14 Jan 2005


See also: IRC log


Sailesh, Panchang
Judy Brewer
Libby Cohen



shawn will you send me the IRC log after the call? Thank you so much!

<shadi> done

<Justin> all set

<shawn> scribe: Libby Cohen

<shawn> scribenick: beach7

attending; libby cohen, chuck letourneau, blossom michaeloff, justin thorpe, carol smith, wayne dick, helle bjarno, henk snetsellar, pasquale, shadi, judy, shawn

CL: will be giving a presentation to Petroleum Alliance on business case and standards harmonization

JB: The topic is authoring tool accessibility guidelines. The Lexicon Task Force has been looking at the ATAG guidelines. These guidelines are in last call. We need to comment now.

HS: Because of the deadlines of the ATAG we started to elect the words that we wanted as part of Lexicon. We selected 13 entries and descriptions. I have 3 reactions. We should come to a consensus.
... Harvey pointed out a minor typo. Wayne also responded. He liked the definitions except the first one.

ATAG Glossary issues, from EOWG Lexicon Task Force

<shawn> *** TOPIC: ATAG Glossary issues, from EOWG Lexicon Task Force [taken up a few lines ago]

<shawn> Henk's e-mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2005JanMar/0018.html

HS: Regarding Wayne's description, I think that it is difficult for some users. I wonder about the environment.

WD: I wanted to replace accessibility problems with communication barriers. To define accessibility to as something free of accessibility barriers doesn't seem right. I agree with Henk's comment.

HS: communication problems or accessibility problems. I think that it is good to keep the term accessibility rather than communication problems.

LC: We tried to find a synonym for the term accessibility but I could not find one.

JB: Part of Wayne's concern is to beware of circular definitions. But, when we look at the ATAG definition, there is a link but it is defined as failure to meet conformance level.
... I am not bothered by circularity of definition here.

WD: I think that accessibility is definable independent of the guidelines. We are talking about access to information; this is a barrier to communication. Input or output medium that you can't use.

JB: There has been a lot discussion in the ATAG group, they feel strongly that accessibility, in general. They do not make a guarantee general there is some general reality. They are defining it in a bounded way.

HS: We need to keep in mind that this is not a general glossary. This is just for reading WAI documents.

WD: I understand the issue.

JB: Do others feel clear about this?

<shawn> Wayne's email (discussed in previous lines): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2005JanMar/0024.html

HS: I ask whether we can keep our descripton or not?

JB: In our proposal. Accessible web content is sufficiently free of accessibility problems to be usable by everyone regardless of disability or environment.

<shawn> LTF recommenndation: Accessible

<shawn> Accessible Web content is sufficiently free of accessibility problems to be usable by everyone regardless of

<shawn> disability or environment.

BM: The definition defines accessible web content, not accessible.

HS: We area defining the word accessible.

LC: The definition should be in context.

SLH: What about accessible authoring tools, user agents?
... In the ATAG glossary, it says accessible web content. OK if leaving as accessible web content.

<shawn> ACTION: change the term back from "accessible" to "accessible web content"

<shawn> Chuck's comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2005JanMar/0028.html

HS: Chuck's comments are in a message. I thought that attribute also changes behavior.

<shawn> ATAG 2.0 LC: Attribute

<shawn> An attribute, as used in the document, has the same sense as in SGML and XML [XML]. Some attributes are integral to the accessibility of content (e.g., the "alt", "title", and "longdesc" attributes in HTML).

CL: Attributes don't just serve to explain. Would it be better that it covers more than just identifying or explaining.

HS: Problem between being exact and clear. I don't have a problem with changing behavior.

<shawn> LTF suggestion:

<shawn> - Attribute

<shawn> Information that explains or identifies a tag or element in a markup language.

<shawn> Element types may have more than one attribute like size, shape, wight and color.

<shawn> Some attributes are integral to the accessibility of content (for example, the "alt",

<shawn> "title", and "longdesc" attributes in HTML)

BM: I had trouble with explains or identifies. It changes behavior.

CL: ALT tag explains or identifies. Attributes are anything inside the angle brackets of an element.

BM: It doesn't identify the tag. It identifies something else.

JB: The term attribute seems a basic one that crosses W3C. How is this defined in other W3C glossaries?
... This looks like it's getting further afield from ATAG glossary. Does this make sense?

HS: We cannot have a definition of attribute?

JB: I see the definitions as a cascade. The purpose is to contextualize it in the ATAG document. We're trying to come up with beginner's lexicon. The tendency is to creat stand alone definitions. We may change the meaning. Another part of the goal is to do it in plain language. The goals are contradictory.
... One of the places for this issue is selection of terms to go into beginnger's lexicon. Do we want to take basic technical terms or just web accessibility?

WD: Can we do both? Can we link to more formal defintions?

<shawn> definitions of attribute in other W3C documents: http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/All/?keywords=attribute

JB: Make sure that we're focusing on an essential difference. What did they call term attribute out?
... It's not differentiating or highlighting it is important.
... We should look for behavior, as Chuck mentioned.

LC: We selected the term for new users and individuals whose primary language may not be English.

JB: Encourage you to stay close to how it has been defined.

CL: modifying behavior goes beyond the other definitions.

HS: Chuck, your point helps to make the definition complete. There are several definitions that are difficult for beginners.
... We tried to have easy to read, general description of attribute.

CL: I withdraw my comment.

HBj: When I look at W3C glossary, it is similar to the one we have. They mentioned object instead of element type.

JB: Is this essentially faithful to the definitions that seem most normative? Is the proposed definition easier to understand than what is there?

JT: is this in the context of html?

WD: What about putting in: explains, identifies, modifies? To be something more focused.

HS: Accept change that Chuck proposes. Then, leave it as general as it is. The writers of other documents want to have more specific descriptions, this is possible. Lexicon for beginners should be basic.

JB: Are there 3 possible outcomes with list of defintions: present to ATAG working group; thank you, no, we are happy the one we have--feel free to use the one in the basic lexicon; don't use it--it's not accurate.
... With attribute, this is what we propose in beginner's lexicon but don't expect to replace in ATAG glossary.

HS: Explain that we are making lexicon for beginners. If they agree, they can use description in glossary.

JB: Do we take in Chuck's suggestion on behavior?

WD: Send the list forward and identify the 3 options.

JB: Adopt recommendations or use your own. We are using these. Tell us if we are off.

CL: use the word modifies
... explains, identifies, modifies

HS: We will make the change.

BM: If a person is totally new. Use Tag (element).

CS: Terms are used interchangeably but they are not the same.

<carol> Carol has to hang up for a little bit - hope to call back in.

<carol> will stay on IRC

JB: How can we wrap up?

HS: Should we keep tag or element or change?

CL: < > is a tag but element is created by a tag.

JB: Leave element.

HS: take out tag.

JT: are we trying to define presentation within an element? Size, shape, weight and color should be defined within a style sheet.

<shawn> *** comparison of ATAG 2.0 LC definitions & Lexicon Task Force definitions: http://www.w3.org/2005/01/14lexicon.html

JB: Take out the sentence.

WD: This is a simple definition but we could put in simple things to reference.

CL: ID, alt, something that modifies

JB: Encourage people to look for ways to simplify rather than adding.
... What if use EO call to give feedback on definitions that the Task Force has developed. When things get complicated, we can send back to Lexicon TF. I don't think that we can spend this long in WG meeting in each definition.

HS: This is ok. It is taking too much time. Some of Chuck's comments are very valuable. We can ask whether there are more comments. I will prepare proposal for Lexicon TF and they can comment on that.

CL: That is fine.

JB: If we do settle on EO on the document as a whole, we can send those along. Let's go through a few more and air comments rather than drilling down. Let's collect additional reactions.
... captions

HS: Chuck's description of captions is ok. It flows nicely.

AA: Chuck's description makes it more concise. same meaning.

HS: device independence. Chuck suggested to alter the first sentence. Is there a problem?

AA: Chuck's is slightly clearer.

HS: transcript. Is it precise or confusing? Should we emphasize that transcript of audio is not synchronized.

AA: I think of a transcript as a separate file. This may help in clarifying it.

CL: separate file

AA: separate file. They will not be synchronized.

HS: Also the same with a video?

JB: The definition in ATAG talks about collated text transcript. I want to go AT WG highlights. Looking for collated text transcript, I don't find it in the rest of their document. I don't know why they are pulling it out.

AA: They are saying it is a collation of ....

JB: Does this make sense. Where in their document do they use the term collated text transcript.

CL: If they don't describe it anywhere else, it shouldn't be in this definition. Maybe they should take it out.

JB: We should feel free to have a discussion about definition and about something that doesn't apply to current document. We maybe replicating the confusion. We are you adding subdefintion for term that doesn't appear in your document.
... This wraps up Chuck's comments on Henk's proposal. We should take a few minutes to reflect on rest of work of the TF.
... Conclusion on transcript definition?

<Harvey> I've just sent my comments on many more issues than we've discussed

HS: We can write to ATAG people about collated text transcript. I didn't have a problem with their definition.

<Harvey> about the ATAG glossary. I'm copying these as directed in their document feedback: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

AA: Aren't they describing what the script for the video would have been? What characters have to say, set, and so on. Material to be prepared before shoot video.

SLH: not functionally

JB: If we have a question about they are saying, we should be sending question.

<Andrew> whjat about: "Transcripts are equivalent alternatives for the sounds in an audio clip or an auditory track of a multimedia presentation. For a video, the transcript would be based on the 'script' for the video, including descriptions of the actions, body language, graphics, and scene changes.

<Andrew> "

<Harvey> In my prior comment, I lost mention of sending this to eo as well.

SLH: What they are trying to say is that there are 2 kinds of transcripts: audio, includes descriptions of this other stuff. They are defining two different types of transcripts. If the guidelines apply to one or both. Guideline apply to both. This could be made more clear--that there are 2 types of transcripts.

HS: We could propose single description of just transcript and ask ATAG why they gave second definition.

SLH: They should clarify why they give two types of transcripts.

JB: Can we go back to overall proposal--on Jan. 12. Provisional results of the TF. Are there comments on words we didn't discuss.
... audio descriptions any comments?
... gone!
... authoring tool

JT: can insert software and service?

<Justin> ATAG 2.0 definition of authoring tool - http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#intro-def-au

HS: no reason to leave it out.

JB: second part of your definition is useful because it is briefer. Is theirs comprehensive and simple enough?

HS: produce is create and modify in one word. Tried to come up with simple description.

JB: Take Justin
... Take Justin's suggestion: software or service
... conversion

no comments

HS: or can place first word web in brackets

WD: rather than using web format just use document

CL: reasonable

JT: data

WD: either one

CL: data is too...

AA: images in TIF and other files

JT: blogger. take data in my head

JB: What is difference between Lexicon document and ATAG proposal

LC: want to provide definitions for beginners

JB: Were there others discussed where there was no change.

HS: No

JB: I agree, as written, there is a logical problem. It is not sufficiently comprehensive. What about content--leave off web?
... equivalent alternative
... gone!
... Markup language
... This is tough to write simply.

HS: It's the same as the original. I just took out double words within brackets.

AA: circular
... not define markup

JB: This is excruciatly hard to write simply.
... repairing accessibility
... gone!
... techniques
... user agent
... Are these changes or just selections

HS: user agent is a change. took WCAG definition instead of ATAG.

JB: Thank you Lexicon TF. Thanks to everyone.

LC: Thank Henk. He is a wonderful leader of the group.

JB: What is the wrap up? Will there be something at the beginning of the week?

HS: I can make new proposal quickly. But, to have comments before the ATAG by 18th. Should I make proposal to Lexicon TF and make recommendation to EO or directly to ATAG.

JB: If you can meet in TF, just wrap up comments and send with EO comments. Henk, you and I can coordinate on that.
... It will need a clear introduction.
... general comments on the whole document. Yesterday, I sent a rough draft. There were just four from last week. Do people agree with how I capture the comments. We have received some from the group. Pasquale and Wayne sent comments.
... Has anyone prepared comments and not sent them?

HB: I just sent comments on glossary terms. I worked on earlier draft. So, I will write more. I sent comments directly.

JB: Wayne and Pasquale, were any of your comments on issues we discussed last time?

WD: The introduction. I commented quite a bit.

JB: We need more depth.

PP: I commented on general point of view. I find in the last paragraph, there are some spelling errors. I think we can focus on .....We may find some erros.

JB: We look at comments from summary. Look first at the draft summary that I sent and the first item is build more plain language...

CC: I agree. Is it worth referencing paragraph about ATAG in WCAG?
... The first paragraph under authoring tools in WCAG 2.0. The header says authoring tools.

HS: The introduction is not an introduction, it is a summary. It does not include the technical document. It's not true what they are writing.
... This does not introduce the subject.

LC: Use the term executive summary?

AA: not an executive summary.

JB: orientation

CC: The paragraph I talk about was deeper in

JB: not mention here
... That one is not ready to send.
... comment 2. check for understanding...
... gone!

SLH: We're not giving them help to fix it.

JB: We're not being specific. Start thinking about folks who could develop these comments more.
... comment 3
... skip this comment now
... comment 4 This is vague. We could add details. None of our comments pass muster. We will have to ask for additional time to comment. Let's go to Wayne's comment Jan. 12

WD: For the introduction, want to know whether it's to them or not.

JB: Any feedback?

WD: To me, it seemed like they didn't get it clear.

JB: any disagreements? 1.1. scope This is where they didn't get it right.
... People agree?
... Any disagreement? I take as agreement unless comments

WD: This group seems primary

AA: I agree.

JB: Any disagreements with 2nd point under scope?
... relationship with other guidelines and standards.

HB: I am fearful about referencing ISO document. We could be surprised if that shows up as one of our primary references.

AA: About interfaces?

HB: Has anyone read it?

SLH: I have read it and they put a lot of consideration with referencing. It's not a free standard. Look through minutes and discussion of the issue. See if there's left over concern.

JB: They have clearly asked for feedback on that topic. Don't want to reply if haven't read the whole history. Could say: since an external reference might put claims..... Does not make sense to send form EO because we haven't had in depth discussion. It is more out of scope for EO.
... 1.4. We agreed that there was a problem with this section. What about Wayne's suggestions?

PP: I agree with Wayne.

JB: Any disagree?
... I want to thank Wayne for his specificity. Charmane, does this help and what about the reference you made about ATAG and WCAG?

CC: This might help.

WD: I think that this might help.

JB: Pasquale, I'm sorry that we won't get to your comments today. We will have to get a short extension. Process comments online. Can we look at Pasquale's comments online and have brief discussion at next week's meeting?
... We have gotten one third of Wayne's comments and haven't addressed Pasquale's comments. Can people work this over on the list. Just send it I agree or reflection on where might not agree? Would people be willing to do that/

WD: Pasquale picked up where I ran out of gas.

HBj: I won't be sending comments.

SLH: We can send individual comments instead of group comments.

JB: I will send a thread on this and see if we can have discussion. I will go through them carefully. May propose send individually or send comments from the group. Brief comments at next week's meeting.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: change the term back from "accessible" to "accessible
... web content"
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.106 (CVS log)
$Date: 2005/01/14 15:32:08 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.106  of Date: 2005/01/11 04:10:53  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Churck/Chuck/
Found Scribe: Libby Cohen
Found ScribeNick: beach7
Scribes: Libby Cohen
ScribeNicks: beach7

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: AA Andrew BM Bingham Blossom_Michaeloff CC CL CS Carol_Smith Chuck_Letourneau HB HBj HS Harvey Helle Helle_Bjarno Henk JB JT Judy Justiin Justin LC Libby P1 P4 P6 P8 PP Pasquale_Popolizio SLH Shadi Shawn Sylvie_Duchateau WD Wayne beach7 carol pasquale scribenick
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
<dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
<dbooth> Present+ amy

Regrets: Sailesh Panchang
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2005JanMar/0020.html
Got date from IRC log name: 14 Jan 2005
People with action items: change

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]