 [wendy]
- i hear echo
- 21:12:50 [Zakim]
- wendy, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: David (24%), Takayuki (8%), Gregg_and_Ben (48%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (18%), JasonWhite (17%)
- 21:12:59 [Zakim]
- -Avi
- 21:13:12 [wendy]
- zakim, mute Jason
- 21:13:12 [Zakim]
- JasonWhite should now be muted
- 21:13:19 [wendy]
- zakim, unmute jason
- 21:13:19 [Zakim]
- JasonWhite should no longer be muted
- 21:13:57 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, mute me
- 21:13:57 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
- 21:14:06 [wendy]
- proposal: d. Multimedia alternatives are provided according to Guideline 1.2
- 21:14:12 [wendy]
- accepted
- 21:14:28 [wendy]
- gv leave text equiv where is or move it or delete it?
- 21:14:54 [wendy]
- resolution: leave it for this draft
- 21:15:27 [wendy]
- Topic: Issue #832 Clear link text, etc.
- 21:15:33 [wendy]
- Goal: Decide whether the proposal resulting from the July 1, 2004 telecon
- 21:15:33 [wendy]
- should be included in the next draft. If yes, at which level?
- 21:15:33 [wendy]
- Proposal and list discussion:
- 21:15:33 [wendy]
- <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0017.html>
- 21:15:57 [wendy]
- "The destination of each link is identified through words or phrases that either occur in the link or can be programmatically determined."
- 21:16:02 [MichaelC]
- q+
- 21:16:28 [wendy]
- ack mic
- 21:16:29 [MichaelC]
- ack Micahel
- 21:16:45 [wendy]
- mc support the wording. support level 2 instead of level 3
- 21:16:48 [David_MacDonald]
- I agree
- 21:16:50 [wendy]
- ack jason
- 21:16:53 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- I agree
- 21:17:04 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q-
- 21:17:10 [wendy]
- jw links shouldn't be singled out in this way. should be more general about all user interface components
- 21:17:13 [gregg]
- q+
- 21:17:20 [wendy]
- jw links, form fields, etc.
- 21:17:54 [David_MacDonald]
- zakim I am david
- 21:18:05 [bengt]
- needs a comma
- 21:18:14 [wendy]
- gv worry abuot it being level 2
- 21:18:19 [David_MacDonald]
- zakim, I am david
- 21:18:19 [Zakim]
- ok, David_MacDonald, I now associate you with David
- 21:18:50 [bengt]
- zakim, who are on the phone ?
- 21:18:50 [Zakim]
- I don't understand your question, bengt.
- 21:18:59 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 21:18:59 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Tom (muted), David, Matt, Takayuki, Yvette_Hoitink (muted), Paul_Bohman (muted), Sailesh_Panchang, Gregg_and_Ben, Bengt_Farre (muted), JasonWhite, Wendy,
- 21:19:02 [Zakim]
- ... Kerstin, Becky_Gibson, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Mike_Barta, James_Craig, Michael_Cooper
- 21:19:13 [MichaelC]
- q+
- 21:19:24 [wendy]
- ack mic
- 21:19:26 [gregg]
- ack gregg
- 21:19:44 [wendy]
- mc from list discussion, enough people seem to feel important enough that it is worth moving to level 2.
- 21:19:53 [gregg]
- q+
- 21:20:08 [wendy]
- mc w/the current wording, could be interpreted, "the link text could be whatevr and distinguished with 'title"
- 21:20:23 [wendy]
- mc therefore, room for interpretation and less concern about interference w/design
- 21:20:36 [wendy]
- gv do all links have title?
- 21:20:38 [wendy]
- mc they can
- 21:20:41 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+
- 21:20:43 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q-
- 21:20:48 [wendy]
- ack david
- 21:21:14 [wendy]
- dmd agree w/michael. through sevreal phone conversations, heard from many people who supported this.
- 21:21:54 [wendy]
- gv if someone has title of book and w/diff links that follow, if short link, more info could be in title.
- 21:22:26 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, mute me
- 21:22:27 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink was already muted, Yvette_Hoitink
- 21:23:16 [ben]
- q+
- 21:23:46 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "we already require standards"
- 21:24:13 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, unmute me
- 21:24:13 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
- 21:24:33 [MichaelC]
- q+
- 21:25:13 [MichaelC]
- q-
- 21:25:51 [MichaelC]
- q+ to say maybe we should put an ednote now about expecting technologies to support metadata for links - that's a PF/XAG issue that we can't answer in this call
- 21:27:01 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xlink-20010627/#title-element
- 21:27:26 [wendy]
- gv any objection to use the current proposed wording at level 2 with a note that says, "debate about this be level 2 or 3"
- 21:28:54 [wendy]
- jw should this exist as a separate item or subsumed into something else?
- 21:29:14 [wendy]
- sp it should be a success criteria. who else thinks it should be p3?
- 21:30:39 [MichaelC]
- ack gregg
- 21:30:41 [MichaelC]
- ack ben
- 21:31:09 [wendy]
- bc can live w/level 2. finding out where you land when you get there is enough of a burden to warrant authors doing something.
- 21:31:24 [MichaelC]
- ack yvette
- 21:31:24 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "we already require standards"
- 21:31:59 [MichaelC]
- ack michael
- 21:31:59 [Zakim]
- Michael_Cooper, you wanted to say maybe we should put an ednote now about expecting technologies to support metadata for links - that's a PF/XAG issue that we can't answer in this
- 21:32:02 [Zakim]
- ... call
- 21:32:04 [wendy]
- gv could use rdf to use alt-text for images and "no one in the world" would know how to find it
- 21:33:30 [wendy]
- sp object - no question if it should be a criteria. we are only debating if level 2 or 3.
- 21:33:55 [wendy]
- gv it's not that the group questions it, it is that someone questions it
- 21:34:45 [cookiecrook]
- regrets... i have another meeting.
- 21:34:48 [Zakim]
- -James_Craig
- 21:34:58 [cookiecrook]
- cookiecrook has left #wai-wcag
- 21:35:29 [wendy]
- resolved: level 2 w/ednote
- 21:35:38 [wendy]
- Topic: Linking to techniques from guidelines
- 21:35:43 [wendy]
- Goal: For our next public draft, we'd like to begin linking to the
- 21:35:43 [wendy]
- techniques drafts. A proposal for how this could be done is available
- 21:35:43 [wendy]
- <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/04/links-from-wcag.html#Option5> and we'd
- 21:35:43 [wendy]
- like to settle on an approach for including these links as the gateway and
- 21:35:43 [wendy]
- supporting techniques drafts become available.
- 21:36:35 [wendy]
- gv there is a link after each success criterion
- 21:36:40 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- wendy, you didn't cover that last point of the ednote that there is a question that this SC it too specific
- 21:36:53 [wendy]
- yvette: ben has the text for the ednote
- 21:37:00 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- ok!
- 21:37:24 [MichaelC]
- q+ to say I think we should put in the proposed method of linking to techniques for this draft
- 21:37:26 [wendy]
- ack david
- 21:37:47 [ben]
- q+
- 21:38:43 [gregg]
- q+
- 21:39:04 [David_MacDonald]
- I would like to be involved in the design process with the committee ...thanks
- 21:40:27 [wendy]
- wac summarizes some of the discussion from the f2f and that this draft is mostly to show the existing pieces and that a final design still needs to evolve.
- 21:40:49 [wendy]
- wac a prototype is emerging from discussions at f2f. should be available soon.
- 21:41:09 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, unmute me
- 21:41:09 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink was not muted, Yvette_Hoitink
- 21:41:14 [Zakim]
- -Paul_Bohman
- 21:41:18 [wendy]
- sp concerned about length of link text
- 21:41:42 [wendy]
- gv they are in the normative sections
- 21:41:52 [wendy]
- gv somehow they need to be attached in such a way that they are not normative
- 21:42:10 [wendy]
- dmd had prototype with diff colored box
- 21:42:32 [wendy]
- gv propose that editors experiment with linking. anyone speak against?
- 21:42:50 [wendy]
- yh dont want to speak experiment, but don't want a public draft that has diff style for each SC or guideline.
- 21:43:05 [wendy]
- s/speak experiment/speak against experiment
- 21:43:21 [wendy]
- gv what if only do for a few guidelines?
- 21:43:23 [wendy]
- gv ok
- 21:43:27 [wendy]
- s/gv ok/yh ok
- 21:43:28 [David_MacDonald]
- http://www.eramp.com/david/links-from-wcag3e.html
- 21:43:29 [Zakim]
- -Tom
- 21:43:57 [wendy]
- mc agree w/yvette - shouldn't be too experimental, but the editors should be able to put in a placeholder.
- 21:44:12 [MichaelC]
- ack michael
- 21:44:12 [Zakim]
- Michael_Cooper, you wanted to say I think we should put in the proposed method of linking to techniques for this draft
- 21:44:12 [wendy]
- mc we're working out details for later. for now, let's do something now that is consistent.
- 21:44:15 [wendy]
- ack ben
- 21:44:32 [wendy]
- bc proposals will be forthcoming, just wanted to get a sense of links from guidelines
- 21:45:57 [wendy]
- plan: put the whole draft together and ask for review
- 21:46:56 [wendy]
- aiming for publication on 30 july
- 21:46:59 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+
- 21:47:56 [MattSEA]
- q+
- 21:47:59 [wendy]
- Topic: variety of level 3 items
- 21:48:09 [MattSEA]
- q-
- 21:48:11 [MattSEA]
- +1
- 21:48:17 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0074.html
- 21:48:18 [wendy]
- yh a while ago published review of the diff categories of level 3 items. think we should discuss in the future.
- 21:48:43 [wendy]
- ben creates an issue
- 21:49:46 [Zakim]
- -Mike_Barta
- 21:49:47 [Zakim]
- -Michael_Cooper
- 21:49:47 [Zakim]
- -Yvette_Hoitink
- 21:49:48 [Zakim]
- -Wendy
- 21:49:49 [Zakim]
- -Kerstin
- 21:49:50 [Zakim]
- -Loretta_Guarino_Reid
- 21:49:50 [Zakim]
- -Becky_Gibson
- 21:49:51 [Zakim]
- -Gregg_and_Ben
- 21:49:53 [Zakim]
- -Bengt_Farre
- 21:49:53 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- :-)
- 21:49:55 [Zakim]
- -Sailesh_Panchang
- 21:49:57 [Zakim]
- -Matt
- 21:49:59 [Zakim]
- -JasonWhite
- 21:50:01 [Zakim]
- -David
- 21:50:03 [Zakim]
- -Takayuki
- 21:50:05 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
- 21:50:07 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Matt, Paul_Bohman, Tom, Takayuki, David, Sailesh_Panchang, Avi, Gregg_and_Ben, JasonWhite, Bengt_Farre, Wendy, Becky_Gibson, Yvette_Hoitink, Kerstin,
- 21:50:10 [Zakim]
- ... Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Mike_Barta, James_Craig, Michael_Cooper
- 21:50:52 [nabe]
- nabe has left #wai-wcag
- 21:51:11 [wendy]
- zakim, bye
- 21:51:11 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #wai-wcag
- 21:51:16 [wendy]
- RRSagent, make log world
- 21:51:19 [bengt]
- bengt has left #wai-wcag
- 21:51:32 [wendy]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 21:51:32 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items