14:58:05 RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag 15:00:10 Becky has joined #wai-wcag 15:00:32 WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has now started 15:00:38 +Becky_Gibson 15:00:52 +Don_Evans 15:00:55 -Becky_Gibson 15:00:56 +Becky_Gibson 15:01:29 bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag 15:01:36 +??P3 15:01:56 +Tim_Boland 15:02:34 +??P5 15:02:40 zakim, ??P5 is Ben 15:02:40 +Ben; got it 15:02:41 +??P2 15:02:51 zakim, I am Ben 15:02:51 ok, ben, I now associate you with Ben 15:03:54 +??P6 15:04:07 +Wendy 15:04:19 ken has joined #wai-wcag 15:04:37 wendy has joined #wai-wcag 15:04:45 RRSAgent, make long world 15:04:45 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make long world', wendy. Try /msg RRSAgent help 15:04:54 +Michael_Cooper 15:05:02 RRSAgent, make log world 15:05:05 zakim, I am Michael_Cooper 15:05:05 ok, Michael, I now associate you with Michael_Cooper 15:05:31 +Ken_Kipnes 15:06:28 zakim, ??P3 may be David 15:06:28 +David?; got it 15:06:33 zakim, ??P2 may be Alistair 15:06:33 +Alistair?; got it 15:06:39 zakim, ??P6 may be Chris 15:06:39 +Chris?; got it 15:06:44 +??P9 15:06:54 DonFEvans has joined #wai-wcag 15:07:00 zakim, ??P9 is Lisa_Seeman 15:07:00 +Lisa_Seeman; got it 15:07:01 zakim, ??P9 is Lisa_Seeman 15:07:01 I already had ??P9 as Lisa_Seeman, wendy 15:07:19 AliG has joined #wai-wcag 15:07:51 agenda: review techs drafts 15:08:05 review test files and add bugzilla entries 15:09:14 script techs - big issue is impact of baseline discussion 15:09:46 added some baseline info at beginning but waiting for baseline editorial note (which arrived last night) 15:09:56 +??P11 15:10:08 zakim, ??P11 is Alex_Li 15:10:08 +Alex_Li; got it 15:10:45 still some todos - 2.1 javascript uris - has an ed note that still being discussed in WG 15:10:50 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/07/WD-plan.html#Client-side 15:11:13 link to javascript todos 15:11:33 With this in mind, it is important to remember that certain common scripting practices are inaccessible, or less accessible than others. For example, UAAG 1.0 specifies programmatic access to the Document Object Model (DOM), including notification of updates. Therefore, the Javascript document.write() method would not be any more accessible, since it doesn't interact with the DOM; the... 15:11:34 WCAG 2.0 depends on the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [UAAG10] to determine the standard for browsers and media players in terms of their direct accessibility and the formats that they support. Since UAAG 1.0 provides guidance on browser integration of scripting languages, we can ensure that script can be built in a manner that is accessible using conforming browsers. 15:11:36 ...createElement method, and other DOM-related elements, are a more accessible solution. 15:13:40 wc Jim lay reviewing JS, Gez Lemon reviewing CSS, Loretta G -reviewing HTML for typos and to make sure links work 15:14:00 bc to post uri for baseline editorial notes 15:14:03 baseline ednote - http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20041116/#baseline-note 15:15:00 ls against creating new content via script; what happens to xpaths when add a new element? 15:15:37 wc tech actually says to avoid document.write 15:16:21 ls but example shows modifying the DOM tree - will this mess up any serverside transformations or technology cuz they don't know about those client side changes 15:17:22 ls messes up checkers that test for simple language 15:18:05 wc suggest we add an editorial comment for now because doesn't think we can ban this technique 15:18:37 -Lisa_Seeman 15:18:41 ls rdf file is going to try and follow xpath but won't work if xpath is changed 15:19:08 mc will add ed note and bugzilla entry - will that be ok for now? 15:19:15 +??P9 15:19:46 zakim, ??P9 is Lisa_Seeman 15:19:46 +Lisa_Seeman; got it 15:19:48 David has joined #wai-wcag 15:20:17 test am I in the Martix 15:20:17 ls concerned that xpointers will be affected by this 15:20:38 wc added ed note 15:21:02 added ednote: Two issues have been raised with this example what happens to XSL on server-side and how does this effect XPointers (and RDF-based accessibility). 15:21:18 mc any other script techs issues? 15:21:39 silence - implies no issues 15:23:34 group is reviewing baseline ed note 15:24:31 wc - thought the example was going to be changed from toggling scripts on an off 15:24:45 bc have gotten mixed feedback so was going to leave it 15:25:29 wc do people feel this addresses the issues (esp those discussed at Face 2 Face)? 15:25:51 ag thinks it is good 15:25:54 mc looks good 15:26:11 wc interested in getting feedback to can build off of this for intro in scripting techs 15:26:34 wc talk about implications and how it relates to scripts 15:26:37 alternative example: For example, WCAG 2.0 would assume that user agents and assistive technologies can effectively interact with scripted content. 15:27:26 +John_Slatin 15:27:54 bg prefers most recent example 15:28:11 bc UUAG does specifically refer to toggling 15:28:43 wc concerned that this ex. keeps us in the WCAG 1.0 mind frame rather than moving forward 15:29:44 wc want to make it clear why we are pub. scripting now even tho it isn't complete but want to show we are going to include 15:30:00 in long term - more than just css and html 15:30:36 mc we are good on scripting techs and this baseline note 15:30:52 mc let's look at css 15:30:57 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/07/WD-plan.html#css-specific 15:31:25 wc closed some issues and postponed some (see link above) 15:32:15 wc issue #1200 what does user mean about terminating properties? 15:32:48 mc suspect all properties must end with semicolon 15:32:59 wc is that really an compatibility issue? 15:33:08 bc might have to go back as far as IE 3 15:33:44 wc was action item to provide links back to css spec for all techs; would like to make this a low priority 15:33:52 group agrees we can live without cross link 15:34:12 wc some don't link back to GL - would like that lo priority, too 15:34:24 mc is this because they don't map or we just haven't done it 15:34:27 wc a bit of both 15:34:57 mc might be useful to put in an ed note mentioning that some are hard to map 15:35:24 wc is there someone on the call that could review the doc to find these mappings? 15:35:39 dm volunteers (YEAH) 15:36:12 action: look at techs that don't map and propose mapping or indicate no mapping 15:37:32 action 1 = David M to look at css techs and find techs that don't map to GL; propose mapping or indicate no mapping 15:37:47 wc some techs have screen shots 15:38:19 because of DTD the desc of images appear before the images themselves 15:38:41 wc see absolute positioning tech in doc 15:38:44 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-CSS-TECHS-20041116/#absolute-positioning 15:39:54 jc title seems odd - if I was looking to tech about absolute positioning wouldn't look under graceful degradation 15:40:40 wc tech is about when structure markup is not used and abs pos is used - if css turned off you get junk 15:41:12 js suggests, "absolute positioning based on structural markup" 15:41:40 wc a bit funky because have description, code, then image - is that a problem? 15:41:53 js would this be a problem for screen magnifiers? 15:42:16 js probably not an issue for this draft - just watch for feedback 15:42:30 al do we need to alert the reader? 15:42:49 bc can we title it with perhaps "screen shots" before the images 15:43:04 bc but can live with it for this draft, concurred by mc and js 15:43:42 mc closing css techs 15:43:57 bc no major changes to general techs 15:44:25 js 2.4 changes won't get in? 15:44:32 bc have they been sent to list? 15:44:45 js no, didn't think we sent techs to the list 15:45:16 mc generally do want to post to list since this is a public draft we don't want to bend that rule 15:45:30 mc close gen techs move on to HTML 15:45:46 mc Wendy has been doing most of work on HTML 15:45:50 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/07/WD-plan.html#HTML 15:46:43 wc at last weeks meeting decided to create an appendix to include wcag 1.0 that we don't want to continue recommending 15:47:06 wc should layout tables be moved to appendix? left it in techs doc but with an ed note 15:47:30 wc did move techs that had an ed note stating these were specifically from wcag 1.0 15:47:37 wc so moved about 5 techs 15:49:01 dm tech says layout tables cause access. problems described below - is it the whole section? 15:49:11 wc where is this? 15:49:22 dm 8.0 15:50:02 dm does "below" refer to all subsections of section 8? 15:50:37 mc yes, does apply to whole section 15:51:02 dm suggest clarification 15:51:35 dm key access. groups are still designing with layout tables 15:51:49 mc needs future discussion but decided to leave layout tables in main body 15:52:19 bc repair techs are to deal with user agent issues and layout tables don't really fall in that category since most UAs deal with them 15:53:40 ag will the priority for layout tables be at the same level as validating the code? 15:54:07 ag if code validation is a P2 and layout tables is a P3 there wouldn't be this conflict 15:54:44 ag in wcag 1.0 there are 2 chkpoints : 1 about validating code and another about layout tables - both are at same priority 15:55:07 ag which is a conflict becuz if you validate the code you shouldn't be using layout tables 15:55:47 ag all layout table techs are valid until the code is validated 15:56:02 wc what do we need to do in this draft to address this issue? 15:56:52 ag using tables for layout is not using markup according to spec 15:57:11 ag issue relates to guidelines, not baseline 15:57:32 mc do we need an additional ed note? 15:58:34 wc propose ed note after description para that tables for layout are not part of HTML spec 15:59:01 mc provide a cross ref to tech about doctype 15:59:10 mc that speaks to the validation issus 15:59:44 ls proposes an ed note to raise issue of using tags creatively 16:00:10 ls for example using abbr tag with a title to describe an emoticon 16:00:34 mc section 5 speaks about a number of instances of tags that are misused 16:00:35 -Tim_Boland 16:01:25 ls refering to example that talks about ascii art and smiley face 16:01:33 ag should use span rather than abbr in that example 16:01:42 mc can we just change the example? 16:01:56 mc and thus not require an ed note? 16:02:22 mc we can change this example and then Lisa can review public draft for similar issues and submit 16:02:41 mc any objections to changing that example from abbr to span? 16:02:51 no objections from group 16:03:24 ag no tech that covers the page should be usable when scripts are disabled 16:03:46 mc not sure if that falls into JS techs and is affected by baseline issue 16:04:22 ag we don't say insure that pages are usable when images are disabled 16:04:41 mc this is implied by requiring alt text but maybe we should be more blunt 16:04:44 -Alex_Li 16:04:48 js maybe this is a general tech 16:05:11 ag make sure every tech can work in isolation by itself; for example if JS is disabled the HTML should still be usable 16:05:44 mc this seems contrary to current attitude we have taken about baseline 16:06:02 js this is part of ongoing disc. of baseline and the implications 16:06:34 mc is there something we need to do in this draft or is this issue part of the ongoing discuss. of baseline 16:07:11 wc Alistair has many good comments - perhaps best way to address is to submit commits so we can create issues 16:08:42 mc Alistair will provide public feedback based on work he has done preparing his documents 16:09:07 mc will put review of Alistair's docs on a futuer meeting agenda 16:09:33 mc review of techs docs completed 16:09:47 mc so they can be published as public drafts 16:10:56 mc need to be strict on agenda when trying to get drafts out the door; don't mean to shut anyone down; just make sure we get the issues recorded to re visit in future 16:11:12 5 minute break 16:11:14 initial tests: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0549.html 16:11:23 -John_Slatin 16:11:24 -David? 16:15:34 +??P3 16:15:48 zakim, ??P3 is David_MacDonald 16:15:48 +David_MacDonald; got it 16:17:14 mc disussed list of tests posted to list on 9/12/04 16:17:37 mc discuss test - if there are issues will create bugzilla entry rather than discussing today 16:18:15 cr first test: img elem must have an alt attrib 16:19:03 cr any disagreements? 16:19:38 q+ 16:19:46 cr no disagreements test accepted 16:19:48 +John_Slatin 16:20:22 cr decorative images should have empty alt text and important images should not have empty alt text 16:20:25 ag is that null? 16:20:37 cr could be whitespace 16:20:45 ag what is the reason for using space? 16:20:54 cr could be empty or space? 16:21:17 ag can we just say null 16:21:22 cr meaning ""? 16:21:48 ack ben 16:21:50 mc sounds like a bugzilla entry 16:21:58 bc want to review what we are agreeing on 16:22:22 cr two steps: accepting a test then deciding what level 16:22:42 bc need to clarify what we are accepting/reject 16:22:51 js propose accept and reject 16:23:03 js then if accept - required or optional 16:23:38 cr idea of optional is new; assumed that all were required 16:24:04 bc example alt text must be short - would not want to accept that as required 16:24:45 cr if alt text is over a certain lenght - you must look at it and determine that it is as short as possible 16:25:09 ag length issues are difficult with some European languages 16:25:25 cr tests are English specific and will need to be modified for other lang. 16:25:45 cr I think we have agreed that alt text should be short 16:25:57 mc yes have agreed but can't agree on what is short 16:26:05 cr can we agree that there should be a test for short? 16:26:30 ag describe in single sentence 16:26:46 js but sentence is not always most appropriate structure - don't always want a complete sentence 16:27:29 ls suggest - should not be more than 10 word greater than the text in the image 16:27:35 js but not all languages count words 16:27:58 mc suggest creating a bugzilla entry 16:28:21 ls doesn't agree that it should be short in all cases - must be long enough to capture the description 16:28:27 dm isn't that long desc? 16:29:23 mc getting back to ben's issue on priorities - how can we address that 16:30:00 js propose just accept or reject 16:30:12 cr each test maps to a SC 16:30:44 ag all of the tests should support a test; running the test should tell you that the task has been completed or not 16:31:02 cr purpose of test suite is to test that your content conforms to the GLs 16:31:36 js each task shous you how to comply 16:31:59 ag test tells you if you have implemented the techs properly and thus pass 16:32:43 ag write more solid conditional statemeents next to a task 16:33:38 ag problem where writing techs and tests at the same time 16:33:50 ag need to break down tasks into testable statements 16:34:03 ag before go into depth of writing tests 16:34:53 bg but isn't that what Chris has done 16:34:58 cr yes that is the intent 16:35:24 ag but there are still gaps 16:36:05 ac ability to link tests back to tasks is a bit flaky there are still gaps (expected since this is a work in progress) 16:36:37 ac some tests require running other tests first 16:36:45 cr yes some tests have pre-requisites 16:37:07 ag some tests seem to be written before the task is finalize - this can be a problem 16:38:14 ag bottom up approach of writing tests before task are completed has issues - if change task will have to go back an update test 16:38:28 mc this is an approach issue rather than a test suite one 16:38:56 mc this relates back to disc. at F2F about relating the techs to a specific GL 16:39:10 mc and that we may need to re-evalute 16:39:34 mc test files are more concrete - they hold us to our word 16:40:17 wc HTML tech does say short text alternatives 16:40:26 wc there is no def. of shor there 16:40:47 wc if look back at GL it doesn't talk about length but talks about the properties of the alt text 16:41:20 js gen. techs does try to address the issue of what is approp. for alt text vs long desc. 16:42:02 wc make sure test files not only reflect HTML but also reflects general techs 16:43:08 wc looking at test files from testers point of view will help us to clarify the GL and tasks 16:43:45 ag suggest stopping at the higher level tests rather than drilling into details 16:44:00 ag test for presence of alt text - defer until later the nuances of alt text 16:44:27 wc current tests helps to clarify the transition for WCAG 1 to 2 16:44:52 cr we know in the real world that short alt text is better dealt with by assistive techs 16:45:05 cr if GL don't deal with that then are we missing something? 16:45:28 js this alt text length issuescame up at July F2F 16:46:12 kk Oracle's standard is based on internationalization 16:46:31 kk checkers that are out there now do check for the length of alt text and give a warning 16:46:56 kk so length has been determined as something that is usefule and imp. (at least by checker manufacturers) 16:47:40 mc has entered bugs what is short, is "short" appropriate in the technique; 16:48:00 wc need to look at relationship between gen. and HTML techs 16:48:31 wc title of tech is "short text alternatives" but tech doesn't talk at all about short 16:48:50 wc assumed reliance on gen. techs but that reliance isn't called out 16:49:42 -Lisa_Seeman 16:50:29 cr test suite is really basic access. stuff that we should lock down 16:50:59 cr we should be able to provide clear guidance on many of these things - how to mark up my form, how to describe my images 16:51:34 wc can we leave test in and add an ed note? this is why we put out the working drafts - so we can get feedback 16:52:01 wc ultimately we are dev. for community so lets ask community what they think 16:52:20 cr we really need to start getting out clear msg about what to do to make site accessible 16:52:51 wc we are providing LOTS of info we just need to clearly link the info together 16:53:19 js trying to have at least one gen. tech for each SC in GL 16:53:34 bc we should think about writing a req. doc for test suites 16:53:53 wc have to update requirements docs before going to candidate rec. 16:54:14 wc currnt req. docs are out of date 16:54:51 mc should checklist/test be a separate req. doc 16:55:04 wc (and others ) agree it should be integrated in existing docs 16:56:28 wc thinking abt plan for next couple of months 16:56:44 wc publish docs and next week put out req. for review 16:57:02 wc take Dec to work on requirements 16:57:10 wc publish next drafts in Jan 16:57:28 mc propose skipping next Wed meeting? 16:57:46 wc test suite should be included in next set of drafts 16:58:07 wc next week brainstorm 16:59:32 bc need to get agreement what we want to rec. at tech level 16:59:48 bc before we move forward with test suite discussion 17:00:33 bc need to dig deeper into what tech specific tasks are actually recommending 17:00:59 js reviewing test files have helped us get to this level of detail 17:01:31 mc next week will talk about test suites in more generic way 17:01:56 wc assign people to look at existing requirements documents and provide feedback and suggestions 17:02:19 http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-req/ 17:02:24 http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-tech-req/ 17:03:02 action group to review requirements docs before next week's meeting 17:03:16 action: group to review requirements docs before next week's meeting 17:03:29 -Chris? 17:03:31 -Ben 17:03:33 -Wendy 17:03:37 -John_Slatin 17:03:39 -Michael_Cooper 17:03:43 -Becky_Gibson 17:03:45 -Alistair? 17:03:47 -Don_Evans 17:03:49 -Ken_Kipnes 17:03:53 -David_MacDonald 17:03:55 WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has ended 17:03:57 Attendees were Becky_Gibson, Don_Evans, Tim_Boland, Ben, Wendy, Michael_Cooper, Ken_Kipnes, David?, Alistair?, Chris?, Lisa_Seeman, Alex_Li, John_Slatin, David_MacDonald 17:04:00 AliG has left #wai-wcag 17:04:11 rrsagent, bye 17:04:11 I see 2 open action items: 17:04:11 ACTION: David M to look at css techs and find techs that don't map to GL; propose mapping or indicate no mapping [1] 17:04:11 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/11/17-wai-wcag-irc#T15-36-12 17:04:11 ACTION: group to review requirements docs before next week's meeting [2] 17:04:11 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/11/17-wai-wcag-irc#T17-03-16