IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-09-02
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 19:47:37 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:47:43 [wendy]
- RRSAgent, make log world
- 19:54:36 [rellero]
- rellero has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:54:48 [rellero]
- Hi
- 19:55:54 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started
- 19:56:01 [Zakim]
- +Katie_Haritos-Shea
- 19:56:53 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- Yvette_Hoitink has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:56:58 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- Hi guys
- 19:58:48 [Zakim]
- +[Microsoft]
- 19:59:06 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- Typical Microsoft, always trying to beat the competition ;-)
- 19:59:38 [rcastaldo]
- rcastaldo has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:59:38 [Zakim]
- +Michael_Cooper
- 19:59:41 [Michael]
- zakim, I am Michael_Cooper
- 19:59:41 [Zakim]
- ok, Michael, I now associate you with Michael_Cooper
- 19:59:47 [rcastaldo]
- Hi folks :-)
- 19:59:58 [rellero]
- Ciao
- 20:00:04 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- Did anyone receive the agenda? I don't see any items on the list since yesterday afternoon
- 20:00:14 [Zakim]
- +Bengt_Farre
- 20:00:36 [rcastaldo]
- Ciao
- 20:00:40 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- ciao
- 20:00:45 [Zakim]
- -Bengt_Farre
- 20:00:54 [Zakim]
- +??P5
- 20:01:04 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, ??P5 is Yvette_Hoitink
- 20:01:04 [Zakim]
- +Yvette_Hoitink; got it
- 20:01:08 [Zakim]
- +Bengt_Farre
- 20:01:24 [Zakim]
- +Wendy
- 20:01:26 [Zakim]
- +??P7
- 20:01:32 [bcaldwell]
- zakim, ??P7 is Ben
- 20:01:32 [Zakim]
- +Ben; got it
- 20:01:50 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 20:01:50 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Katie_Haritos-Shea, [Microsoft], Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Bengt_Farre, Ben, Wendy
- 20:01:51 [bengt]
- strange getting code not valid ?
- 20:02:11 [Zakim]
- +Bengt_Farre.a
- 20:02:13 [Zakim]
- +Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 20:02:24 [bengt]
- btw I am not on yet ...
- 20:02:46 [wendy]
- i bet the 2 bengts are the 2 robertos
- 20:03:22 [rellero]
- yes, without microphone
- 20:03:41 [wendy]
- zakim, Bengt_Farre may be Roberto_Ellero
- 20:03:41 [Zakim]
- +Roberto_Ellero?; got it
- 20:03:49 [rellero]
- :-)
- 20:03:57 [wendy]
- zakim, Bengt_Farre.a may be Roberto_Castaldo
- 20:03:57 [Zakim]
- +Roberto_Castaldo?; got it
- 20:04:05 [bengt]
- passcode is not valid ?
- 20:04:06 [wendy]
- ok bengt, you're right. you're not here yet. :)
- 20:04:07 [rellero]
- zakim, rellero is Roberto_Ellero
- 20:04:07 [Zakim]
- sorry, rellero, I do not recognize a party named 'rellero'
- 20:04:18 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 20:04:18 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Katie_Haritos-Shea, [Microsoft], Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Roberto_Ellero?, Ben, Wendy, Roberto_Castaldo?, Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 20:04:33 [wendy]
- zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta
- 20:04:33 [Zakim]
- +Mike_Barta; got it
- 20:04:37 [rellero]
- zakim, I am Roberto_Ellero
- 20:04:37 [Zakim]
- ok, rellero, I now associate you with Roberto_Ellero?
- 20:04:50 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, who's on the phone
- 20:04:50 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'who's on the phone', Yvette_Hoitink
- 20:04:59 [Zakim]
- +JasonWhite
- 20:05:01 [bcaldwell]
- Scribe: Ben
- 20:05:07 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 20:05:07 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Katie_Haritos-Shea, Mike_Barta, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Roberto_Ellero?, Ben, Wendy, Roberto_Castaldo?, Kerstin_Goldsmith, JasonWhite (muted)
- 20:05:14 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:05:14 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
- 20:05:19 [wendy]
- Topic: TTF summary (Michael Cooper)
- 20:05:21 [bcaldwell]
- agendum 1: techniques task force update from Michael
- 20:05:26 [rcastaldo]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:05:26 [Zakim]
- sorry, rcastaldo, I do not see a party named 'rcastaldo'
- 20:05:44 [bcaldwell]
- publishing internal working drafts of CSS, HTML and Gateway tomorrow (Sept. 3)
- 20:05:54 [rcastaldo]
- 01zakim, rcastaldo is Roberto_Castaldo
- 20:06:11 [bcaldwell]
- zakim, I am Ben
- 20:06:11 [Zakim]
- ok, bcaldwell, I now associate you with Ben
- 20:06:12 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "f2f: what month?"
- 20:06:43 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q-
- 20:06:44 [bcaldwell]
- integrating notes and pointers related to open issues in drafts
- 20:06:48 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- thx :-)
- 20:07:08 [rcastaldo]
- 01zakim, I am Roberto_Castaldo
- 20:07:14 [bcaldwell]
- techniques testing: not much new since last week, but testing is going to become a high priority in the near future
- 20:07:35 [bcaldwell]
- currently working on process for that and developing proposed test resources
- 20:07:45 [Zakim]
- -Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 20:08:00 [Zakim]
- +Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 20:08:16 [bcaldwell]
- work on additional techniques drafts is beginning
- 20:08:25 [bcaldwell]
- q?
- 20:08:35 [bcaldwell]
- ack Kerstin
- 20:08:47 [Zakim]
- +John_Slatin
- 20:09:00 [bcaldwell]
- KG: if you had an xtra person to help w/ techniques a) do you need extra help and b) where is most help needed?
- 20:09:30 [bcaldwell]
- MC: definately need xtra bodies - especially with combing lists and resources for new techniques and issues that have been raised, but not yet processed...
- 20:09:49 [bcaldwell]
- also need help propsing, revising and writing techniques, test files, conducting user-agent tests, etc...
- 20:10:00 [bcaldwell]
- across all technologies?
- 20:10:31 [bcaldwell]
- yes - more help with technologies that have not yet received much attention
- 20:10:34 [Zakim]
- +[IBM]
- 20:10:52 [bcaldwell]
- MC: anyone who is looking to help, the TTF can find something for you...
- 20:11:01 [bcaldwell]
- WC: face to face
- 20:11:11 [Andi]
- Andi has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:11:25 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, unmute me
- 20:11:25 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
- 20:11:26 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+
- 20:11:27 [bcaldwell]
- 90% certain to have it in Dublin 19-22 October, first 2 days techniques, then working group
- 20:11:38 [bcaldwell]
- currently looking for hotel alternatives
- 20:12:43 [wendy]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0489.html
- 20:13:22 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:13:22 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
- 20:13:31 [bcaldwell]
- Topic: 1.2 issue summary
- 20:14:03 [bcaldwell]
- (30 minutes)
- 20:14:20 [wendy]
- Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0528.html
- 20:15:34 [bcaldwell]
- wendy's issue summary and proposal - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0532.html
- 20:16:13 [bcaldwell]
- issues summarized in notes linked to from mail
- 20:17:05 [bcaldwell]
- open issues indicated that there was a great deal of confusion around exceptions in guideline 1.2
- 20:17:33 [bcaldwell]
- some of the exceptions may be part of policy - ex. Telecom Act 1996
- 20:18:26 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q-
- 20:18:29 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 20:18:31 [Andi]
- q+
- 20:18:33 [bcaldwell]
- ? do people agree that excptions are confusing? can the be dealt with in policy?
- 20:18:38 [bcaldwell]
- ack John
- 20:18:39 [wendy]
- ack john
- 20:18:43 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:18:43 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
- 20:18:52 [bcaldwell]
- JS - agree that exceptions are policy issues
- 20:19:17 [bengt]
- bengt has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:19:30 [bcaldwell]
- JS - might be a good idea to look at legislation in other countries to find comparable examples (perhaps in gateway rather than guidelines, but might be useful)
- 20:19:32 [wendy]
- ack jason
- 20:20:21 [bcaldwell]
- JW - concerned that policy should be kept out of guidelines
- 20:21:16 [bcaldwell]
- ex. anti-descrimination laws in some countries may conflict w/ exceptions in guidelines that address policy
- 20:21:40 [wendy]
- ack andi
- 20:21:46 [bcaldwell]
- JW - agree with wendy's suggestion to keep policy references out
- 20:22:07 [bcaldwell]
- ASW - agree with approach, but how will policy makers know that they should adress this issue?
- 20:22:15 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "tech equivalent for policy makers"
- 20:22:35 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 20:22:35 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, unmute me
- 20:22:36 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "tech equivalent for policy makers"
- 20:22:38 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink was not muted, Yvette_Hoitink
- 20:23:22 [bcaldwell]
- YH - we've talked about this before - handle in document that is targeted to policy makers?
- 20:23:44 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:23:44 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
- 20:24:05 [bcaldwell]
- WC: f2f in July raised this (policy maker document) and Katie has an action item to dig deeper
- 20:24:12 [Andi]
- q+
- 20:24:25 [wendy]
- ack jason
- 20:25:31 [bcaldwell]
- JW: 1.) a time-dependent of other multimedia presentation is likely to have a URI - so given the kind of conformance claims we've been discussing, scoping can be addressed in the claim
- 20:26:17 [wendy]
- ack john
- 20:26:30 [bcaldwell]
- 2.) we should make it very clear in the guidelines that policy decisions about unjustifiable hardship, diffucult to implement requirements, etc. are (deliberately) not included in guidelines. we need to point that out to policy makers
- 20:27:23 [bcaldwell]
- JS: indication that some nations already have laws on the books regarding what should and should not be captioned might be enough to say to policy makers that this issue need to be addressed and that other policies provide some guidance for how to do that
- 20:27:24 [wendy]
- ack andi
- 20:27:43 [Zakim]
- -Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 20:28:00 [bcaldwell]
- ASW: re: jason's comment about scope - scoping is helpful, but only solves the problem if claiming confomrnace is voluntary (you can't scope it out if you're required by law to do it)
- 20:28:07 [Zakim]
- +Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 20:28:20 [bcaldwell]
- ASW: not sure policy maker document is still the right thing to do
- 20:30:33 [bcaldwell]
- WC: issues with multimedia that is only available for a short time, phase-in plans
- 20:30:36 [wendy]
- ack Katie
- 20:32:15 [bcaldwell]
- JS: we may need more information about how others handle captioning requirements - where there are already captioning requirments, how are phase-in and exceptions for types of broadcast content handled
- 20:33:03 [bcaldwell]
- KHS: one of the things that was the issue at the f2f was about content aggregation - also an area where policy document could be helpful
- 20:34:26 [bcaldwell]
- action: Katie and Wendy to do some research related to policy for the multimedia guideline
- 20:34:30 [wendy]
- ack jason
- 20:36:15 [bcaldwell]
- JW: problems with setting policy in guidelines are sufficiently significant that we shouldn't go there. providing informative material somewhere is a good idea. factors that contribute to policy (ex. resources) are different that factors that are taken into account for a technical specification
- 20:37:11 [bcaldwell]
- WC: not sure if we created an issue specifically related to creating an informative policy document
- 20:38:36 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+
- 20:38:49 [wendy]
- ack jason
- 20:38:49 [bcaldwell]
- WC: 1.2 addresses "interactive" propose that this is covered by guidelines 4.1 and 4.2 - item 5 in the proposal. would like to get input about whether this is covered or not
- 20:39:04 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:39:04 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink was already muted, Yvette_Hoitink
- 20:39:13 [bcaldwell]
- JW: objection to classifying something as an application and using that distinction to determine what applies
- 20:39:47 [bcaldwell]
- JW: suggest that we say something about conformance profiles or a specific type of interaction instead of classifying as an application
- 20:40:04 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 20:40:41 [bcaldwell]
- YH: seems strange to say that a specific type of content should follow other guidelines since all web content should follow all guidelines
- 20:40:53 [Zakim]
- -Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 20:41:28 [bcaldwell]
- WC: something like, characteristics that are interactive go with 4.1 and 4.2 and characteristics of content that is multimedia follow 1.2?
- 20:41:50 [Zakim]
- +Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 20:42:27 [bcaldwell]
- YH: makes it sound like certain guidelines are specifically designed for certain types of content and guidelines should apply to all web content
- 20:42:51 [Andi]
- q+
- 20:43:33 [bcaldwell]
- WC: similar to other guidelines where we refer to other parts of the guidelines
- 20:43:44 [wendy]
- ack John
- 20:44:15 [Michael]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:44:15 [Zakim]
- Michael_Cooper should now be muted
- 20:44:26 [bcaldwell]
- JS: I have a graduate student who just submitted public comments, has done a lot of work on accessibility and application development - he might be able to help.
- 20:44:33 [Zakim]
- + +1.973.944.aaaa - is perhaps Roberto_Castaldo?
- 20:45:07 [Zakim]
- -Roberto_Castaldo?
- 20:45:18 [rcastaldo]
- I'm always on line
- 20:45:21 [bengt]
- bengt has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:46:38 [Zakim]
- +??P12
- 20:46:51 [bcaldwell]
- JS: seems that one of the problems we're running into with 1.1, 1.2 and maybe the 4.x guidelines is that 1.1 is about non-text content and 1.2 is about a specific type of non-text content and we're trying to get interactive out -- wonder if we can handle by having nontext that is (interactive, multimedia, audio, etc.)
- 20:46:52 [bengt]
- zakim, ??P12 is Bengt_Farre
- 20:46:52 [Zakim]
- +Bengt_Farre; got it
- 20:47:05 [bengt]
- zakim, I am Bengt_Farre
- 20:47:05 [Zakim]
- ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
- 20:47:06 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:47:06 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
- 20:47:46 [bcaldwell]
- WC: wrestled with this too - started rewriting 1.1 to incorporate multimedia, but felt that was too much
- 20:47:53 [bcaldwell]
- action: john, ben and wendy to discuss
- 20:48:00 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- <curious>which holiday?</curious>
- 20:48:22 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:48:22 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink was already muted, Yvette_Hoitink
- 20:48:27 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, unmute me
- 20:48:27 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
- 20:48:34 [bcaldwell]
- Topic: Issue Summary on 2.4
- 20:48:51 [bcaldwell]
- ~52 issues summarized - a lot of work
- 20:49:34 [bcaldwell]
- summary: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0512.html
- 20:50:09 [bcaldwell]
- 3 underlying issues to discuss
- 20:51:12 [bcaldwell]
- 1.) "large documents" - ex. 50,000 is a big number - ex. WCAG guidelines themselves is only 14,000 and needs some additional navigation
- 20:51:24 [wendy]
- ack andi
- 20:51:32 [wendy]
- ack jason
- 20:52:45 [bcaldwell]
- JW: one option would be to place an upper limit on what is considered "large" -- so we can say anything above X is too much, but it's open to tools or implementers to take documents that are less than this and provide a warning rather than an error.
- 20:53:35 [wendy]
- ack john
- 20:53:51 [bcaldwell]
- JS: I'm wondering if this is actually an accessibility or a usability issue
- 20:54:43 [bcaldwell]
- YH: I think this does effect pwds disproportionately
- 20:55:15 [bcaldwell]
- .. much easier to navigate content and move within it when navigation aids are present
- 20:55:53 [bcaldwell]
- WC: there have been usability studies about how people deal with text on the web - skimming and scanning are primary modes of operation -- if that is not available, then this is an accessibility issue
- 20:56:22 [bcaldwell]
- JS: a 4 page print document isn't very long, but a 4 screen electronic document feels longer. that's nowhere near 50,000 words
- 20:56:41 [bcaldwell]
- YH: not sure how many screens are in WCAG and we can multiply by 3 and still not hit the 50,000 limit
- 20:57:14 [Zakim]
- -Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 20:57:15 [bcaldwell]
- JS: "long" is relative from one medium to another
- 20:57:50 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+
- 20:58:05 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "screen is resolution depended"
- 20:58:33 [bcaldwell]
- WC: the term "screen" might be a better measure than the number of words, but screen size will depend on resoution and font size
- 20:58:40 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q-
- 20:59:34 [bcaldwell]
- need to define a rule of thumb or best practice
- 21:00:14 [Zakim]
- +??P6
- 21:01:29 [rcastaldo]
- Have to leave the call for two minutes
- 21:01:56 [Zakim]
- -Katie_Haritos-Shea
- 21:02:16 [bcaldwell]
- action: Yvette and Kerstin to do some research about alternative ways to represent what constitues a large document
- 21:02:52 [wendy]
- ack jason
- 21:02:53 [bcaldwell]
- JW: sentences rather than word could be a better measure - more language independent and representative of complexity
- 21:04:10 [bcaldwell]
- YH: underlying issue 2: make structure perceivable (was guideline 1.5) - wanted to verify that we did intent to remove these criterion - if this is what we intended, then we can close the issues
- 21:04:13 [bcaldwell]
- q+
- 21:04:31 [Zakim]
- -??P6
- 21:04:47 [rcastaldo]
- I'm back in the call
- 21:05:06 [Zakim]
- -Bengt_Farre
- 21:05:11 [wendy]
- bc doing work w/css techs, there are some associated with this criterion that no longer have a home.
- 21:05:21 [wendy]
- bc e.g., border properties - highlighting that chunks go together.
- 21:05:26 [wendy]
- js can go under 1.3
- 21:06:25 [Zakim]
- + +1.973.944.aabb - is perhaps Roberto_Castaldo?
- 21:06:44 [rcastaldo]
- no, it's not me
- 21:07:04 [bengt]
- back but no message from zakim ?
- 21:07:39 [bengt]
- zakim, +1.973.944.aabb is Bengt_Farre
- 21:07:39 [Zakim]
- sorry, bengt, I do not recognize a party named '+1.973.944.aabb'
- 21:07:49 [bcaldwell]
- wc: could be covered under 1.3, but doesn't seem to fit
- 21:08:12 [bengt]
- zakim, 1.973.944.aabb is Bengt_Farre
- 21:08:12 [Zakim]
- sorry, bengt, I do not recognize a party named '1.973.944.aabb'
- 21:08:30 [bengt]
- zakim, ?1.973.944.aabb is Bengt_Farre
- 21:08:30 [Zakim]
- sorry, bengt, I do not recognize a party named '?1.973.944.aabb'
- 21:09:05 [wendy]
- q?
- 21:09:11 [bcaldwell]
- q-
- 21:09:51 [bcaldwell]
- JW: wider issue is that we don't include the counterpart to 1.3, which is to provide style for the structure that is there
- 21:12:18 [bcaldwell]
- action: wendy and jason to work on a proposal to look at how to deal with techniques that were associated with removed criterion (ex CSS 4.1 and 11.1) and consider whether these ideas need to be reintroduced in the guidelines
- 21:13:00 [bcaldwell]
- YH: 3) confusion about why we need 2.4 because they believe it is a usability, rather than an accessibility issue
- 21:14:01 [bcaldwell]
- YH: guideline 1.3, level1, sc1 overlaps with several of the items in 2.4
- 21:14:40 [wendy]
- ack john
- 21:14:52 [bcaldwell]
- YH: 2.4 and 1.3 are closely linked - need to figure out how to decide which criterion belong in each.
- 21:15:08 [Zakim]
- -Roberto_Castaldo?
- 21:15:32 [bcaldwell]
- ex. you need table headers to mark structure, but also to navigate
- 21:15:37 [rcastaldo]
- I'm always here :-)
- 21:16:01 [bengt]
- my line is dropping all the time and it is weird
- 21:16:27 [bcaldwell]
- js: are there structural things that are necessary to support navigation and orientation that would not fit under 1.3?
- 21:16:53 [bcaldwell]
- yh: there are some things (like a site map) that are not part of structure
- 21:16:57 [Zakim]
- + +1.973.944.aacc - is perhaps Roberto_Castaldo?
- 21:17:14 [rcastaldo]
- Zakim, I am Roberto_Castaldo?
- 21:17:14 [Zakim]
- sorry, rcastaldo, I do not see a party named 'Roberto_Castaldo?'
- 21:17:15 [bengt]
- zakim, ?+1.973.944.aacc is Bengt_Farre
- 21:17:15 [Zakim]
- sorry, bengt, I do not recognize a party named '?+1.973.944.aacc'
- 21:17:44 [rellero]
- zakim, ?+1.973.944.aacc is Roberto_Ellero
- 21:17:44 [Zakim]
- sorry, rellero, I do not recognize a party named '?+1.973.944.aacc'
- 21:17:55 [rellero]
- zakim, ?+1.973.944.aacc is rellero
- 21:17:55 [Zakim]
- sorry, rellero, I do not recognize a party named '?+1.973.944.aacc'
- 21:18:11 [bengt]
- rellero thats my line
- 21:18:16 [bcaldwell]
- additional navigation that is added becomes part of structure after it is added
- 21:18:21 [rellero]
- ok
- 21:18:28 [bengt]
- zakim, ??1.973.944.aacc is Bengt_Farre
- 21:18:28 [Zakim]
- sorry, bengt, I do not recognize a party named '??1.973.944.aacc'
- 21:18:35 [rcastaldo]
- 01Zakim, I am Roberto_Castaldo
- 21:18:55 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q_
- 21:18:57 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+
- 21:18:58 [Zakim]
- +Katie_Haritos-Shea
- 21:19:00 [wendy]
- ack jason
- 21:20:00 [wendy]
- zakim, 1.973.944.aacc is Bengt
- 21:20:00 [Zakim]
- sorry, wendy, I do not recognize a party named '1.973.944.aacc'
- 21:20:02 [bcaldwell]
- JW: in confomance,a delivery unit is something that has a URI - consequence of that is that a navigation mechanism is considered separately for each page. if you've evaluating conformance of each one, then the navigation isn't looked at as a whole
- 21:20:13 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 21:20:13 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Mike_Barta, Michael_Cooper (muted), Yvette_Hoitink, Roberto_Ellero? (muted), Ben, Wendy, Roberto_Castaldo?, JasonWhite, John_Slatin, [IBM], Roberto_Castaldo?,
- 21:20:16 [Zakim]
- ... Katie_Haritos-Shea
- 21:21:27 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 21:21:28 [bcaldwell]
- yh: 1.3 and 2.4 overlap - sounds like 1.3 is about marking structure and 2.4 tells authors to supply additional structure, where 1.3 makes sure that existing structure is available to user agent
- 21:21:30 [wendy]
- ack john
- 21:22:15 [bcaldwell]
- js: interesting approach, but gets weird because 2.4 comes after 1.3 - logically, you want to say, provide structure and then make it perceivable
- 21:22:16 [bengt]
- zakim, Roberto_Castaldo? is roberto2
- 21:22:16 [Zakim]
- sorry, bengt, I do not recognize a party named 'Roberto_Castaldo?'
- 21:22:31 [bengt]
- zakim, Roberto_Castaldo is roberto2
- 21:22:31 [Zakim]
- sorry, bengt, I do not recognize a party named 'Roberto_Castaldo'
- 21:22:32 [Zakim]
- -Roberto_Castaldo?
- 21:22:44 [bcaldwell]
- js: linearity of the guidelines is somewhat misleading here because they interact with one another
- 21:22:48 [bengt]
- zakim, who is on the phone ?
- 21:22:48 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Mike_Barta, Michael_Cooper (muted), Yvette_Hoitink, Roberto_Ellero? (muted), Ben, Wendy, JasonWhite, John_Slatin, [IBM], Roberto_Castaldo?, Katie_Haritos-Shea
- 21:23:21 [bengt]
- zakim, Roberto_Castaldo? is beng
- 21:23:21 [Zakim]
- +beng; got it
- 21:23:22 [Zakim]
- + +1.973.944.aadd - is perhaps beng
- 21:23:26 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q?
- 21:23:35 [bengt]
- zakim, beng is Bengt_Farre
- 21:23:35 [Zakim]
- sorry, bengt, I do not recognize a party named 'beng'
- 21:23:41 [bcaldwell]
- issue: make it clear that numbered sequence of guidelines isn't meaningful
- 21:23:49 [bengt]
- zakim, who is on the phone ?
- 21:23:49 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Mike_Barta, Michael_Cooper (muted), Yvette_Hoitink, Roberto_Ellero? (muted), Ben, Wendy, JasonWhite, John_Slatin, [IBM], beng, Katie_Haritos-Shea, beng
- 21:24:11 [rcastaldo]
- I'm on the phone too :-)
- 21:24:56 [bcaldwell]
- wc: publishing a suite of internal drafts tomorrow - have a series of milestones to hit for another internal draft on the 8th of october
- 21:25:08 [bcaldwell]
- next public WD on 3rd of november
- 21:25:20 [bcaldwell]
- planning page includes milestones and agenda items
- 21:25:44 [bcaldwell]
- planning page: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/07/WD-plan.html
- 21:25:46 [wendy]
- ack john
- 21:25:52 [bcaldwell]
- Topic: 1.3 Feedback for gateway
- 21:26:03 [Zakim]
- -beng
- 21:26:07 [bcaldwell]
- js: not much feedback
- 21:26:22 [rellero]
- so I am Beng :-/
- 21:26:45 [rcastaldo]
- :-)
- 21:27:38 [Zakim]
- + +1.973.944.aaee - is perhaps beng
- 21:27:41 [rellero]
- I am on the phone again now
- 21:27:59 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "doc is called Gateway Techniques, not Gateway TO techniques"
- 21:28:32 [bcaldwell]
- js: gateway to techniques or gateway techniques?
- 21:29:08 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q-
- 21:29:17 [bcaldwell]
- wc: plan is to incorporate John's proposed text into internal WD tomorrow - any objections?
- 21:29:32 [bcaldwell]
- -- no objections raised --
- 21:30:36 [Zakim]
- -Katie_Haritos-Shea
- 21:30:37 [rcastaldo]
- bye all
- 21:30:45 [rellero]
- Bye!
- 21:30:49 [Zakim]
- -Michael_Cooper
- 21:31:29 [bcaldwell]
- next week: discussion on conformance profiles
- 21:31:53 [Zakim]
- -Roberto_Ellero?
- 21:31:54 [Zakim]
- -Mike_Barta
- 21:31:55 [Zakim]
- -John_Slatin
- 21:31:57 [Zakim]
- -Wendy
- 21:31:57 [rcastaldo]
- rcastaldo has left #wai-wcag
- 21:31:58 [Zakim]
- -Yvette_Hoitink
- 21:31:59 [Zakim]
- -beng
- 21:31:59 [Zakim]
- -beng
- 21:32:00 [Zakim]
- -Ben
- 21:32:02 [wendy]
- ben - thank you for minuting
- 21:32:02 [Zakim]
- -[IBM]
- 21:32:07 [bcaldwell]
- sure thing
- 21:32:20 [bengt]
- bye
- 21:32:24 [Zakim]
- -JasonWhite
- 21:32:25 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
- 21:32:25 [bengt]
- bengt has left #wai-wcag
- 21:32:26 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Katie_Haritos-Shea, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Wendy, Ben, Kerstin_Goldsmith, Roberto_Ellero?, Mike_Barta, JasonWhite, John_Slatin, [IBM], +1.973.944.aaaa,
- 21:32:28 [Zakim]
- ... Bengt_Farre, +1.973.944.aabb, +1.973.944.aacc, beng, +1.973.944.aadd, +1.973.944.aaee
- 21:33:16 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- agenda?
- 21:33:22 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- action items?
- 21:34:19 [bcaldwell]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 21:34:19 [RRSAgent]
- I see 4 open action items:
- 21:34:19 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Katie and Wendy to do some research related to policy for the multimedia guideline [1]
- 21:34:19 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/09/02-wai-wcag-irc#T20-34-26
- 21:34:19 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: john, ben and wendy to discuss [2]
- 21:34:19 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/09/02-wai-wcag-irc#T20-47-53
- 21:34:19 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Yvette and Kerstin to do some research about alternative ways to represent what constitues a large document [3]
- 21:34:19 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/09/02-wai-wcag-irc#T21-02-16
- 21:34:19 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: wendy and jason to work on a proposal to look at how to deal with techniques that were associated with removed criterion (ex CSS 4.1 and 11.1) and consider whether these ideas need to be reintroduced in the guidelines [4]
- 21:34:19 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/09/02-wai-wcag-irc#T21-12-18