IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-11-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

21:01:02 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
21:01:07 [Zakim]
21:01:11 [bcaldwell]
rrsagent, make log world
21:01:15 [Zakim]
21:01:24 [bcaldwell]
21:01:34 [Zakim]
21:01:49 [Zakim]
21:01:59 [bcaldwell]
zakim, ??P11 is Roberto_Castaldo
21:01:59 [Zakim]
+Roberto_Castaldo; got it
21:02:51 [gregg]
gregg has joined #wai-wcag
21:02:51 [Zakim]
21:03:00 [Zakim]
21:03:20 [Zakim]
21:03:50 [bcaldwell]
zakim, ??P12 is Doyle
21:03:50 [Zakim]
+Doyle; got it
21:03:55 [Zakim]
21:04:01 [bcaldwell]
zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta
21:04:01 [Zakim]
+Mike_Barta; got it
21:04:17 [bcaldwell]
zakim, [IBM] is Andi
21:04:17 [Zakim]
+Andi; got it
21:04:33 [tecks]
tecks has joined #wai-wcag
21:04:37 [Andi]
Andi has joined #wai-wcag
21:05:44 [ben]
agenda + Techniques Task Force Summary (Michael - 10 min.)
21:06:10 [ben]
agenda + Guideline 2.2 proposal and issue summary [1] (20 min.)
21:06:10 [ben]
[1] <>
21:06:26 [David_MacDonald]
David_MacDonald has joined #wai-wcag
21:06:39 [ben]
agenda + Guideline 4.1 proposal and issue summary [2] (20 min.)
21:06:39 [ben]
[2] <>
21:07:01 [ben]
agenda + Conformance issue summary and proposal [3] (20 min.)
21:07:01 [ben]
[3] <>
21:07:48 [ben]
agenda + Guideline 2.4 revisions from John [] (20 min.)
21:08:00 [ben]
next agendum
21:08:47 [ben]
sorting techniques into WCAG 1.0 priorities
21:09:02 [ben]
working on clarifications on techniques related to use of semantic elements
21:09:27 [ben]
clear link text issue - working to define line between general and HTML techniques
21:10:03 [ben]
conditional content concepts - some belongs in general, other in tech specifics
21:10:32 [ben]
"don't do this" techniques - some techniques are confusing regarding labeling deprecated techniques - working to clarify
21:10:55 [ben]
will be providing fallback techniques, need to find ways to handle "don't do this"
21:11:05 [ben]
chris ridpath and ken kipnes working on test suites
21:11:25 [ben]
f2f meeting made it clear that we need to focus on building up techniques at this point
21:11:45 [ben]
has been a lot of top-down work and we need some bottom up to solidify guidelines
21:12:18 [ben]
next agendum
21:13:13 [ben]
21:13:46 [ben]
most of the issues around parameters in the guidelines
21:14:12 [ben]
values specified in current draft seem to be subjective
21:15:13 [ben]
biggest issue from bugzilla is to decide whether we should maintain numerical parameters or if we should try simple and not subjective approach (ex. 3 seconds of blinking vs. not blinking at all)
21:15:35 [gregg]
21:16:31 [ben]
numerical values can be good for some users, but not any user (ex. chatrooms can be considered live events in that users have difficulty going back through logs, but if only talking with one person, it is no longer a live event)
21:17:06 [ben]
if we could agree to not set numerical values, most issues would be addressed
21:17:16 [ben]
ack John
21:17:46 [ben]
two things: 1) I don't think we can say "no moving content" because that would mean no site w/ video or animation could conform
21:18:29 [ben]
2) not sure chat room example works because there isn't necessarily a time limit in the chatroom - it's a funciton of how quickly participants type and whether the user agent allows users to scroll back
21:18:35 [ben]
ack gregg
21:19:12 [ben]
only 2 items that talk about timing is time for users to respond (10 seconds) and letting things blink for 3 seconds
21:19:36 [ben]
chat room example doesn't apply to criteria with 10 second req.
21:20:02 [ben]
applies to a single action
21:20:23 [ben]
numbers are based on years of work with inidiv. who have physical disabilities
21:21:03 [ben]
flip side is that if you set times too long, then you have someone at a banking site and when users stop interacting, sites need to sign you off if the user is no longer there
21:21:18 [ben]
if we don't put down 10 seconds, people often choose times that are inadequate
21:21:27 [ben]
other example (3 seconds of blink)
21:21:54 [ben]
trying to outlaw any blinking to attract attention is a problem because it can be helpful for people with cognitive disabilities if you want to attract attention to it
21:22:14 [ben]
3 seconds was a compromise between attracting attention and being distracting for someone with attention deficit
21:22:40 [ben]
ack Mike
21:22:47 [ben]
gv covered most of my issues
21:23:02 [ben]
should we make a distinction between timeouts and dynamic content
21:23:21 [ben]
gv: instead of saying time limits, say time out?
21:23:47 [ben]
stock tickers, news windows, etc. aren't timeouts and should be dealt with differnetly than a page timeout that kicks you off a site
21:24:02 [ben]
gv: "time limit" overly vague?
21:24:53 [ben]
gv: substitute "time out" for "time limit"?
21:25:29 [ben]
mb: make a distinction between dynamic content that and time out
21:25:42 [ben]
ack john
21:26:11 [ben]
are you proposing that we create a separate guideline for dynamic content? also, is there a way that things like chatrooms might be covered under 1.1 or 1.2?
21:26:32 [ben]
gv: already have a criteria that allows users to pause or stop content
21:27:38 [ben]
mb: not entirely clear what the difference between dynamic content and moving content is
21:27:49 [ben]
gv: concern may be with words "time limits"
21:28:21 [ben]
gv: I think criterion were written to mean "time outs"
21:29:01 [ben]
gv: 2 suggestions
21:29:13 [ben]
1) change "time limit" to "time out"
21:29:29 [ben]
2) add "dynamic" "pause and permanently stop moving, dynamic, or time based content"
21:29:48 [ben]
... dynamic (moving or time-based)
21:30:38 [ben]
asw: would adding dynamic make this apply to DHTML?
21:30:57 [ben]
gv: if there is change happening on screen, then you would want users to pause or permanently stop it
21:33:40 [ben]
resolved: replace "time limit" with "time out" and change level 2, item to to read, "The user is allowed to pause and/or permanently stop dynamic (moving or time-based) content."
21:34:24 [ben]
issue 627
21:34:41 [ben]
21:35:20 [ben]
should specify that we mean that time starts at the end of a message (in cases where a message takes more than 10 seconds to read)
21:35:35 [ben]
ack john
21:36:32 [ben]
time it takes to read dialog buttons is an issue
21:36:48 [ben]
change 10 second time limit to 20 seconds?
21:37:41 [ben]
action john: do some testing on time it takes to ineteract with dialog boxes
21:38:16 [ben]
resolved: accept suggestion in issue 627 and change 10 second time limit to 20 seconds
21:38:40 [ben]
issue 789 -
21:38:54 [ben]
gv: no longer an issue - overcome by edits
21:39:10 [ben]
issue 800 -
21:39:38 [ben]
gv: I think server timeouts are not covered by this, only author-imposed time limits
21:40:06 [ben]
gv: suggest adding a note about server-based time outs outside of the authors control?
21:41:09 [ben]
content is designed... or at least one of the following is true for each time out that is a function of the content
21:41:27 [ben]
resolved: add "that is a function of the content" to the end of SC 1
21:42:11 [ben]
issue 801 -
21:42:33 [ben]
gv: guideline itself has the phrase "real-time events" - suggestion is to take it out of the guideline and just have it in the SC
21:43:52 [ben]
sugg: change guideline 2.2 to read, " Guideline 2.2 Allow users to control time limits on their reading or interaction."
21:44:21 [ben]
resolved: adjust guideline wording as suggested
21:44:50 [ben]
gv: skip 802 and 803 since they are informative
21:45:24 [ben]
issue 843 -
21:46:07 [ben]
gv: turning off blinking completely a user agent issue?
21:48:03 [ben]
is there data about why 3 seconds is not an issue?
21:48:46 [ben]
gv: for some (ex. attn. deficit disorder) users can't stop looking at it
21:49:07 [ben]
asw: loophole - what if an author makes it blinks for 3 seconds, stops it and then lets it blink for 3 more seconds
21:49:23 [ben]
gv: .. blinks for more than 3 seconds before stopping and not restarting?
21:51:49 [ben]
gv: if it starts up again, then it's more than 3 seconds
21:53:20 [ben]
blinking content stops permanently after 3 second or the user is allowed to permanently stop content that blinks for more than 3 seconds?
21:54:02 [ben]
leave criterion as is and explain in techniques that content that starts blinking again is blinking for more than 3 seconds
21:54:18 [ben]
resolved: change "turn off" to "stop"
21:54:45 [ben]
level 2 criterion 1 would then read, "The user is allowed to stop content that blinks for more than 3 seconds."
21:55:10 [ben]
issue 856 -
21:57:10 [ben]
resolved: change level 2 criterion 1 to, "a method is provide to turn off content that blinks for more than 3 seconds"
21:57:21 [Zakim]
21:57:27 [rcastaldo]
21:57:42 [rcastaldo]
dialpad's gone... trying to reconnect
21:57:47 [ben]
resolved: change level 2 criterion 2 to, "A method is provided to pause and/or permanently stop moving or time-based content."
21:58:14 [ben]
issue 857 -
21:58:43 [ben]
is this a user agent issue?
21:59:57 [rcastaldo]
i cannot manage and connect with dialpad... trying again
21:59:59 [ben]
gv: both the author and user agent are involved - this is why we are looking at user agent baselines
22:00:27 [ben]
authors responsibility is to make it possible for a user agent to do these things
22:00:46 [ben]
(issue resolved)
22:01:04 [ben]
issue 879 -
22:01:37 [ben]
gv: in this application, a default does exist - it would be what auser experiences when they first visit the page if there are no preferences applied
22:01:51 [ben]
gv: suggest we close this bug
22:02:09 [ben]
issue 880 -
22:03:13 [ben]
gv: level 2, item 2 does seem to imply that a live broadcast should be able to be frozen
22:03:14 [Zakim]
22:03:48 [rcastaldo]
my dialpad is not working at this moment... i'll keep following the meeting on irc
22:04:02 [gregg]
22:04:06 [gregg]
ack g
22:04:10 [gregg]
22:04:38 [ben]
asw: to freeze a live broadcast would be a player issue (ex. tivo)
22:05:10 [ben]
criteria says you can either pause or stop or both
22:07:14 [ben]
mm: this is a player function
22:07:28 [ben]
but issue is specific to live content
22:07:36 [ben]
UAAG doesn't make a distinction about whether content is live
22:08:01 [ben]
... and doesn't require time-shifting
22:08:17 [ben]
pause and restart is different from pause and resume
22:08:51 [ben]
gv: second half of this issue should be closed because we don't say "until user agents"
22:09:25 [ben]
question that is left is do we really want to require freezing live content
22:11:14 [ben]
resolved: This issue shoud already be covered by UAAG. Pending baseline decisions, move success criterion 2 to repair strategies.
22:11:54 [ben]
issue 929 -
22:12:15 [ben]
gv: this is a real-time event (already excepted)
22:14:04 [ben]
issue 1092 -
22:14:26 [ben]
suggestion to simply allow users to ask for more time and remove other bullets
22:14:43 [ben]
gv: not practical - different choices apply to different types of time limits
22:15:00 [ben]
issue 1093 -
22:15:29 [ben]
gv: overcome by events
22:16:29 [ben]
lgr: level 3 item 1 - what are the "exceptions" being referred to?
22:17:10 [ben]
gv: refers to last item (where timing is essential) in level 1 criterion 1
22:18:52 [ben]
sugg: delete the editorial note and say, "The content has been designed in a way that any time limits in the content would pass level 1, success criteria 1 for this guideline and timing is not designed to be an essential part of the activity."
22:21:17 [ben]
gv: time remaining - concerns or comments with the issues related to 4.1 and conformance?
22:21:27 [ben]
next agendum
22:22:37 [ben]
issue 888 -
22:26:15 [doyle]
Ben - Just a quick note about the page we're discussing - has many of the longer lines of text run way off the right hand side of the page. I am using Internet Explore
22:26:15 [doyle]
possibly it's a browser issue. Just to let you know.
22:27:53 [gregg]
22:31:01 [David_MacDonald]
Its also runs off page in Mozilla
22:31:37 [ben]
thanks doyle - looks like a bug in how the lists are handling plain text emails
22:34:36 [ben]
lgr: contradication in strengthening the use-spec guideline and advocating repair strategies (that would then violate the reqs. to follow spec)
22:35:33 [ben]
next agendum
22:36:14 [ben]
gv: there are a number of issues that can't be closed because they are advice or things to remember as we go
22:37:09 [ben]
sugg: combining issues into a single bug that summarizes these issues and would be reviewed at a later date
22:37:45 [ben]
gv: suggest creating a "working group notes" document that explains why things are the way they are in the guidelines
22:39:42 [ben]
lgr: concerned about proliferation of documents - who would do it?
22:39:53 [ben]
gv: responsibility of editors to populate
22:40:41 [ben]
above comments relate to issue 326
22:40:55 [ben]
issue 368 -
22:41:11 [ben]
resolved: move to combined issue of things to consider as we go
22:41:27 [ben]
issue 396 -
22:41:31 [ben]
gv: leave open
22:41:51 [ben]
22:44:12 [ben]
resolved: accept proposed resolution
22:44:21 [ben]
22:44:52 [ben]
resolved: collapse this issue into #396 and close
22:45:02 [ben]
22:45:08 [rcastaldo]
I've got to leave the call... bye everybody, hear you next week
22:45:25 [rcastaldo]
rcastaldo has left #wai-wcag
22:46:15 [Zakim]
22:47:55 [ben]
resolved: accept proposed resolutions
22:48:39 [ben]
22:50:05 [ben]
22:50:07 [ben]
gv: keep open
22:52:54 [Zakim]
22:52:55 [Zakim]
22:52:55 [Zakim]
22:52:56 [Zakim]
22:52:56 [Zakim]
22:52:57 [Zakim]
22:52:57 [Zakim]
22:53:06 [Zakim]
22:53:07 [ben]
rrsagent, bye
22:53:07 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item:
22:53:07 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: john to do some testing on time it takes to ineteract with dialog boxes [1]
22:53:07 [RRSAgent]
recorded in