19:20:52 RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag 19:20:52 is logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/02/10-wai-wcag-irc 19:21:01 Meeting: WCAG WG weekly telecon 19:21:31 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0390.html 19:22:35 ben has joined #wai-wcag 20:35:25 Zakim has joined #wai-wcag 20:35:38 agenda+ 2.4 L3 SC1 (Reading order) 20:35:56 agenda+ 2.4 L3 SC2 (Focus order) 20:35:58 20:36:11 agenda+ Brief Intro to Checklist Format 20:36:14 agenda? 20:37:23 zakim, agenda order is 3, 1, 2 20:37:23 ok, wendy 20:37:27 agenda? 20:37:51 agenda+ 2.4 L3 SC3 (Images have structure) 20:38:05 agenda+ 2.4 L3 SC4 (page titles) 20:38:18 agenda+ 2.4 L2 SC2 20:38:28 agenda+ 2.4 L2 SC1 (Table of contents) 20:38:38 agenda+ 2.4 L2 SC3 (Skipping repeated content) 20:38:50 agenda+ baseline 20:40:08 Regrets: Alan Chuter, Roberto Castaldo, WATANABE Takayuki, Sailesh Panchang 20:41:03 zakim, this will be wcag 20:41:03 ok, wendy; I see WAI_WCAG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 19 minutes 20:41:10 zakim, ping me in 17 minutes 20:41:10 ok, wendy 20:49:08 Yvette_Hoitink has joined #wai-wcag 20:49:14 Hi Bendy ;-) 20:52:21 just kidding, I saw both your names and remembered the slip one of us made in Dublin 20:52:26 WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started 20:52:33 +[Microsoft] 20:52:38 when you said you were used to being called Bindy cause your wife's name is Mindy, right? 20:52:47 yep 20:53:07 Somehow 'Remvette' or 'Yvco' doesn't really work as well ;-) 20:53:16 (my fiance is called Remco) 20:54:22 LucaMascaro has joined #wai-wcag 20:54:49 Hi Luca, are you new here? 20:56:51 Yes, i'm a newbye from the working group. I'm a IWA-HWG member :) 20:57:05 Michael has joined #wai-wcag 20:58:10 wendy, you asked to be pinged at this time 20:58:50 Ah, another one of Roberto Scanos recrutes? :-) 20:59:04 Yes :) 20:59:13 Are you from Italy too? 20:59:43 tecks has joined #wai-wcag 20:59:47 No, i'm from switzerland, but i speak italian and francais 20:59:58 Cool! I'm from the Netherlands 21:00:01 ChrisR has joined #wai-wcag 21:00:01 +??P0 21:00:10 Hello all...will call in in a bit. Is anyone on the phone yet? 21:00:15 I don't think we had a Schweitzer yet 21:00:32 Schweizer/Schweitzer? I don't remember 21:00:36 o well 21:00:54 I'm from tessin, in lugano 21:01:02 +Michael_Cooper 21:01:03 ben_ has joined #wai-wcag 21:01:18 +Alex_Li 21:01:21 That's a nice part of Switzerland, I was there once during a holiday 21:01:21 +[IPcaller] 21:01:22 +Loretta_Guarino_Reid 21:01:28 +Matt 21:01:33 David has joined #wai-wcag 21:01:38 MattSEA has joined #wai-wcag 21:01:52 +Wendy 21:02:01 +Yvette_Hoitink 21:02:05 zakim, who's on the phone? 21:02:05 On the phone I see [Microsoft], ??P0, Michael_Cooper, Alex_Li, [IPcaller], Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Matt, Wendy, Yvette_Hoitink 21:02:08 +??P7 21:02:12 Becky_Gibson has joined #wai-wcag 21:02:13 Yes, is a very nice region :) 21:02:15 zakim, ??P7 is Gregg_and_Ben 21:02:15 +Gregg_and_Ben; got it 21:02:24 joining call soon - finishing up another call 21:02:24 zakim, Microsoft is Mike 21:02:24 +Mike; got it 21:02:34 gregg has joined #wai-wcag 21:02:34 zakim, ??P0 is David 21:02:34 +David; got it 21:02:50 +??P9 21:02:51 zakim, IPcaller is Chris 21:02:52 +Chris; got it 21:02:57 +Bengt_Farre 21:02:58 zakim, ??P9 is Doyle 21:02:59 +Doyle; got it 21:03:26 zakim, who's on the phone? 21:03:26 On the phone I see Mike, David, Michael_Cooper, Alex_Li, Chris, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Matt, Wendy, Yvette_Hoitink, Gregg_and_Ben, Doyle, Bengt_Farre 21:04:01 zakim, who's making noise? 21:04:07 who is me? 21:04:10 +John_Slatin 21:04:15 Luca, did you dial in yet? 21:04:17 Yvette_Hoitink, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: David (5%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (46%), Mike (3%), Gregg_and_Ben (9%), Bengt_Farre (43%), Doyle (25%), 21:04:21 ... Wendy (3%) 21:04:24 +JasonWhite 21:04:32 -Bengt_Farre 21:05:23 +Luca_Mascaro 21:05:41 zakim, I am Luca_Mascaro 21:05:42 ok, LucaMascaro, I now associate you with Luca_Mascaro 21:06:37 zakim, take up item 1 21:06:37 agendum 1. "2.4 L3 SC1 (Reading order) " taken up [from wendy] 21:06:48 Zakim, mute me 21:06:48 Luca_Mascaro should now be muted 21:06:49 oops. 21:06:50 zakim, mute me 21:06:50 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 21:07:01 zakim, take up item 3 21:07:01 agendum 3. "Brief Intro to Checklist Format" taken up [from wendy] 21:07:08 scribe: wendy 21:07:15 starting with TTF summary 21:08:13 mc: discussed the question, "must you follow our techniques/tests to conform?" if that's teh case, then we'd have to provide techs/tests for variety of technologies and be able to address changes quickly and deal w/internaional landscape. 21:08:32 +Becky_Gibson 21:08:36 mc: therefore, difficult to do however if don't, people may take greater license than we'd intended. 21:08:46 mc: still working on requirements. starting to gel. 21:09:00 mc: requirements include checklists, general techs, test cases, techniques 21:09:07 mc: starting to speed up process of reviewing test cases. 21:09:18 mc: need to be able to approve test cases. 21:09:37 mc: a test case required for conformance (just for html at this time), means that content would have to follow test cases. 21:09:55 mc: decided that there are some test cases we feel are optional (not required for optional). a "holding bin" for now. 21:10:02 mc: some tests we've scrapped (went too far) 21:10:22 mc: checklists and test cases taking up majority of attention. techs need to proceed. lots of work to do. 21:10:25 +Avi 21:10:29 mc: assigning action items to people. 21:10:42 mc: working on ways to move quickly/make progress. 21:11:04 mc: at the f2f at tp will work on. output should be documents ready for review by csun f2f meetings and shortly after, publish as public drafts. 21:12:05 ack j 21:12:16 q+ 21:12:32 jw: 1. non of the techs can be required for conformance. they are not normative. 21:12:36 s/non/none 21:12:53 jw: in that sense, devs able to depart from techs as long as they meet the SC 21:13:19 jw: therefore, that aspect is addressed. however, how comprehensive do techs need to be? 21:13:39 jw: as far as checklist, completeing one should give strong assurance of conformance. 21:13:54 jw: however, may not be possible to provide checklists for every tech or combo of techs 21:14:08 jw: however, provide as much info as we can given our resources 21:14:23 mc: reflecting concerns of the group - 1. using techs and checklists to clarify guidelines. 21:14:31 mc: if we don't have them, will guidelines be clear enough. 21:14:47 mc: if we don't provide a checklist, author left to best interpretation, is there adequate assurance they following correctly. 21:14:55 q? 21:14:57 ack g 21:15:09 gv: goes back to question of checklists are normative or not. 21:15:19 rellero has joined #wai-wcag 21:15:29 gv: some feel that checklist should be normative b/c SC not clear enough. 21:15:43 gv: if there isn't a checklist, then ppl would make up their own. 21:16:23 gv: wrt new techs, don't want to create info for non-public specs 21:16:26 q+ 21:16:51 s/non-public/non-open, public 21:17:10 +??P13 21:17:18 zakim, ??P13 is rellero 21:17:18 +rellero; got it 21:17:21 q+ to discuss who does what work 21:17:25 zakim, mute me 21:17:25 rellero should now be muted 21:17:26 gv: that's how we got to point of having one checklist instead of multiple. 21:18:12 gv: think can put off issue for now. we have 2 types of checklist items those that require both author and user agent requirements (these should not change often). 21:18:23 gv: if author's use new rules, then user agents can't take advantage of. 21:18:54 gv: compatibility issues as well as affordance issues. 21:19:32 gv: before get too deeply into debate, let's put ideas on the table and capture them. return to later after have made more effort on checklists. 21:19:37 ack w 21:19:53 bengt has joined #wai-wcag 21:21:17 +??P14 21:21:33 zakim, ??P14 is Bengt 21:21:33 +Bengt; got it 21:21:54 wac: clarifies that we are not limited to w3c technologies, we are limited to technologies developed by consortia in an open process and available royalty free, etc. etc. reminds that we are working on client-side scripting b/c of ECMA. 21:21:57 ack j 21:22:13 q+ jason 21:22:15 ack john 21:22:20 ack mich 21:22:20 Michael_Cooper, you wanted to discuss who does what work 21:22:31 js: wants to encourage innovation. 21:23:09 mc: who does what work. clear that we need to provide clarity. however, we're taking on several parts at once and that could muddy things. 21:23:15 mc: we could decrease our workload and provide focus. 21:23:26 mc: we need to discuss what we might farm out. 21:24:01 q+ to say, "give others freedom to develop the checklists/support materials that include all techs" 21:24:04 ack alex 21:24:17 al: a # of techniques that say, "must" 21:24:31 al: that language decreases flexibility/innovation and future developments 21:24:56 q+ to say "some techniques are _a_ way but not the only way" 21:25:09 gv: checklists tend to be that way. 21:25:22 al: encourage, "this will work" and not say, "that will not work for sure" 21:25:29 al: it is not a repository of all techs on the web 21:25:37 ack jas 21:26:21 jw: if this wg were to contemplate normative checklists, would argue strongly for checklists being generated by 3rd parties. then have a test for valid checklists. 21:26:41 jw: uaag has something similar - how to use uaag in other specs 21:27:24 q- 21:27:44 jw: if checklists were created outside of the WG, create a reasonable verification regime. 21:28:00 ack yv 21:28:01 Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "some techniques are _a_ way but not the only way" 21:28:29 yh: some techniques are _a_ way but not the only way and not necessarily _the_ way 21:28:41 Q+ 21:28:53 ack gr 21:28:59 zakim, mute me 21:28:59 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 21:29:21 gv: need to separate compatibility from ~affordance 21:29:34 zakim, who's making noise? 21:29:48 wendy, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Alex_Li (8%), Gregg_and_Ben (99%) 21:29:54 zakim, mute alex 21:29:54 Alex_Li should now be muted 21:30:01 zakim, unmute alex 21:30:01 Alex_Li should no longer be muted 21:30:21 are other people hearing noise? a kind of beeping? 21:30:35 yes 21:30:46 yes 21:30:51 zakim, who's making noise? 21:31:05 wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: David (28%), Michael_Cooper (16%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (11%), Gregg_and_Ben (67%), John_Slatin (14%) 21:31:15 zakim, mute david 21:31:15 David should now be muted 21:31:37 zakim, unmute david 21:31:38 David should no longer be muted 21:31:52 gv: those checklist items where user agent has to do something w/what the author does - we need to be concrete about. 21:32:07 zakim, mute david 21:32:07 David should now be muted 21:32:23 david? are you using voice over ip? 21:32:28 zakim, unmute david 21:32:28 David should no longer be muted 21:32:28 nope 21:32:36 never mind - i muted you but still heard the noise. 21:32:38 I want 5% a the begining of call 21:32:40 ghost in the machine... 21:32:44 want=was 21:32:54 gv: did everyone have a chance to look at the prototype? 21:33:28 http://w3.org/WAI/GL/2005/02/checklistFeb2005/ConceptPage1.html 21:34:12 bc: tour - broken into 3 sections. 1 scoping query 2 questions about elements, types of categories (forms, non-text content) 21:34:23 bc: those related to applicability conditions that we're including in techniques. 21:34:42 gv: purpose for the 2 pages is to make the checklist shorter? 21:34:44 bc: right 21:34:53 bc: reduces the # of checklist items on page 3 21:35:20 bc: page 3 includes 20-some items which is not a complete set for the 6 level 1 criterion for guideline 1.1 - it's only listing those tests that are most complete. 21:35:23 bc: primarily idea for format 21:35:38 gv: questions or comments? 21:35:54 gv: since no questions, apparently it's perfect. ;) 21:36:17 ack john 21:36:39 js: yesterday, talked about the need to provide for interaction between automated tools and human evaluators. 21:36:55 js: some of these items likely to be tested by tools. author primarily by humans. 21:37:54 gv: what if someone partially fills out and wants to come back, perhaps fill it out then generate an earl statement. when come back, feed earl into it. 21:38:37 gv: could run an automated tool could do as much as it could, generate earl, show up as comment fields in the checklist. 21:38:43 q+ 21:39:19 gv: through more use, generate more complete earl statements 21:39:32 js: perhaps flip it around so that automated tool can incorporate this checklist and use it to spit out results 21:39:42 gv: use this as a reporting format 21:39:57 gv: then tools will help you fill this out 21:40:12 tool that performs evaluation and produces EARL statement: checker.atrc.utoronto.ca 21:40:20 js: turn this over to the ERT WG and write guidelines 21:40:23 ack we 21:40:50 wac: sounds like post-rec work. 21:43:15 gv: yes 21:43:24 -Gregg_and_Ben 21:43:25 wac: how expansive is checklist that feel we need to get through rec? 21:43:41 gv: should cover major w3c technologies 21:43:44 js: what are those? 21:44:02 +??P7 21:44:18 zakim, ??P7 is Gregg_and_Ben 21:44:18 +Gregg_and_Ben; got it 21:44:18 zakim, ??P7 is Gregg_and_ben 21:44:19 I already had ??P7 as Gregg_and_Ben, wendy 21:45:20 gv: html, css. question is also, what about movies? no checklist for any multimedia? in general, so not tech-specific. 21:45:26 js: presumably SMIL 21:45:32 zakim, who's making noise? 21:45:45 wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: David (8%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (19%), Gregg_and_Ben (93%), John_Slatin (3%) 21:46:39 js: are there ppl we can recruit who are not part of this group who can help us write checklists? 21:46:41 q+ 21:47:35 ack wendy 21:48:09 wac: hoping to coord w/european project. preliminary discussions have started. they are chartered to work on smil and svg. 21:48:35 gv: next step - get some checks that are not compatibility related. 21:48:45 (i.e., general techniques) 21:49:17 zakim, who's making noise? 21:49:37 wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Alex_Li (13%) 21:49:43 zakim, mute alex 21:49:43 Alex_Li should now be muted 21:49:54 zakim, who's on the phone? 21:49:54 On the phone I see Mike, David, Michael_Cooper (muted), Alex_Li (muted), Chris, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Matt, Wendy, Yvette_Hoitink (muted), Doyle, John_Slatin, JasonWhite, 21:49:57 ... Luca_Mascaro (muted), Becky_Gibson, Avi, rellero (muted), Bengt, Gregg_and_Ben 21:50:00 zakim, mute loretta 21:50:00 Loretta_Guarino_Reid should now be muted 21:50:24 zakim, unmute loretta 21:50:24 Loretta_Guarino_Reid should no longer be muted 21:50:31 zakim, mute loretta 21:50:31 Loretta_Guarino_Reid should now be muted 21:50:44 zakim, take up item 1 21:50:44 agendum 1. "2.4 L3 SC1 (Reading order) " taken up [from wendy] 21:51:02 I have a work issue to contend with and will have to sign off - sorry for my short stay!!! 21:51:14 js: these still need a lot of work. would like to ask if good enough to include in next WG. 21:51:22 js: don't feel will get much better until get suggestions/comments. 21:51:32 ciao doyle 21:52:20 -Doyle 21:52:22 js: there are no techniques for level 1 of 2.4. all we say at level 1 is a cross-reference to 1.2 21:52:23 s/1.2/1.3 21:52:47 js: these drafts written b4 most recent draft of req docs 21:53:03 gv: looking at the first one - "when arranged in order that effects meaning..." 21:53:17 gv: title "reading order" task "controlling reading order" 21:53:24 gv: what is the actual technique? 21:53:43 gv: list under "may be redcuced or avoided by..." 21:53:54 can someone else minute? 21:54:20 gv: techs tend to morph the meaning of the SC 21:55:14 gv: if more restrictive, have to be careful when map to checklist 21:56:40 js: ongoing concern is that it is diffcult to simulaneously staying general (w/out relying on html) and make the distinction what might be required vs good practice. 21:56:48 js: one goal is to get that feedback from the group. 21:56:52 js: many places where i don't know. 21:57:03 s/redcuced/reduced 21:57:16 js: need a way to distinguish between required vs good practice 21:57:56 gv: should we organize these by writing in the success criteria, and writing "advisory" below it. SC becomes the task. below it: the following are things that need to be done... 21:58:11 gv: then below that, "these are recommended..." 21:58:20 gv: required goes into checklist. recommended are advisory. 21:58:36 gv: when come into techniques get this is required, more info about why doing it, etc. 21:59:08 js: that might work. in discussion about including in general techniques testable statement (same or not as task) that could be the checklist item. 21:59:58 marked up a draft of something like that at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2005/02/gen1_1.html 22:00:05 js: these things written in november before that discussion 22:00:07 ack loretta 22:00:35 lgr: looking at 1st item in reading order. would any of these be required? 22:00:49 lgr: are these all advisory? 22:00:51 q+ 22:01:08 gv: when is it good advice vs when it is required? 22:01:24 q+ david 22:01:25 q+ 22:01:28 ack w 22:01:38 q+ 22:01:46 lgr: understand that format a problem, what about the content? 22:02:09 js: jw raised a question a while ago about reading order, should it even be a SC. could be handled by 1.3. 22:02:20 js: may be another instance of the bottom-up approach. 22:04:02 wac: if level 3 then it is optional for level 1. 22:04:10 wac: should clarify what level it is required for. 22:04:17 wac: are some people saying should not be required at any level? 22:04:28 ack w 22:04:47 ack david 22:05:25 dmd: req vs advisory problematic when dealing w/things that are not part of the document. people could theoretically not follow any techniques documents and conform. 22:05:39 js: and these are non-normative docs 22:05:58 gv: it is compeltely open whether the checklists will be normative or not. 22:06:40 q+ 22:07:00 q- 22:07:26 ben has joined #wai-wcag 22:07:43 ack loretta 22:07:54 lgr: my confusion goes back to yvette's comment. 22:08:11 use the word "necessary" instead of required - at least while working on this 22:08:27 lgr: (looking at using lists) if you are numbering things, can help with reading order. but there are other ways to do it. 22:09:15 wac: restates for clarification - concern that there are many ways to do something and fear that we are requiring only one way. 22:09:28 +Kerstin_Goldsmith 22:09:33 js: lgr is right. in this case, there are several techniques that could work in certain circumstances, so it is that kind of list. 22:09:44 js: it is clear that is not what people are envisioning. 22:10:23 js: to return to david's point, confusing required/optional point - my understanding of the status of the checklist (normative or not), but clear that the techs docs will be non-normative. 22:10:31 js: have to be careful to use words like required here. 22:10:33 ack j 22:10:56 js: we are providing non-normative info. "this will be required" in a tech doc is a non-normative statement. 22:11:11 js: this is an issue for how we use the term "required" 22:11:29 js: could say, "this is currently the only way we know how to do this." and may not be able to go any further. 22:11:35 gv: currently believe to be necessary. 22:12:06 -Kerstin_Goldsmith 22:12:13 +Kerstin_Goldsmith 22:13:26 wac: important for us to provide as much as we can about our intent so that people can interpret for their own situations. 22:14:01 q+ 22:14:23 ack wendy 22:14:45 wac: js, bc, and i are working on a prototype 22:14:59 js: should we hold off on these drafts until after we show the prototype? 22:15:16 gv: rather than having these floating around, is this replacing something? 22:15:19 js: emptiness 22:15:48 gv: put an editor's note that the form and format is being reconsidered. put into doc to collect them. 22:16:21 gv: anyone speak against? 22:16:28 gv: internal draft 22:16:41 no one disagrees 22:16:45 zakim, mute loretta 22:16:45 Loretta_Guarino_Reid should now be muted 22:16:53 bc: need to be cleaned up before next public draft 22:17:02 js, gv - agreed 22:17:14 gv: may pull out if don't have cleaned up. 22:17:21 -Kerstin_Goldsmith 22:17:38 +Kerstin_Goldsmith 22:18:02 zakim, close item 2 22:18:02 agendum 2 closed 22:18:03 I see 8 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 22:18:05 3. Brief Intro to Checklist Format [from wendy] 22:18:09 zakim, close item 3 22:18:09 agendum 3 closed 22:18:10 I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 22:18:11 1. 2.4 L3 SC1 (Reading order) [from wendy] 22:18:15 zakim, close item 1 22:18:15 agendum 1 closed 22:18:16 I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 22:18:17 4. 2.4 L3 SC3 (Images have structure) [from wendy] 22:18:20 zakim, close item 4 22:18:20 agendum 4 closed 22:18:22 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 22:18:24 5. 2.4 L3 SC4 (page titles) [from wendy] 22:18:27 zakim, close item 5 22:18:27 agendum 5 closed 22:18:28 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 22:18:30 6. 2.4 L2 SC2 [from wendy] 22:18:32 zakim, close item 6 22:18:32 agendum 6 closed 22:18:34 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 22:18:36 7. 2.4 L2 SC1 (Table of contents) [from wendy] 22:18:38 zakim, close item 7 22:18:38 agendum 7 closed 22:18:39