IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-08-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:51:14 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
19:51:19 [wendy]: RRSAgent, make log world
19:57:22 [sh1m]: zakim, this will be wai_wcag
19:57:22 [Zakim]: ok, sh1m, I see WAI_WCAG()4:00PM already started
19:57:32 [sh1m]: zakim, who's on the phone?
19:57:32 [Zakim]: On the phone I see ??P0
19:57:40 [sh1m]: Zakim, ??P0 is Tom
19:57:40 [Zakim]: +Tom; got it
19:57:43 [sh1m]: Zakim, I am Tom
19:57:43 [Zakim]: ok, sh1m, I now associate you with Tom
19:59:11 [Zakim]: +Yvette_Hoitink
19:59:58 [Zakim]: +James_Craig
20:00:06 [Zakim]: +Katie_Haritos-Shea
20:00:10 [Zakim]: +Michael_Cooper
20:00:11 [Michael]: zakim, I am Michael_Cooper
20:00:11 [Zakim]: ok, Michael, I now associate you with Michael_Cooper
20:00:48 [Zakim]: +Bengt_Farre
20:01:29 [Zakim]: +Matt
20:01:36 [bengt]: zakim, mute Bengt_Farre
20:01:36 [Zakim]: Bengt_Farre should now be muted
20:01:45 [bengt]: zakim, I am Bengt_Farre
20:01:45 [Zakim]: ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
20:01:46 [MattSEA]: MattSEA has joined #wai-wcag
20:01:56 [sh1m]: sh1m has left #wai-wcag
20:02:02 [james]: Zakim, I am James_Craig
20:02:02 [Zakim]: ok, james, I now associate you with James_Craig
20:02:06 [Zakim]: +??P7
20:02:22 [Yvette_Hoitink]: zakim, ??P7 is Ben_and_Gregg
20:02:22 [Zakim]: +Ben_and_Gregg; got it
20:02:33 [Yvette_Hoitink]: zakim, who's on the phone?
20:02:33 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Tom (muted), Yvette_Hoitink, James_Craig, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Michael_Cooper, Bengt_Farre (muted), Matt, Ben_and_Gregg
20:02:46 [Rob]: Rob has joined #wai-wcag
20:03:01 [bcaldwell]: bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
20:03:33 [Zakim]: + +1.540.998.aaaa
20:03:47 [bcaldwell]: zakim, who is here/
20:03:47 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'who is here/', bcaldwell
20:03:56 [bcaldwell]: zakim, who is on the phone?
20:03:56 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Tom (muted), Yvette_Hoitink, James_Craig, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Michael_Cooper, Bengt_Farre (muted), Matt, Ben_and_Gregg, +1.540.998.aaaa
20:04:01 [sh1m]: sh1m has joined #wai-wcag
20:04:13 [Zakim]: +Wendy
20:04:50 [Yvette_Hoitink]: zakim, +1.540.998.aaaa is Rob
20:04:50 [Zakim]: +Rob; got it
20:05:01 [Yvette_Hoitink]: zakim, Rob is Robert_Fentress
20:05:01 [Zakim]: +Robert_Fentress; got it
20:05:35 [sh1m]: http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html
20:05:36 [Zakim]: +Becky_Gibson
20:05:40 [sh1m]: Zakim Guide
20:05:57 [Becky]: Becky has joined #wai-wcag
20:06:09 [Yvette_Hoitink]: example: q+ to say "note to self"
20:07:51 [Rob]: q+ Content mus be accessible with JS disabled?
20:08:04 [Zakim]: + +1.512.918.aabb
20:08:14 [wendy]: zakim, +1.512.918.aabb is Andi
20:08:14 [Zakim]: +Andi; got it
20:08:41 [Rob]: q+ JS alternatives
20:08:44 [wendy]: Scribe: Andi
20:08:57 [wendy]: rob: Javacript is not on the agenda today.
20:08:58 [Andi]: Andi has joined #wai-wcag
20:09:12 [james]: wendy, i thought it was
20:09:27 [wendy]: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0368.html
20:09:39 [Rob]: Other discussions that have occurred on the list recently:
20:09:39 [Rob]: 1. Javascript and alternatives
20:09:39 [Rob]: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0140.html>
20:09:50 [james]: it's in the list
20:09:52 [wendy]: yes, you're right.
20:09:53 [wendy]: sorry.
20:09:55 [bengt]: its very hot here too :)
20:10:04 [wendy]: It's last on the list
20:10:07 [Andi]: Wendy, can I assign myself as scribe?
20:10:24 [wendy]: Andi, I've already assigned you.
20:10:29 [gregg]: gregg has joined #wai-wcag
20:10:33 [Zakim]: +Alex_Lee
20:10:43 [wendy]: zakim, Alex_Lee is Alex_Li
20:10:43 [Zakim]: +Alex_Li; got it
20:10:47 [Andi]: Authored unit
20:11:13 [Andi]: Discussion with device independence working group
20:11:26 [james]: zakim, who is on the speaker queue
20:11:26 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'who is on the speaker queue', james
20:11:33 [Andi]: their definition is different from ours - orthogonal - not same dimension we are using it in
20:11:40 [james]: q?
20:11:47 [james]: q- JS
20:11:54 [james]: q- alt
20:11:59 [Andi]: arose at the last f-2-f
20:12:08 [Andi]: haven't figured out if it works but have been exploring it
20:12:23 [Andi]: way to talk about conformance
20:13:12 [Andi]: authored chunk to us is something that has a uri, not a "#" uri within another one
20:13:38 [Andi]: can contain other authored chunks
20:14:26 [Andi]: conformance of an authored chunk is dependent on the conformance of the other chunks it contains
20:15:22 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft]
20:15:33 [Andi]: Wendy speaking about differences between our use and DI use
20:15:50 [Yvette_Hoitink]: q?
20:15:57 [Andi]: we're trying to describe how to collect components in order to make a conformance claim
20:16:33 [Andi]: person who creates the image might be different from the person who writes the alt text
20:16:48 [Andi]: image and alt text is a collection that might be included in a larger collection
20:17:07 [wendy]: zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta
20:17:07 [Zakim]: +Mike_Barta; got it
20:17:13 [Andi]: Wendy proposes "collection of authored units"
20:17:22 [sh1m]: q+
20:17:29 [Andi]: Gregg speaking
20:18:02 [Andi]: Wendy are you suggesting we use "collection of authored units" as the term or that we come up with a new term
20:18:14 [wendy]: ack [Microsoft]
20:18:17 [Andi]: Wendy - think it's okay to use "collection of authored units"
20:18:35 [bcaldwell]: zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta
20:18:35 [Zakim]: sorry, bcaldwell, I do not recognize a party named '[Microsoft]'
20:18:43 [sh1m]: ack tom
20:19:03 [Andi]: Tom - agree with Wendy - talking about compositions of authored units
20:19:49 [Andi]: DI did not intend for authored unit to refer to a collection of authored units
20:21:21 [Andi]: Gregg - if authored unit contains other authored units, then an authored unit is a collection of authored units with additional information
20:21:41 [sh1m]: q+ to say thats why I like the term composition
20:21:48 [sh1m]: q-
20:23:00 [Andi]: Wendy believes that authored unit does work for us - doesn't understand the DI issue
20:23:03 [bcaldwell]: ack Alex
20:24:33 [Zakim]: -Robert_Fentress
20:24:37 [Andi]: Wendy - DI covers both aggregation of content and converting content
20:25:30 [Andi]: Gregg - DI says "authored unit" has multiple modes of perception depending on delivery
20:25:42 [Andi]: might look different if fetched by computer, PDA, or phone
20:25:45 [Andi]: also might change over time
20:25:55 [wendy]: q?
20:25:59 [Andi]: changing over time fits our definition
20:26:29 [Andi]: our use of it also allowed for content negotiation
20:26:34 [sh1m]: q+ to say that content negociation doesn't work that way
20:26:36 [sh1m]: ack tom
20:26:37 [Zakim]: Tom, you wanted to say that content negociation doesn't work that way
20:26:54 [Andi]: Tom - does not agree that our use covers content negotiation
20:27:04 [Yvette_Hoitink]: zakim, mute me
20:27:04 [Zakim]: Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
20:27:13 [Andi]: issues with definition of URI and concept of content negotiation
20:28:16 [Andi]: DI definition includes content that is not human authored; that is, delivered from a database perhaps
20:28:21 [wendy]: q+ to "clarify the diff pieces for DI"
20:29:10 [Andi]: Wendy - DI has separated between the chunks of material an author creates (authored units)
20:29:25 [Andi]: chunks delivered to the device (delivered units)
20:29:34 [Andi]: and the chunks perceived by the user (perceived units)
20:29:52 [sh1m]: q+
20:30:00 [Andi]: we may be talking about combining authored and delivered units, and maybe the perceived unit too
20:30:01 [wendy]: ack wendy
20:30:01 [Zakim]: wendy, you wanted to "clarify the diff pieces for DI"
20:31:12 [Andi]: Tom - can have a case where the template can enforce accessibility on the delivered unit
20:31:47 [wendy]: Delivery Unit
20:31:47 [wendy]: A set of material transfered between two cooperating web programs as the response to a single HTTP request. The transfer might, for example, be between an origin server and a user agent.
20:31:47 [wendy]: Users are not normally aware of individual delivery units.
20:31:56 [Andi]: aggregation - hard to make claims on the delivered unit because can't guarantee that the authored units that are aggregated are conforming
20:32:06 [Zakim]: +Loretta_Guarino_Reid
20:32:11 [Andi]: Gregg - thinks we want to talk about delivered unit
20:32:15 [wendy]: http://www.w3.org/TR/di-gloss/
20:32:24 [wendy]: Delivery Context
20:32:24 [wendy]: A set of attributes that characterizes the capabilities of the access mechanism and the preferences of the user
20:32:32 [Andi]: if delivered unit is accessible, doesn't matter if the authored unit was accessible or not
20:33:01 [Andi]: content may be in content management system but are run through a process that makes them accessible
20:33:41 [wendy]: Perceivable Unit
20:33:41 [wendy]: A set of material which, when rendered by a user agent, may be perceived by a user and with which interaction may be possible.
20:33:41 [wendy]: User agents may choose to render some or all of the material they receive in a delivery unit unit as a single perceivable unit or as multiple perceivable units.
20:33:41 [wendy]: Most perceivable units provide both presentation and the means for interaction. However, on some types of device, such as printers, perceivable units might contain only presentation.
20:33:51 [sh1m]: q+ to ask about conformance
20:33:55 [Andi]: how do you make conformance claims on a delivered unit
20:34:17 [Andi]: maybe we use "served unit"
20:35:28 [Andi]: Wendy reads definition of "Delivery Unit"
20:35:39 [Andi]: also consider "delivery context"
20:36:42 [Andi]: Tom - user profile allows users to request a piece of content that is particular to their needs but might be inaccessible to someone else
20:37:03 [Andi]: Gregg - should be able to negotiate for one that meets the WCAG guidelines
20:37:34 [Andi]: person serving content is not responsible for what happens to it in the pipeline
20:37:39 [Yvette_Hoitink]: q+ to say "page?'
20:37:50 [Andi]: Wendy clarifies that it is "delivery unit", not "delivered unit"
20:38:11 [Andi]: Gregg - what is delivered by default must be accessible.
20:38:38 [Andi]: even if it is possible to negotiate for a version that is not accessible
20:39:38 [Andi]: Tom - should still be able to make a claim for an authored unit if you can guarantee it will conform
20:40:00 [Andi]: Gregg - what would be the purpose of making a claim on the authored unit
20:40:10 [Andi]: Wendy - important for aggregation
20:40:30 [Andi]: AOL provides the delivery unit for various authored units
20:40:38 [Andi]: syndicators provide claims on the authored units
20:40:47 [Andi]: AOL can then make a claim on the delivery unit
20:41:07 [bcaldwell]: q+
20:41:50 [sh1m]: q-
20:41:52 [Andi]: Gregg - if syndicators deliver accessible authored units, aggregator may strip out accessibility information
20:42:07 [Michael]: zakim, mute me
20:42:07 [Zakim]: Michael_Cooper should now be muted
20:42:07 [Andi]: aggregator could also add accessibility information to syndicated authored units
20:42:15 [Andi]: so what really matters is the delivery unit
20:42:15 [Yvette_Hoitink]: zakim, unmute me
20:42:15 [Zakim]: Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
20:42:29 [james]: q+ to say "but it may be a business rule that AOL would only accept accessible authored units"
20:42:32 [Andi]: easier for aggregators if authored units come in with conformance claims
20:43:16 [Andi]: Gregg - delivery unit is the only thing that really matters but it is useful to those creating the delivery units if the authored units have conformance claims
20:43:17 [wendy]: ack yvette
20:43:17 [Zakim]: Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "page?'
20:43:24 [sh1m]: q+ to talk about other use cases
20:44:04 [Andi]: Yvette - difficult to understand this concept
20:44:13 [Andi]: Gregg - a delivery unit is that what you get form a URI
20:44:53 [Andi]: Yvette - delivery unit is non-HTML specific version of "page"
20:45:32 [wendy]: ack bcaldwell
20:45:42 [Andi]: Ben - don't see the distinction
20:45:55 [Andi]: syndicators deliver a unit to AOL which they pass on
20:46:11 [Andi]: image by itself can't be accessible
20:46:23 [Andi]: must be combined with alt text
20:46:55 [Andi]: Gregg - if you don't actually deliver content but you sell content to those who do deliver it
20:47:24 [Andi]: wouldn't it be good to say that your authored unit (aggregate delivered unit) will be accessible when delivered
20:48:03 [Andi]: Tom - many ways that something could be delivered
20:48:07 [wendy]: ack Mike
20:48:36 [Andi]: Mike - if you receive something and you strip out something, it is a new authored unit and you are responsible for the claim
20:48:56 [Andi]: still useful to have the claim on the original authored unit
20:49:00 [Yvette_Hoitink]: zakim, mute me
20:49:00 [Zakim]: Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
20:49:14 [Andi]: Gregg - claims are all on delivery units
20:49:19 [james]: q-
20:49:27 [gregg]: q+
20:49:28 [Andi]: either content delivered from someone else that I re-deliver or something that I authored
20:49:36 [wendy]: q+ to ask, "are RSS feeds http requests?"
20:50:13 [wendy]: ack tom
20:50:13 [Zakim]: Tom, you wanted to talk about other use cases
20:50:29 [Andi]: Tom - need to be able to make claims about content management systems
20:50:52 [Andi]: possible to define CM system so that it is impossible to deliver inaccessible content from it
20:51:18 [Andi]: helpful if people can make conformance claims against something that is more abstract
20:51:32 [wendy]: ack gregg
20:51:37 [Andi]: shouldn't prevent people from making claims against authored units
20:52:26 [Andi]: Gregg - want to guard against people making claims against authored units that might not be delivered in an accessible way
20:53:32 [Andi]: user only cares about the deliverey unit
20:54:16 [Andi]: Wendy - looking at definition of delivery unit, still have sense that there is a difference for aggregators
20:54:52 [Andi]: still thinks that what content providers are providing is authored unit
20:55:11 [wendy]: ack wendy
20:55:11 [Zakim]: wendy, you wanted to ask, "are RSS feeds http requests?"
20:55:15 [Yvette_Hoitink]: zakim, mute me
20:55:15 [Zakim]: Yvette_Hoitink was already muted, Yvette_Hoitink
20:55:28 [Andi]: Alex - example - if intellectual property belongs to someone else, aggregator would have limited ability to alter it
20:55:44 [Andi]: similar to Reuters where IP belongs to someone else and you host it
20:55:57 [Andi]: does that put aggregator in a position where they can't make a claim
20:56:08 [james]: q+ to say wendy, the rss feeds are still "delivery units" even though the "receiving user" is a program aggregating those feeds into another "delivery unit"
20:56:19 [Andi]: Gregg - if you buy inaccessible content, may make it impossible for you to make a claim
20:57:05 [wendy]: james, thanks. but are rss feeds "responses to a single http request?" if so, then they don't meet the current defn of delivery unit:
20:57:05 [wendy]: Delivery Unit
20:57:05 [wendy]: A set of material transfered between two cooperating web programs as the response to a single HTTP request. The transfer might, for example, be between an origin server and a user agent.
20:57:05 [wendy]: Users are not normally aware of individual delivery units.
20:57:13 [Andi]: aggregators would like to be able to ask sources to send accessible content
20:57:25 [wendy]: s/if so,/if not,
20:57:28 [Andi]: in order to make claim based on contractual agreements
20:57:43 [Andi]: accessibility is not about "effort", it's about "actual"
20:57:52 [Zakim]: -Mike_Barta
20:58:22 [Andi]: legislators can decide if doesn't have to be accessible because of undue burden
20:58:38 [Andi]: Alex - can't alter someone's IP material
20:59:07 [Andi]: copyright law allows you to change someone's content in order to make it accessible
21:00:20 [wendy]: q?
21:00:23 [wendy]: ack James
21:00:23 [Zakim]: James_Craig, you wanted to say wendy, the rss feeds are still "delivery units" even though the "receiving user" is a program aggregating those feeds into another "delivery unit"
21:00:45 [Andi]: James - RSS feed is still a delivery unit even though not delivered to a human user
21:01:40 [Andi]: Wendy - definition of delivery unit talks about between two computers in response to a single http request
21:01:46 [Andi]: does this fit RSS feeds
21:01:52 [Andi]: James - yes, in my experience
21:02:09 [Andi]: Wendy - if RSS feeds meet the definition of delivery unit then agree that this is a good term to use
21:02:30 [MattSEA]: q+
21:02:42 [Andi]: Gregg - we said it's something you get from a URI. DI says it's a single http request
21:02:58 [bengt]: isnt it URL
21:02:58 [Andi]: can you get something from a single http request that is not from a URI
21:03:14 [Andi]: URI includes http but is not limited to http
21:03:33 [Andi]: http is the protocol you use to access the authored (or delivery) unit
21:03:55 [Andi]: Wendy - go back to DI group and validate use of delivery unit in our context
21:04:27 [james]: bengt, URL (locator) and URI (identifier) have a slightly semantic difference...
21:04:49 [Andi]: Gregg - anything that is not http is out of our scope
21:05:07 [bengt]: james, yes http gets from URL ? URI is more than both ?
21:05:10 [Andi]: James - what about video rt<something?>
21:05:16 [wendy]: ack matt
21:05:18 [james]: RTSP
21:05:22 [Andi]: Gregg - doesn't meet the definition of delivery content - single http request
21:05:36 [james]: real time streaming protocol... SMIL, RM, etc
21:05:54 [Andi]: from James - rt<something> is rtsp
21:06:27 [MattSEA]: RSS is not a final-form language.
21:06:41 [MattSEA]: Like SOAP, it carries a payload which can be accessible content or not.
21:06:42 [james]: it is in my rss reader
21:07:02 [MattSEA]: It is not intended to be referenceable by a URI, for example.
21:07:08 [MattSEA]: Rather it points _to_ a URI containing full content.
21:07:08 [MattSEA]: ga
21:07:14 [Andi]: Wendy - do I need to re-type this for the minutes?
21:08:37 [MattSEA]: no
21:08:50 [MattSEA]: yes
21:08:58 [MattSEA]: One HTTP call brings down the feed for an entire site.
21:09:03 [Andi]: Gregg - how did rtsp movie get initiated?
21:09:15 [MattSEA]: For RTSP, you usually send something over HTTP to get a pointer.
21:09:59 [Zakim]: +Matt_May
21:10:25 [Andi]: Gregg - trying to get closure on term
21:10:48 [Andi]: delivery unit seems to work but it's definition includes "delivered by a single http request"
21:10:51 [wendy]: q+ to say, "you have a template (an authored unit) that generates content. you could make a claim on the authored unit for WCAG and the process that fills in the template for ATAG and then those together is the delivery unit"
21:11:12 [Andi]: want to make sure it covers other kinds of streaming media transferred via different kinds of requests
21:11:54 [Andi]: Matt - protocol is irrelavant to accessiblity
21:12:15 [Andi]: Gregg - know it is transferred in other formats and accessibility is not affected by protocol
21:12:19 [wendy]: issue: delivery unit brings up issues related to web services and overlap with atag
21:13:17 [Andi]: but delivery unit defined as http so we are trying to determine if can use delivery unit term for these types of content
21:13:46 [Andi]: Matt - really talking about content that can be returned as result of URI request
21:14:13 [Yvette_Hoitink]: zakim, unmute me
21:14:13 [Zakim]: Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
21:14:34 [Andi]: Gregg - if DI group says we can use delivery unit for something that is delivered as the result of a single URI request, then are we okay using that term?
21:15:39 [Andi]: action: ask DI group if delivery unit can be used to for content that is delivered as the result of a single URI request
21:15:45 [sh1m]: any idea when?
21:16:51 [Andi]: Gregg, Wendy, Tom, James, Matt, Mike will pursue with DI group - get on their agenda next Wednesday 1500 UTC (10 Eastern)
21:16:57 [Andi]: same time as techniques task force
21:17:25 [Andi]: action: Gregg e-mail to DI chair to propose getting time on their agenda next week
21:17:31 [wendy]: action: Gregg send email to Rhys to request 1/2 hour of agenda to discuss authored unit at their call next week (10 am Eastern)
21:17:50 [Andi]: Gregg is hoping for a short discussion :)
21:18:07 [wendy]: ack wendy
21:18:07 [Zakim]: wendy, you wanted to say, "you have a template (an authored unit) that generates content. you could make a claim on the authored unit for WCAG and the process that fills in the
21:18:10 [Zakim]: ... template for ATAG and then those together is the delivery unit"
21:21:43 [Andi]: Wendy - just breaking it down into which parts have to conform to WCAG and which parts have to conform to ATAG
21:22:52 [Andi]: trying to define how to combine ATAG piece in the conformance claim for content that comes from a content management system
21:23:29 [sh1m]: q+
21:24:01 [Andi]: Tom - with flat html file can make claim against delivery unit
21:24:25 [Andi]: but for dynamic content, not reasonable to make delivery unit claim when there is potential for pages to become inaccessible
21:24:37 [Andi]: need mechanism that shows why it is accessible
21:24:55 [Andi]: pieces of content that are plugged into a template that meets WCAG
21:25:10 [gregg]: q+
21:25:12 [Andi]: process for plugging the content into the template conforms to ATAG
21:25:18 [gregg]: ack tom
21:25:56 [Andi]: Gregg - nothing in guideline that allows you to claim a template is compliant
21:26:41 [Andi]: using ATAG compliant generator does not guarantee WCAG compliant content
21:27:40 [wendy]: q+ to "wrap up"
21:27:52 [Andi]: Tom - trying to propose something that is more than just a promise of conformance
21:27:53 [wendy]: i think i have an idea for action for me, tom, matt and auwg
21:28:06 [Andi]: feasible to test a template for WCAG conformance
21:28:13 [Andi]: feasible to test something for ATAG conformance
21:28:40 [Andi]: not feasible to test something that is dynamically generated frequently for WCAG conformance
21:28:52 [gregg]: ack gregg
21:28:55 [Andi]: Wendy - this is a big issue
21:28:58 [gregg]: ack wendy
21:28:58 [Zakim]: wendy, you wanted to "wrap up"
21:29:06 [Andi]: Tom and Wendy willing to take action item
21:29:26 [Andi]: first issue is how to reference ATAG from WCAG - specific request from ATAG at f-2-f
21:29:39 [gregg]: q+
21:29:51 [Andi]: second - need to work with ATAG group to understand how to make conformance claims for content management systems
21:30:07 [Andi]: third - go through concrete example - maybe ATAG has already done this
21:30:28 [sh1m]: ack matt
21:30:39 [Andi]: Matt - agree with Wendy
21:31:09 [Andi]: in order to conform to ATAG, authoring tool has to check for accessibility at a certain level and prompt for content needed for accessibility
21:31:42 [wendy]: action: matt, wendy, tom: how ref atag from wcag, conformance claims for wcag/atag, concrete example to demonstrate overlap (to help raise awareness of relationship between the two, primarily within WCAG WG since ATAG fairly aware due to dependence on WCAG) also joint action with AUWG to agree on solution.
21:31:43 [Andi]: can't measure 100% on the delivery context because that changes from session to session
21:32:14 [sh1m]: ack greggg
21:32:18 [sh1m]: ack gregg
21:32:23 [Andi]: Gregg - agree that we want to emphasize ATAG in introduction
21:32:37 [Andi]: don't think ATAG should be incorporated into any of the guidelines themselves like we did for UAAG
21:32:45 [Andi]: possible to embed a user agent in content
21:32:53 [Andi]: rather than re-write, we refer to sections of it
21:32:59 [Andi]: it being UAAG
21:33:07 [wendy]: q+ to say, "yes, can embed ua into web content, however web content could be an authoring tool. ATAG applies to CMS"
21:33:10 [Andi]: ATAG is a tool for creating WCAG conforming material
21:33:37 [bcaldwell]: q+ to say, "Authoring Tools can also be embedded in accessible content"
21:33:43 [Andi]: content generated using ATAG conforming tool does not guarantee accessibility - can prompt for information but information provided may not be accessible
21:33:55 [Andi]: and the tool can only check certain things
21:34:11 [wendy]: ack wendy
21:34:11 [Zakim]: wendy, you wanted to say, "yes, can embed ua into web content, however web content could be an authoring tool. ATAG applies to CMS"
21:34:29 [Andi]: Matt - true of all tools - need process that makes it as difficult as possible to create something that is not accessible
21:34:43 [Andi]: Wendy - web content can itself be an authoring tool
21:34:52 [Andi]: that's why the relationship is so critical
21:35:35 [Andi]: web applications that create web content have to also conform to ATAG
21:36:40 [Andi]: but this is a circular reference so we have to resolve that
21:36:50 [Andi]: Gregg - sounds like we need a separate guideline on this
21:37:24 [Andi]: Wendy - not clear if it is a guideline or if it affects conformance
21:39:18 [Andi]: Gregg - doesn't ATAG reference UAAG for accessibility of user interface
21:39:28 [Andi]: Matt - no, it references ISO 16071
21:39:43 [bcaldwell]: q-
21:39:52 [sh1m]: sh1m has joined #wai-wcag
21:42:39 [Andi]: discussion about "process"
21:42:49 [Andi]: never measure accessibility by "process"
21:43:25 [Zakim]: -Michael_Cooper
21:45:28 [Zakim]: -Katie_Haritos-Shea
21:45:29 [Zakim]: -Alex_Li
21:45:33 [Zakim]: -Becky_Gibson
21:45:34 [Zakim]: -Bengt_Farre
21:45:35 [Zakim]: -Wendy
21:45:36 [Zakim]: -Loretta_Guarino_Reid
21:45:37 [Zakim]: -Andi
21:45:38 [Zakim]: -Matt_May
21:45:39 [Zakim]: -Ben_and_Gregg
21:45:40 [Zakim]: -Yvette_Hoitink
21:45:41 [Zakim]: -James_Craig
21:45:42 [Zakim]: -Matt
21:45:43 [Andi]: -quit
21:45:44 [Zakim]: -Tom
21:45:47 [bengt]: bengt has left #wai-wcag
21:48:30 [Rob]: Rob has left #wai-wcag
21:48:34 [sh1m]: RRSAgent, bye
21:48:34 [RRSAgent]: I see 4 open action items:
21:48:34 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: ask DI group if delivery unit can be used to for content that is delivered as the result of a single URI request [1]
21:48:34 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/12-wai-wcag-irc#T21-15-39
21:48:34 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Gregg e-mail to DI chair to propose getting time on their agenda next week [2]
21:48:34 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/12-wai-wcag-irc#T21-17-25
21:48:34 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Gregg send email to Rhys to request 1/2 hour of agenda to discuss authored unit at their call next week (10 am Eastern) [3]
21:48:34 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/12-wai-wcag-irc#T21-17-31
21:48:34 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: matt, wendy, tom: how ref atag from wcag, conformance claims for wcag/atag, concrete example to demonstrate overlap (to help raise awareness of relationship between the two, primarily within WCAG WG since ATAG fairly aware due to dependence on WCAG) also joint action with AUWG to agree on solution. [4]
21:48:34 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/12-wai-wcag-irc#T21-31-42
21:48:53 [sh1m]: zakim, bye
21:48:53 [Zakim]: leaving. As of this point the attendees were Tom, Yvette_Hoitink, James_Craig, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Michael_Cooper, Bengt_Farre, Matt, Ben_and_Gregg, Wendy, Robert_Fentress,
21:48:53 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #wai-wcag