09:56:03 bengtf has joined #wai-wcag 09:56:15 bengtf has left #wai-wcag 11:17:26 Zakim has left #wai-wcag 13:30:07 Michael has joined #wai-wcag 13:30:18 rrsagent, bye 13:30:18 I see 13 open action items: 13:30:18 ACTION: mc add defn of positive test case [1] 13:30:18 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T14-32-28 13:30:18 ACTION: mc update references to "additional ideas" [2] 13:30:18 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T14-33-10 13:30:18 ACTION: mc add applicability conditions to req [3] 13:30:18 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T14-34-47 13:30:18 ACTION: wac and mc create change log for reqs document [4] 13:30:18 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T14-35-33 13:30:18 ACTION: mc to use the same definition in requirements document [5] 13:30:18 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T14-43-56 13:30:18 ACTION: mc move testability language from wcag 2.0 into requirements doc ("The Working Group believes that all success criteria should be testable. Tests can be done by computer programs or by people who understand these guidelines. Tests done by people who understand the guidelines should get the same results testing the same content for the same success criteria." [6] 13:30:18 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T14-43-57 13:30:18 ACTION: jenae compare definitions from reqs doc with QA glossary [7] 13:30:18 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T14-44-42 13:30:18 ACTION: wac proposal about mapping techniques to success criteria or guideline ok [8] 13:30:18 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T15-03-08 13:30:18 ACTION: mc and wac incorporate/link to scenarios/personas (that eowg evolved from tom's earlier work) [9] 13:30:18 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T16-31-24 13:30:18 ACTION: mc add the importance of linking from wcag 2.0 techniques to wcag 1.0 checkpoints [10] 13:30:18 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T16-52-22 13:30:18 ACTION: wac write proposal for how css techniques could be written with "macro-level" tasks and how might be incorporated into html techniques. think about how map from wcag 1.0 checkpoints to wcag 2.0 techniques. includes how to link to tests (many of which are html) and back to general techniques. [11] 13:30:18 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T16-53-19 13:30:18 ACTION: mc delete first two sentences of UA support documentation requirement [12] 13:30:18 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T17-05-33 13:30:18 ACTION: mc delete the untestable techniques / additional ideas stuff [13] 13:30:18 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-irc#T17-14-13 13:31:38 RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag 13:31:38 logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/03/01-wai-wcag-irc 13:31:43 rrsagent, make log world 13:32:33 joeclark has joined #wai-wcag 13:33:14 ben has joined #wai-wcag 13:49:46 [tap tap tap] 13:57:18 Andi has joined #wai-wcag 13:57:47 scribe: Andi 14:01:14 mc: 3 breakout groups - UAAG impact analysis, work plan to resolve baseline, long term work plan 14:02:23 mc: can work plan to resolve baseline procees without completion of UAAG impact analysis? 14:04:48 attending: Alex Li, Paul Thorpe (from binary characterization WG), Alistair Garrison, David McDonald, Andi Snow-Weaver, Jenae Andershonis, Michael Cooper, Carlos Iglesias,Joe Clark, John Slatin, Ben Caldwell, Katie Haritos-Shea, Wendy Chisholm 14:05:03 wendy has joined #wai-wcag 14:07:10 mc: Combine UAAG impact analysis and work plan to resolve baseline groups 14:07:32 mc: Ben, Joe, Alex, Andi 14:07:47 Wendy, Michael, Jenae on long term planning 14:08:19 David on UAAG impact analysis 14:08:30 Alistair - long term planning 14:08:49 Katie on UAAG impact analysis 14:09:45 break into groups for 1 hour until 10:10 14:15:45 BREAKING! 14:50:25 sh1mmer has joined #wai-wcag 15:08:28 UAAG evaluations: 15:08:29 http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/impl-pr2/ 15:32:16 Zakim has left #wai-wcag 15:38:17 Zakim has joined #wai-wcag 15:39:59 scribe: Michael 15:40:07 topic: Planning subgroup 15:40:20 ken has joined #wai-wcag 15:40:24 wc: looked at requirements to pass through the stages to get to Rec 15:40:51 Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag 15:40:51 deliverables, tasks to complete deliverables, owners for tasks, Gantt chart of all this 15:41:00 we have more to do to make the plan 15:42:01 js: consider availabilities of the people with tasks so we have a realistic timeline 15:42:18 even if timeline longer than we want we can get things done 15:43:19 wc: no dates for tasks set, but looked at minimum timeframes 15:43:27 mc's intuition 1.5 years to get to PR 15:43:43 set of things we must do, in a particular order 15:43:55 need a clear set of deliverables and divide into tasks 15:44:51 js: this is the biggest project involved in - geographic, time, organizations - very complicated, keep this in mind 15:45:14 feeling way through it; we need to help each other stay on task 15:46:11 mc: have to take into account the work of the larger group 15:47:43 wc: need to know each task we have to do to clear rec. Don't know the time will take on each task yet. 15:48:46 going forward: we need to finish the project plan 15:48:57 could have people look at deliverables and figure out the tasks for each 15:49:05 have people look at issues and figure out tasks needed to close 15:49:27 assign owners to each deliverable 15:49:33 create a Gantt chart 15:50:03 we have a lot of work assigned to people but it's not getting done 15:50:39 js: propose adding a timeline / milestone update to the Thursday call agenda each week 15:51:27 al: need to set big picture timeline first 15:52:01 determine major deliverables without timeline, break down into tasks, then assign timeline 15:52:13 finally calculate final deliverable 15:54:37 topic: UAAG impact analysis and baseline planning 15:55:27 bc: discussed conditional content issue, take to UAAG as recommendation for change 15:56:27 discuss other technologies e.g., script, MathML, SVG, issue is what does WCAG say about using technology vs. switching to fallbacks 15:56:55 tc: what should be in WCAG and what should be in UAAG 15:58:11 will browser manufacturers comply with UAAG and should we provide fallback techniques 15:58:37 al: WCAG should assume standards met, but techniques reflect reality that ATAG & UAAG not met 15:59:32 the changing of technologies otherwise ties us up in keeping track 16:00:34 we have to accept that there are a variety of standards from various sources, and various levels of proper implementation 16:00:57 khs: UAAG should require UA to support W3C technology 16:02:04 doesn't mean don't support other technologies also, but should at a minimum support W3C 16:02:35 bc: UAAG unclear about what to do when a feature is not supported, this issue affects us 16:02:58 khs: W3C tech will have gone through PF 16:04:25 to clarify, if a technology for a feature exists, the UA should support the W3C version, but can also support other versions 16:06:09 wc: not sure we can impose this requirement, nor does it necessarily guarantee accessible 16:06:15 q+ 16:06:59 khs: part of supporting multiple accessible formats 16:07:35 q+ to say, "uaag has content labels so that you can claim what you do conform to" 16:08:01 tc: technologies used should be accessibility-capable a la UAAG, WCAG 16:09:33 q- 16:10:42 to judge technology accessible, you need to be designed to work with UAAG compliant UA, and a UAAG compliant UA itself 16:10:48 ack joe 16:11:21 jc: WCAG 2 advantage eliminates chauvinism towards W3C specs in WCAG 1 16:12:04 we can't therefore require UA to always support W3C version of the tech they implement 16:13:59 when we talk about UAAG, we equate "web page with media in it" as a browser launching an external player 16:14:05 this should not be the assumption 16:14:22 affects baseline assumption 16:14:28 q+ 16:14:40 UIUC's UAAG evaluations: 16:14:42 http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/wai-eval/index.php?option=Evaluations 16:14:44 q- 16:15:26 bc: need a solid decision 16:15:38 we say follow the spec and expect UA to catch up 16:15:56 or we deal with practical reality 16:16:12 we need to decide which 16:16:38 q+ david 16:16:54 q+ to ask, "if informative, are any required for conformance?" 16:17:12 al: techniques not part of conformance 16:17:37 bc: yes, but we have to provide a way to say what the standard and supported way to do things 16:17:50 dmd: doesn't repair techniques deal with this? 16:17:54 ack david 16:18:05 ack wendy 16:18:05 wendy, you wanted to ask, "if informative, are any required for conformance?" 16:18:51 bc: need to walk the list of out-of-spec things and ask if someone can conform to WCAG 2 without a workaround 16:19:08 e.g., alternatives for OBJECT and EMBED, UA can't get at it 16:19:18 q? 16:20:27 tb: QA requirement: should have conformance model for WCAG 2 that doesn't contradict conformance models for technologies 16:21:30 there is a large body of tests for technologies we could reuse to test for accessibility 16:21:55 q+ 16:22:43 Standards-compliant ways to use that mostly work: 16:22:45 http://joeclark.org/access/captioning/bpoc/embed-object.html 16:23:25 q+ 16:23:25 wc: using NOEMBED doesn't break WCAG because of loophole to document spec violations 16:23:35 bc: but those techniques don't even work at all 16:23:43 q+ to say iframe, true alternative for video 16:23:43 wc: find other techniques 16:24:31 concerned about "techniques used for conformance" because we are non-normative so none of them are technically 16:24:34 ack joe 16:24:34 joeclark, you wanted to say iframe, true alternative for video 16:25:07 jc: IFRAME alt content works and is a viable alternative technique 16:27:43 keep in mind which kind of alternative a particular person needs, don't provide an inappropriate one 16:28:42 wc: we have had a "minimum" alternative requirement to provide very base accessibility 16:28:47 certainly you could go further 16:28:59 but we need some level 1 requirement 16:29:49 jc: in real world, this base requirement met in a very simple way, e.g., link to transcript, not pluperfect directly associated transcript 16:30:50 wc: SC as checklist simplifies some of this 16:31:05 iframe reference, for the hell of it: 16:31:06 http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/special/iframe.html 16:31:32 note that you can use name, longdesc (!), and title 16:31:52 we know that to truly determine if content accessible, need usability testing, but need simpler conformance requirements 16:32:13 dmd: we can suggest that in techniques 16:32:23 (non-normatively) 16:32:39 tc: advocating workarounds could stop progression 16:33:09 bad as it is to leave people behind with non-useful techniques, strict techniques needed to push technology forward 16:33:14 q+ John 16:33:33 wc: but doing so could seriously damage credibility 16:33:35 ack tom 16:34:03 q+ 16:34:03 tc: but at least we're taking a solid position, this could enhance credibility 16:34:06 ack john 16:34:33 js: we could do a "strict" and "transitional" techniques 16:34:48 mc: but that's another work item 16:34:57 wc: but then techniques affect conformance 16:35:35 tc: would be too compromising, we need to put our foot down 16:36:25 wc: how would we compromise things? 16:37:16 tc: backwards compatibility may not compromise accessibility but gives permissoin 16:37:21 EMBED 16:37:32 q+ 16:38:25 ack w 16:38:31 scribe: wendy 16:38:35 ack joe 16:39:05 tc: action item: itemize the cringe factors 16:39:07 http://www.alistapart.com/articles/customdtd/ 16:39:11 jc: in xhtml can make embed part of the dtd and validate. 16:39:26 scribe: michael 16:40:24 That URL teaches how to use a custom DTD. 16:40:48 q++ 16:40:56 q+ 16:41:04 q- + 16:41:07 ack joe 16:41:41 jc: propose complete the UAAG analysis at all costs 16:42:27 not quite *all*. Give Ben help if necessary, but finishing that analysis should be done first. 16:49:10 scribe: Ben 16:49:19 mc: reviews deliverables from charter 16:49:40 http://www.w3.org/2004/04/wcag-charter.html#deliverables 16:50:13 mc: believe that we need to come out of this meeting with a pretty solid plan for completing these deliverables 16:50:27 mc: would like to have someone assigned to responsibility for these 16:51:04 wc: propose we do as much as we can with the plan today about who wants to do and really fill it out at the CSUN f2f 16:51:42 js: there is a proposal before the full WG about checklists that has a significant impact on this subgroup. is it appropriate for us to make a recommendation or take a position on that? 16:52:05 mc: yes, would be useful for us to come out with a recc. on this. 16:52:35 wc: proposal is that our checklist is just the SC 16:53:00 wc: any discussion on that proposal? 16:53:10 tc: have we talked about how it effects use cases and personas yet? 16:53:47 tc: initial thoughts are that it will anger some audiences 16:54:16 jc, dm, others: would like to get a clearer picture of what the proposal is 16:54:42 wc: would like to discuss this in preparation for CSUN mtg. 16:56:05 q? 16:56:49 agenda options for this afternoon: agree on reqs., features of project plan, baseline issue proposal, propsal re SC as checklist 16:57:47 gregg has joined #wai-wcag 16:59:51 action: subgroup get together on thursday to do further work, discussion on baseline analysis 17:00:33 meeting with PF and UA this afternoon 17:01:02 topic: meeting with PF and UA 17:01:11 wc: has been a variety of discussions about AT support with various people where there is a frustration with AT not supporting what we need them to be supporting 17:01:22 UA does a lot of their job, but AT finds it difficult to do what they need to do. 17:01:46 wc: plan is to get together with other groups to determine what our message to AT vendors is and continue the discussion at CSUN. 17:02:46 wc: PF is working on DHTML roadmap in cooperation with HTML WG. some of this is to determine what the common semantics for page layout (ex. navigation bar, etc.)? (ex. I want to go to the navbar vs. Navigation may or may not be found in a list) 17:03:34 wc: a good deal of unknown info for AT. today, rich is going to present about roadmap and lisa will be talking about semantics and metadata that can be included to help with some of this 17:04:12 wc: I think PF wants feedback from us about what we see as common structural elements, but we also need to present some of our issues with baseline and the div. of responsibilitites between authors and user agents 17:05:28 wc: one of the issues is that there are often types of information that never make it into the DOM to be made avail. to AT. 17:06:23 wc: some of this relates to role and state information 17:06:43 mc: proposal of baseline as we came out of Dublin is something to describe to them (as well as the issues we have with it). 17:07:15 mc: also dealing with AT vs. requiring conformance through fallbacks - need to discuss some reasons why we don't have consensus on that 17:07:54 mc: other thing is perfect world vs. real world - do we describe only techs. that work in spec or also techniques that lead to accessibiliy in "real world". 17:08:00 al: we can do both 17:08:21 js: if we were to do both, we don't yet have agreement on how to distinguish them 17:09:10 js: one of my concerns is that we do all this work and come out with a spec. My sense is that AT vendors aren't watching us very closely. Some haven't been following WCAG 2.0 work. We're just now getting to the point where AT supports what was in WCAG 1.0. 17:09:19 action: wendy make sure that all UA and Asst. tech devs are on review list 17:09:30 q+ to say a fourth point is that we don't know as much about accessibility of dynamic things as we need to 17:09:37 asw: not sure some AT is concerned about specs 17:10:34 js: would like to show that there are benefits to the techniques that we create through AT developers support for specs. want to encourage them to build WCAG 2.0 into their development cycles. 17:10:41 q? 17:11:06 ack m 17:11:08 Michael, you wanted to say a fourth point is that we don't know as much about accessibility of dynamic things as we need to 17:11:45 mc: want to suggest a 4th point: one issue we've been facing is accessibility of DHTML - seems like a weakness in our development of techniques. 17:12:20 wc: thing is to ask rich what techniques they'd recommend we include? 17:12:40 mc: question would be how much of a priority for us to get this kind of information into the group? 17:13:07 wc: matt made an effort to do this with scripting developers, but the issue was we didn't make tasks for them clear. 17:13:28 wc: feel that there is some more work we need to do - we've been asking for help, but need to give them clearer tasks. 17:13:39 mc: other points? 17:15:29 LUNCHEON 17:15:29 break for lunch - mtg. begins @ 1:30 17:15:57 ben has left #wai-wcag 17:16:31 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/meetings/f2fmar05.html#agn 17:19:40 sh1mmer has joined #wai-wcag 17:38:46 sh1m has joined #wai-wcag 17:42:37 research__ has joined #wai-wcag 17:46:45 sh1mmer has joined #wai-wcag 18:13:55 ben has joined #wai-wcag 18:34:02 Andi has joined #wai-wcag 18:38:50 Andi has left #wai-wcag 18:40:02 wendy has joined #wai-wcag 18:40:49 Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag 18:45:44 RRSagent, make log public 18:45:49 RRSagent, make log world 18:52:47 rrsagent, pointer? 18:52:47 See http://www.w3.org/2005/03/01-wai-wcag-irc#T18-52-47 18:59:36 Topic: joint meeting with PFWG, UAWG, and DIWG 18:59:56 IRC log at - http://www.w3.org/2005/03/01-pfua-irc 19:05:00 alan has joined #wai-wcag 19:09:46 Michael has joined #wai-wcag 19:12:04 current irc channel is #pfua 19:13:05 sh1mmer has joined #wai-wcag 19:34:37 Zakim has left #wai-wcag 20:48:08 ken has joined #wai-wcag 20:50:07 wendy has joined #wai-wcag 20:50:09 Andi has joined #wai-wcag 20:50:15 joeclark has joined #wai-wcag 20:52:52 scribe: Andi 20:53:25 Michael has joined #wai-wcag 20:53:49 agenda? 20:54:04 mc: this AM agreed on some overall tasks 20:54:09 Zakim has joined #wai-wcag 20:55:34 mc: talk about overall features of a project plan 20:55:41 Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag 20:56:14 mc: concious of deliverables as required by charter - requirements, guidelines, techniques, checklists, test cases, implementation tests and reports, issue tracking reports 20:56:51 mc: divide into tasks - resolve blocer issues, define implementation testing, complete requirements, guidelines, techniques 20:57:08 mc: techniques includes mapping to guidelines, plugging holes 20:57:44 mc: are these the right top level tasks? 20:57:52 js: doesn't think mapping things are 20:58:26 mc: add checklists to top level tasks 20:59:12 mc: identify tasks, sub-tasks, time to complete each task, dependencies, milestones, responsibilities 21:01:23 al: since don't have all variables identified, have to start with milestones 21:01:30 al: then do tasks, sub-tasks, dependencies 21:01:41 al: then assign responsibilities 21:02:53 mc: last is time to complete each task 21:05:11 js: 4 of 7 editors are here - can take this plan to the main group 21:05:24 mc: ask main group to fill in the blanks 21:05:30 mc: that they own 21:05:50 bc: assumption is we will release another public draft about two weeks after CSUN 21:06:09 bc: can't identify number of public drafts 21:06:27 mc: can identify what we need to have arrived at in order to go to Last Call 21:07:01 wc: current schedule has one more public draft before Last Call 21:07:34 mc: milestones are Last Call, Candidate Rec, Proposed Rec, Rec 21:08:36 js: have to define deliverables needed for each stage 21:09:11 al: tasks define how to accomplish the milestones 21:10:41 mc: requirements documents are not subject to the same milestones as the guidelines are 21:14:57 al: need to agree on the deliverables 21:15:01 mc: defined by charter 21:15:14 mc: charter doesn't specify "which" techniques 21:15:19 mc: documents 21:15:52 js: what deliverables are the techniques task force responsible for 21:16:13 mc: everything except guidelines requirements, guidelines document, and guidelines issue tracking 21:17:43 wc: issue tracking reports only needed for normative documents 21:19:12 wc: general techniques are part of Thursday call discussions now 21:22:16 mc: define tasks for techniques requirements documents 21:24:57 al: have to limit review cycles so you don't end up in infinite loop 21:26:13 al: have to define groundrules from the beginning 21:26:18 wc: up to the chair to close it 21:26:42 wc: define date for when we want to publish it as a note 21:26:56 al: can build in two rounds into cycle 21:27:11 al: if then decide to do a third round, affects the rest of the schedule 21:29:14 ACTION: mc add defn of positive test case [1] 21:29:16 ACTION: mc update references to "additional ideas" [2] 21:29:17 ACTION: mc add applicability conditions to req [3] 21:29:19 ACTION: wac and mc create change log for reqs document [4] 21:29:21 ACTION: mc to use the same definition in requirements document [5] 21:29:22 ACTION: mc move testability language from wcag 2.0 into requirements doc ("The Working Group believes that all success criteria should be testable. Tests can be done by computer programs or by people who understand these guidelines. Tests done by people who understand the guidelines should get the same results testing the same content for the same success criteria." [6] 21:29:24 ACTION: jenae compare definitions from reqs doc with QA glossary [7] 21:29:25 ACTION: wac proposal about mapping techniques to success criteria or guideline ok [8] 21:29:27 ACTION: mc and wac incorporate/link to scenarios/personas (that eowg evolved from tom's earlier work) [9] 21:29:28 ACTION: mc add the importance of linking from wcag 2.0 techniques to wcag 1.0 checkpoints [10] 21:29:30 ACTION: mc delete first two sentences of UA support documentation requirement [12] 21:29:31 ACTION: mc delete the untestable techniques / additional ideas stuff [13] 21:33:28 wc: for SMIL, first step is to analyze accessibility features of SMIL 21:33:35 q+ 21:34:41 jc: what is the relationship between SMIL and timed text? 21:34:45 ack joeclark 21:35:01 jc: captions and subtitles do not work in SMIL 21:35:13 jc: too complicated 21:35:29 jc: feature creep in timed text specification 21:36:15 jc: SMIL 2 just came out 21:37:26 jc: multi-media going towards open captioning 21:37:56 jc: are we just being very thorough with our own specifications? it's going to be a lot of work for not a lot of gain 21:38:20 js: so what is your proposal for what we could do that would be minimal, meet current need, and not make us do anything we don't absolutely have to 21:38:56 jc: could WC contact SMIL group to ask them what they think the relationship of SMIL and timed text to us 21:39:10 jc: minimum thing to do is find out what they think the requirements are. 21:39:22 wc: talked to SVG group about them writing the techniques document 21:39:41 wc: preference is for other groups to do their own techniques documents 21:40:12 jc: ask them what they think the relationship should be? then ask them if they would be willing to write the document 21:40:54 wc: find someone who is interested in participating in both groups who might do this 21:41:16 wc: Andrew Kirkpatrick more interested in working on ERT WG 21:41:36 jc: we will have to do SMIL guidelines 21:41:44 jc: timed text spec is not complete yet 21:42:24 jc: volunteered to write techniques for non-SMIL multi-media technologies 21:42:37 jc: if we need them 21:42:53 js: Joe, will you write general techniques for multi-media 21:43:09 wc: if techniques exist somewhere else, can just refer to them 21:43:19 JOE WILL CONSIDER 21:43:24 action: Joe will consider doing this 21:43:52 jc: can make accessible multi-media using no "special features" 21:45:08 mc: have to create techniques for some other technology besides CSS and HTML 21:45:44 as: what about PDF? don't have to be part of our deliverables but still a proof point 21:45:50 wc: Flash also 21:46:08 jc: PDF would be a better choice. There is a PDF Accessibility working group 21:46:35 wc: if we give PDF group a timeline when things have to be done, maybe that would help move that along 21:46:52 jc: PDF can embed multi-media into it 21:47:05 mc: would love to have an interactive technology where content changes on you 21:47:40 jc: Loretta is part of PDF group 21:48:24 mc: don't have to do SMIL before we go to rec 21:48:35 PDF-Access Working Group item: 21:48:36 http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailarchive/uaccess-l/msg02853.shtml 21:48:43 mcmay has joined #wai-wcag 21:49:15 mc: how do we resolve blocker issues? 21:49:34 wc: have a pretty good idea of what our blockers are 21:50:10 al: have to resolve blocker issues for each major task 21:50:23 21:51:45 q+ action item to Wendy to ask Loretta to help us out? 21:52:00 q+ action item to Wendy to ask Loretta to help us out 21:52:04 well, there you go. 21:52:21 ACTION: wac ask Loretta to help us out 21:52:37 wc: need to resolve baseline for good 21:54:27 wc: agree that there could be blocker issues on individual tasks that don't keep the entire project from progressing but there are also some blocker issues that need to be resolved at the project level 21:54:36 ah. 21:55:55 bc: 3 blocker issues and 1 elephant issue in Bugzilla 21:56:11 bc: how do we make it clear that some techniques are sufficient and some are optional 21:57:40 wc: 22:04:36 kg: vote on most important two issues to resolve at CSUN face to face meeting - all in favor except 1 abstention 22:05:13 kg: 2 issues are baseline and checklist of success criteria rather than techniques 22:07:57 for information, UAAG definition of "content": http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/glossary.html#def-content 22:11:15 js: present to Tuesday afternoon editors' call that these two items should be on the agenda for the Thursday call 3/10 and at CSUN 22:11:30 kg: must be brought up at the editors' meeting 22:12:01 kg: TTF voted that these two items are the most important for us to resolve and should be on the agenda at the 3/10 call and the CSUN meeting 22:12:57 al: proposes that we have a vote before the end of the CSUN meeting to close these issues 22:13:29 as: I think the process requires that all members in good standing be allowed to vote even if not present at the face to face meeting 22:14:45 wc: we will come to a decision at the face to face meeting, summarize, publish to the list, give people a deadline to raise an objection 22:15:18 wc: have until March 8th to complete the process of re-joining WCAG 22:17:10 q+ 22:17:56 q? 22:18:25 mc: reviews status 22:18:41 mc: agreed that we want to do everything in our power to resolve blocker issues at CSUN 22:18:53 mc: have holes in the project plan but it's a good start 22:18:57 ack joeclark 22:20:27 jc: doesn't think that a vote of "participants in good standing" vs a vote of everybody attending would make a difference 22:21:04 jc: process is biased towards people with expense accounts 22:21:33 as: is participating via phone an expense issue? 22:21:42 jc: not usually 22:23:46 everyone has until 8 march to complete the rejoin process as outlined at: 22:23:52 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/participation.html#Becoming 22:26:19 kg: third major blocking issue we need to focus on is the overall project plan 22:29:54 Andi has left #wai-wcag 22:30:47 ben has left #wai-wcag 22:33:33 mcmay has left #wai-wcag