IRC log of wai-wcag on 2005-04-27
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 13:52:46 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
- 13:52:46 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/04/27-wai-wcag-irc
- 13:52:50 [Michael]
- rrsagent, make log world
- 13:58:41 [Becky_Gibson]
- Becky_Gibson has joined #wai-wcag
- 13:58:54 [ChrisR]
- ChrisR has joined #wai-wcag
- 13:59:06 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has now started
- 13:59:13 [Zakim]
- +Becky_Gibson
- 14:00:49 [Zakim]
- +Michael_Cooper
- 14:02:21 [Zakim]
- +John_Slatin
- 14:02:50 [jslatin]
- jslatin has joined #wai-wcag
- 14:03:21 [Zakim]
- +Dave_MacDonald
- 14:04:18 [Zakim]
- +Wendy
- 14:04:44 [wendy]
- wendy has joined #wai-wcag
- 14:04:52 [wendy]
- agenda?
- 14:05:12 [David_]
- David_ has joined #wai-wcag
- 14:05:20 [David_]
- test
- 14:05:28 [wendy]
- Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0256.html
- 14:05:32 [wendy]
- Chair: Michael
- 14:05:54 [wendy]
- agenda+ Plan for addressing techniques and test suites for 1.1, 1.3, 2.4, 4.2
- 14:06:05 [wendy]
- agenda+ Requirements for Checklists and Techniques
- 14:06:12 [wendy]
- agenda+ Mapping of script techniques to guidelines
- 14:07:17 [wendy]
- Meeting: Techniques Task Force of the WCAG WG Telecon
- 14:07:39 [David_]
- scribe:
- 14:07:45 [David_]
- scribe: David
- 14:08:08 [David_]
- scribe: David_
- 14:09:03 [wendy]
- zakim, take up agendum 1
- 14:09:03 [Zakim]
- agendum 1. "Plan for addressing techniques and test suites for 1.1, 1.3, 2.4, 4.2" taken up [from wendy]
- 14:09:15 [wendy]
- Regrets: Tim, Ben, Christophe
- 14:09:16 [David_]
- mc: michael john mike david on call
- 14:09:29 [David_]
- and wendy
- 14:10:02 [David_]
- mc: techniques for the guidelines above
- 14:10:14 [Zakim]
- +Chris_Ridpath
- 14:11:21 [David_]
- wc: techniques taskforce michael john mike david becky wendy, chris on call
- 14:12:04 [David_]
- wc: should take up test cases and techniques at same time to harmonize
- 14:12:15 [David_]
- wc: how to divy up the work???
- 14:12:48 [David_]
- wc: who's willing to do what, how much time do people have
- 14:13:36 [David_]
- wc: we have lots of people, if everyone took 10 techniques we could do it
- 14:13:54 [David_]
- bg: seem to be loosing people from wed
- 14:14:52 [David_]
- wc: resourses is an issue
- 14:15:17 [David_]
- mc: that may be good because we can focus
- 14:16:07 [David_]
- w: if you are doing a lot of action items on this call don't do much on Thurs
- 14:16:48 [David_]
- js: and vice versa
- 14:18:14 [David_]
- wc: next wed we need to talk about techniques....divy up work today. by monday issue summaries, harvest more on Wed. then update propsoals following week then following wed close
- 14:19:12 [David_]
- wc: i think some tech for 1.1 could be combined
- 14:20:45 [David_]
- wc: can't get into bugzilla
- 14:21:01 [David_]
- js: I got in the day before yesterday
- 14:21:34 [David_]
- wc: I'll ask gregg to restart that server
- 14:22:14 [David_]
- mc: I'll write up search tips
- 14:23:45 [David_]
- mc: take on tech for a guideline, in context of current, review each tech related to a guideline keeping in mind the discussions in main group thurs, discuss enndotes, bugzilla, then propose action, to close,change, create new combine etc
- 14:24:13 [David_]
- setp2: go through mapping doc, think of techniques that appear to be missing
- 14:24:24 [David_]
- css html and script
- 14:25:08 [David_]
- mc: test cases: go through the test cases for the techniques.. identify issues with existing test cases and propose additional test casses
- 14:25:18 [David_]
- wc: I have ideas for test cases in CSS
- 14:26:34 [David_]
- wc: perhaps test cases with tim
- 14:27:28 [wendy]
- action: wac ask tim about creating css test cases
- 14:27:49 [David_]
- js: jim allen, james craig might help
- 14:28:18 [David_]
- bg: we have no JS scripts techniques now
- 14:28:36 [David_]
- mc: there open issues about how to write techniques in relation to baseline
- 14:31:13 [David_]
- mc: havestin WAIG list ok to do also but not necessary
- 14:31:32 [David_]
- bg: but guidelines in flux
- 14:31:47 [David_]
- mc: make conditional techniques
- 14:32:27 [David_]
- js: we may close 1.1, 4.2, 2.4, 1.3 soon
- 14:33:19 [David_]
- wc: I'm tempted to take 1.1 cause I'm doing in.
- 14:33:53 [Michael]
- action: Wendy take 1.1
- 14:34:14 [David_]
- wc: labeling functional apps will work with Becky
- 14:34:50 [David_]
- bg: label is ot an alternative
- 14:35:04 [David_]
- wc: it is test that serves the same purpose
- 14:35:35 [David_]
- mc: label is label not an alternative
- 14:35:49 [David_]
- sure :-)
- 14:36:00 [Becky_Gibson]
- scribe: Becky_Gibson
- 14:36:23 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: will be alot of work - review list for info about GL plus techs and tests
- 14:36:51 [Becky_Gibson]
- wc: so makes sense to work with person reviewing the GL
- 14:36:59 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: have been working on 4.2
- 14:37:14 [Becky_Gibson]
- js: but there is a proposal on the list - can start with that
- 14:37:47 [Becky_Gibson]
- js: hope is that WG comes to consensus on proposal - then techs group can start work based on newly adopted proposal
- 14:37:58 [Michael]
- action: David take 4.2
- 14:38:02 [Becky_Gibson]
- js: so hopefully don't have to sift through all the prior proposals
- 14:38:09 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: so David is taking 4.2
- 14:38:29 [Michael]
- action: Michael take 2.4
- 14:38:31 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: MC will take 2.4
- 14:38:34 [Michael]
- action: Becky take 1.3
- 14:38:56 [Becky_Gibson]
- bg: will take 1.3
- 14:39:07 [Michael]
- action 3 = David take 4.2, work with Loretta
- 14:39:16 [Michael]
- action 4 = Michael take 2.4, work with Yvette
- 14:39:17 [Becky_Gibson]
- bg to work with jc; dm to work with LGR
- 14:39:23 [Michael]
- action 5 = Becky take 1.3, work with Joe
- 14:39:26 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc to work with yh
- 14:39:53 [Becky_Gibson]
- wc: by Monday, may 2 we will all have sent an issue summary related to the techs; proposals for changes would be great
- 14:40:32 [Becky_Gibson]
- wc: on May 9 will submit proposals for changes (based on dicsussion on May 4)
- 14:40:40 [Becky_Gibson]
- wc: goal will be to discuss and close on May 11
- 14:41:08 [Becky_Gibson]
- wc: concerned that am travelling week of May 9
- 14:41:18 [Becky_Gibson]
- js: perhaps can coordinate with Ben?
- 14:41:35 [Becky_Gibson]
- wc: will be in Japan to will be ahead of all of you :-)
- 14:42:18 [Becky_Gibson]
- wc: will be at WWW conf and also speaking to JIS folks while in Japan
- 14:42:54 [Becky_Gibson]
- js: have sent draft of 3.1 proposal to JIS group since they are concerned with English language centric issues
- 14:43:29 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: work is assigned; will send a summary of what we are doing; May 2 is this Monday - so not lots of time, plan accordingly
- 14:43:59 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: this includes bugzilla stuff - but we can't access bugzilla right now
- 14:44:08 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: will work on access
- 14:44:37 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: only dealing with techs that are still related to gL
- 14:45:18 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: sent emails with mapping of techs to guidelines - use those emails as starting point
- 14:45:27 [Becky_Gibson]
- bg: all CSS techs showed as not being mapped
- 14:45:35 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: then probably not mapped properly
- 14:46:09 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: so consider techs that aren't currently assoc. and perhaps propose associating them with a particula Gl
- 14:46:18 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: have end to ends on my site that may help
- 14:46:29 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: will try to include pointers to all sources in set of instructions
- 14:46:38 [wendy]
- zakim, close this item
- 14:46:38 [Zakim]
- agendum 1 closed
- 14:46:39 [Zakim]
- I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
- 14:46:41 [Zakim]
- 2. Requirements for Checklists and Techniques [from wendy]
- 14:46:42 [wendy]
- zakim, take up item 2
- 14:46:42 [Zakim]
- agendum 2. "Requirements for Checklists and Techniques" taken up [from wendy]
- 14:46:47 [David_]
- http://www.eramp.com/david/end_to_end/index.htm
- 14:47:10 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-wcag2-tech-req-20050426.html
- 14:47:27 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: sent a change log to list
- 14:47:32 [wendy]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0263.html
- 14:47:35 [David_]
- end to end links above have associations that I eyeballed from Guidelines to Techniues docs, (6 months ago)
- 14:48:11 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: added info to intro about techs not being comprehensize - no garuntee we cover every possible tech and technology
- 14:48:33 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: following techs is not req. to conform to WCAG - is a set of well thought out suggestions
- 14:48:44 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: for most users is best way but not only way
- 14:49:13 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: def. of reliably human testable - understood that want to remove "80% of human testers would agree" so rewrote
- 14:49:22 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: added def. of postitive and negative tests
- 14:49:43 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: pos test demonstrates proper applicaton of tech; neg test demonstrates improper application
- 14:50:02 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: remove ref. to additional ideas
- 14:50:11 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: added bullets about sufficeint and optional
- 14:50:21 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: provided clarification of AND and OR
- 14:50:36 [wendy]
- q+ to ask in tech summaries, start to categorize the techs as sufficient, future, etc?
- 14:50:39 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: removed req. for showing support by all AT (provide where approp)
- 14:51:00 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: removed req. about untestable techniques
- 14:51:09 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: added placeholder about baseline
- 14:51:21 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: this is probably biggest thing I want to deal with
- 14:51:34 [wendy]
- ack john
- 14:51:35 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: removed appendix fields
- 14:52:01 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: removed req. about general techs that are req. to conform
- 14:52:14 [Becky_Gibson]
- js: issues about req. for conformance
- 14:52:30 [Becky_Gibson]
- js: positive test means test has been correctly implemented
- 14:52:39 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: reads from doc about pos and neg tests
- 14:52:57 [Becky_Gibson]
- js: this should only be for techs that are sufficient
- 14:53:30 [Becky_Gibson]
- js: may not need second clause, where tech is sufficient for conformance a positive test would indicate conformance - something like that
- 14:53:43 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: wanted to say techs are a way to meet SC - a positive test is a good thing for access.
- 14:53:58 [Becky_Gibson]
- js: but pos. test isn't always a garuntee of conformance
- 14:54:24 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: action to delete clause about positive tests and conformance
- 14:54:40 [Becky_Gibson]
- js: sufficient and optional bullets added?
- 14:54:47 [wendy]
- action: michael delete clause about positive tests and conformance
- 14:54:54 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: reads info from doc
- 14:55:17 [Becky_Gibson]
- js: does that entail that we have to spell out benefit?
- 14:55:36 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: why would we document an optional tech unless we thought it was worth it?
- 14:56:00 [Becky_Gibson]
- js: so are we requiring ourselves to say what the identifiable benefit is?
- 14:56:15 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 14:56:15 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to ask in tech summaries, start to categorize the techs as sufficient, future, etc?
- 14:56:24 [Becky_Gibson]
- wc: if we can describe them well - we can also use the categories for a tech. summary categories
- 14:56:49 [Becky_Gibson]
- wc: if we want to categorize techs as optional, sufficient, future, etc
- 14:57:05 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: yes want to categorize; need that for when the tech spans baselines
- 14:57:27 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: at lowest baseline most techs are not optional but may become optional in higher baselines
- 14:57:49 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: or may be optional in one baseline and sufficient in another or vice versa
- 14:58:11 [Becky_Gibson]
- wc: might be helpful if in the list of defs we list ooptional, sufficient,
- 14:58:20 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: so action to create definitions
- 14:58:25 [Becky_Gibson]
- wc: other categories?
- 14:58:41 [wendy]
- action: michael add definitions for sufficient, optional to section on definitions
- 14:58:47 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: analysis includes a not recommended category - where following tech was destructive to access.
- 14:58:54 [Becky_Gibson]
- js: so there are places were we tell people what not to do
- 14:59:18 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: no - it is a tech for one baseline that is not rec. for another baseline
- 14:59:37 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: do we want to say that a tech becomes optional in another baseline?
- 15:00:05 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: req. doc does say tech must specify the baseline; probably should expand
- 15:00:13 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: need to carefully define optional
- 15:00:34 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: do we want to include the three baselines we have been discussing so far?
- 15:00:42 [Becky_Gibson]
- bg: do need to define them
- 15:00:57 [Becky_Gibson]
- js: instinct is to not put in req. since they may be somewhat fluid
- 15:01:14 [Becky_Gibson]
- js: techs need to def. baseline and which baseline a given techs works in
- 15:01:15 [Michael]
- action: Michael put information about relation of sufficient and optional in baseline section
- 15:01:29 [Becky_Gibson]
- js: but don't think req. doc should contain the definitions of baseline
- 15:01:52 [Becky_Gibson]
- wc: req doc should be like a checklist to make sure we have done the all necessary work
- 15:02:18 [Becky_Gibson]
- wc: saying what we are going to implement without saying how
- 15:02:39 [Becky_Gibson]
- js: say techs will ref. more than one baseline but not what they are
- 15:02:58 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: so current wording about techs referencing the baseline it applies to is ok
- 15:02:59 [Becky_Gibson]
- js: yes
- 15:03:12 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: but still need to define baselines and where to include those defs
- 15:03:22 [Becky_Gibson]
- js: need to figure out grouping etc.
- 15:03:36 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: so should add an agenda item for next wed. to discuss baseline
- 15:04:02 [Becky_Gibson]
- wc: there will probably be issues related to baseline in our techs issues summary
- 15:04:21 [Becky_Gibson]
- wc: still see the 80% figure in the req. doc
- 15:04:40 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: didn't remove it - wasn't sure if that was the action -
- 15:04:57 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: at first deleted the sentence - then just updated the wording
- 15:05:12 [wendy]
- becky? i can take over minuting now
- 15:05:14 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: we are giving an exact % for an arbitrary number
- 15:05:26 [Becky_Gibson]
- js: actually 80% is a common target
- 15:05:40 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: what is the exact term
- 15:05:59 [Becky_Gibson]
- js: inter-rater reliability
- 15:06:37 [Becky_Gibson]
- js: one example is if hand 5 people the same set of content they will agree on the rankings from best to worst but might give diff. numerical scores
- 15:07:10 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: we are tangenting a bit - do we want to zap the 80% testable by humans sentence or not?
- 15:07:30 [Becky_Gibson]
- js: will take action item to see if there is agreement about % cut off
- 15:07:39 [wendy]
- action: john research "inter-rater reliability" - is there a % cutoff point?
- 15:08:05 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: can get a book about inter-rater reliability for $39.99 :-)
- 15:08:43 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: is there more on req? do we need a break?
- 15:09:04 [Becky_Gibson]
- wc: suggest putting it on agenda again so people have more time to review
- 15:09:35 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: will update based on actions from today's call and repost req. doc
- 15:09:36 [wendy]
- scribe: wendy
- 15:09:38 [David_]
- book called "handbook of inter-rater reliability"
- 15:09:42 [David_]
- http://www.stataxis.com/interrater.htm
- 15:09:45 [wendy]
- zakim, close this item
- 15:09:45 [Zakim]
- agendum 2 closed
- 15:09:46 [Zakim]
- I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
- 15:09:47 [Zakim]
- 3. Mapping of script techniques to guidelines [from wendy]
- 15:09:53 [wendy]
- zakim, take up item 3
- 15:09:53 [Zakim]
- agendum 3. "Mapping of script techniques to guidelines" taken up [from wendy]
- 15:10:30 [wendy]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0249.html
- 15:10:59 [wendy]
- bg: didn't map too many to 1.1. didn't go through existing script techniques.
- 15:11:43 [wendy]
- bg: went through a list apart, etc. tried to propose techs for 3 categories: 1. don't have scirpt, 2. can help w/accessibility 3. scripts not helping accessibility, but common scripts and how to do accessibly.
- 15:12:17 [wendy]
- bg: only additional in noscripting e.g., about making accessible pop-ups (using real links instead of javacript uris). mapped to 2.4
- 15:12:30 [wendy]
- bg: felt a bit of a stretch, but using a tags appropriately.
- 15:12:42 [wendy]
- bg: could probably go under 4.1 as well.
- 15:12:59 [wendy]
- js: re: 2.4, is it supporting navigation?
- 15:13:23 [wendy]
- js: under 3.2 have extreme changes of context.
- 15:13:33 [wendy]
- bg: tech is not to show how to mark extreme change of context.
- 15:13:58 [wendy]
- js: if it's about using a tag might be about 1.3
- 15:15:25 [wendy]
- wac: 3.2 level 1 #1 - "Any extreme change of context is implemented in a manner that can be programmatically identified. " is using a in a way that the ua knows what's going on. thus "programmatically identified"
- 15:15:39 [wendy]
- bg: the next group were to enhance accessibility
- 15:15:50 [wendy]
- bg: focus to form element. 2.4, level 2, #4
- 15:16:07 [wendy]
- bg: could also be #2 of that GL and leve
- 15:16:10 [wendy]
- s/leve/level
- 15:16:28 [wendy]
- bg: someone on the list said hadn't seen onload reliably.
- 15:16:35 [wendy]
- mc: concept of setting focus is not under debate?
- 15:16:49 [wendy]
- bg: no. someone else suggested "here's how i do it"
- 15:17:06 [wendy]
- mc: like it, however, nothing before the focus is read.
- 15:17:12 [wendy]
- bg: for filling out a form, is good.
- 15:17:36 [wendy]
- js: google starting doing that/jaws supported, but field not labeled.
- 15:17:49 [wendy]
- bg: leave it with one
- 15:18:14 [wendy]
- mc: prefer to map to only one when possible. may have weak mappints to others. technique should only map to one.
- 15:18:47 [wendy]
- bg: next is how to catch onchange of input, validate, and set focus on next element. sort of help ppl correct errors, but helps navigate sequentially.
- 15:19:00 [wendy]
- mc: also helps when do validation to do not mess it up.
- 15:19:13 [wendy]
- js: what if script validates and input wrong?
- 15:19:29 [wendy]
- bg: leaves you in the same field. however, this hard b/c depends on the script.
- 15:19:52 [wendy]
- bg: may not be able to come up with techs that are acceptable to the group. need code and testing...
- 15:20:22 [wendy]
- js: what is the main thrust of the technique? helping users avoid errors and make ease to correct? or navigating sequentially?
- 15:20:35 [wendy]
- js: then 2.4 l2 sc 2
- 15:20:45 [wendy]
- bg: navigating sequentially
- 15:21:16 [wendy]
- bg: it assumes you are doing validation. vs the other technique that says "move to the next field when there are 3 characters"
- 15:21:30 [wendy]
- js: the 1st one goes under 2.5 (making easy to correct errors)
- 15:21:39 [wendy]
- bg: say that it's about validation
- 15:22:04 [wendy]
- input assist to change the background color or border of the element with focus [GL 2.5 L2 SC1 (If a user error is detected, the error is identified and provided to the user in text ) although color and border isn't really text and this technique isn't specific to errors.]
- 15:22:14 [wendy]
- bg: could be "help navigate" or "error handling"
- 15:23:19 [wendy]
- mc: could also set text (not only color)
- 15:23:36 [wendy]
- bg: adding text effects the layout.
- 15:24:07 [wendy]
- input assist auto advance through fields. Fore example, a US phone number input with 3 fields as you finish typing 3 numbers in the first
- 15:24:09 [wendy]
- field the cursor moves to the next field and after three numbers there jumps to the last field. This one is likely to be controversial as I'm sure there are some people that dislike the auto advance behavior. [GL 2.4 L3 SC2 (When a page or other delivery unit is navigated sequentially, elements receive focus in an order that follows relationships and sequences in the content.)]
- 15:24:19 [wendy]
- bg: some ppl like this one, others don't.
- 15:24:27 [wendy]
- js: in an app, a user preference?
- 15:24:53 [wendy]
- action: david send bg techs for 2.5
- 15:25:17 [wendy]
- mapping makes sense
- 15:25:47 [wendy]
- input assist to show a specific format in the field and user input over types the format with the actual value. For example, a field for a US social security number that shows "###-##-####" - as the user types the # gets replaced by the actual input. [GL 2.5 L2 SC2 (If a user error is detected and suggestions for correction are known and can be provided without jeopardizing security or...
- 15:25:48 [wendy]
- ...purpose, the error is identified and the suggestions are provided. ) This technique is not specific to errors, though. ]
- 15:26:11 [wendy]
- bg: instead of 3 fields, one field with format.
- 15:26:32 [wendy]
- bg: put under 2.5, however the user hasn't created an error helps prevent an error.
- 15:28:51 [jslatin]
- a mechanism is available to help users enter data correctly
- 15:30:26 [wendy]
- looks like we need to propose a success criterion in guideline 2.5 at level 2 or 3
- 15:30:55 [wendy]
- mc: info needed to fill out the form is before the form
- 15:31:36 [wendy]
- wac: google suggests - need info about how to fill in. not sure that "###-##-####" will be intuitive to users.
- 15:32:02 [wendy]
- question about creating a SC that might not be met by HTML. although, seems that there are ways to do it in HTML.
- 15:32:58 [wendy]
- wac: next steps?
- 15:35:30 [wendy]
- figure out how to create an accessible pop-up (NOT a new window) that can be made accessible. I'm not sure how to do this, yet, but it could be used to provide more detailed information or help without leaving the page. [GL 2.1 L1 SC1; (All of the functionality of the content, where the functionality or its outcome can be described in a sentence, is operable through a keyboard or keyboard...
- 15:35:32 [wendy]
- ...interface. ) and GL 2.1 L3 SC 1; (All functionality of the content is designed to be operated through a keyboard or keyboard interface. ) ]
- 15:36:29 [David_]
- http://www.eramp.com/david/general/
- 15:36:44 [wendy]
- wac: extreme change of context?
- 15:36:48 [David_]
- above is general tech proposals for 2.5
- 15:39:40 [wendy]
- discussion about how this could map to a variety of SC depending on the example. could also map to 3.2 (if avoiding an extreme chnge of context) or 2.5 (if helping user correct an error)
- 15:39:52 [wendy]
- bg: pretty open ended. perhaps too early to map.
- 15:40:43 [wendy]
- convert information provided via <link> elements into a select list on the page. From alistapart.com entry: Dynamically Conjuring Drop-Down Navigation [3] [GL 2.4 L1 SC1 (Structures and relationships within the content can be programmatically determined );GL 2.4 L2 SC 1 ( Documents that have five or more section headings and are presented as a single delivery unit include a table of...
- 15:40:44 [wendy]
- ...contents with links to important sections of the document. ); and GL 2.4 L2 SC2 (There is more than one way to locate the content of each delivery unit, including but not limited to link groups, a site map, site search or other navigation mechanism. )]
- 15:41:04 [wendy]
- mc: tech to get around UA deficiency
- 15:41:08 [wendy]
- bg: also navigation
- 15:41:23 [wendy]
- js: level 2 under 2.4 (multiple nav mechanisms)
- 15:42:08 [wendy]
- js: l2 sc2 of 2.4
- 15:42:55 [wendy]
- provide alternative text sizing on the page (in combination with CSS). Here is an example for alistapart: Power To The People: Relative Font Sizes [4] Warning - it uses JavaScript uris :-) [This seems like a helpful technology but I can't find a mapping???]
- 15:43:30 [wendy]
- js: take it for granted that text is perceivable (by default). perhaps a criterion that text is actually perceivable.
- 15:43:50 [wendy]
- mc: related to tech on absolute size, have been unable to map them.
- 15:44:16 [wendy]
- dmd: the only reason that we recommend rel is that there is a bug in ie?
- 15:45:21 [wendy]
- mc: css mapping to 1.3
- 15:47:55 [wendy]
- need a criterion about font size and reflowing content when font size increases.
- 15:47:57 [wendy]
- js: fits under 3.2?
- 15:48:44 [wendy]
- js: b/c talk about consistency and design and effect on layout
- 15:48:59 [wendy]
- js: want to allow for changes in font size w/out blowing up layout
- 15:49:09 [wendy]
- bg: it's hard to do.
- 15:49:21 [wendy]
- js: specify a threshold, beyond which it is not the designers responsibility
- 15:49:34 [wendy]
- dmd: address what % users can increase font size?
- 15:50:49 [wendy]
- wac: what's the general rule of thumb from moving from increasing font size in browser to using magnification software?
- 15:51:39 [wendy]
- action: wac new issue for 3.2 related to increasing font size
- 15:53:11 [wendy]
- formatting table rows to distinguish one from another. This should help the readability of all users but particularly screen magnifier users if the table is wide. Another alistapart example: Zebra Tables[5] [GL 1.4 L1 SC1 (Any text that is presented over a background image, color, or text can be programmatically determined. ) although that is a bit of a stretch since the technique itself...
- 15:53:13 [wendy]
- ...is using color]
- 15:54:43 [wendy]
- discussion of benefits - people who use magnifiers, people with learning/reading disabilities
- 15:54:59 [wendy]
- mc: may fit under understandable
- 15:56:09 [wendy]
- js: perhaps an optional technique under 3.1 or 2.4 (re: making tables more navigable)
- 15:56:33 [wendy]
- js: perhaps another mechanism for locating content
- 15:58:06 [wendy]
- discussion about variety of places it could map to.
- 16:00:35 [wendy]
- wac: depends on primary benefit - if learning disability, 3.1. if magnificiation, orientation and 2.4
- 16:00:58 [wendy]
- action: dmd do either magnification tool have ability to zebra stripe
- 16:02:49 [wendy]
- dmd: i've been looking re: inter-rater reliability and 80% seems reasonable number. 70% they say is low, 90% is high. sent john articles have found.
- 16:03:48 [wendy]
- next week: issue summaries for techniques/test cases, baseline, requirements, script mapping
- 16:04:07 [Zakim]
- -Michael_Cooper
- 16:04:08 [Zakim]
- -Wendy
- 16:04:09 [Zakim]
- -John_Slatin
- 16:04:09 [Zakim]
- -Chris_Ridpath
- 16:04:10 [Zakim]
- -Becky_Gibson
- 16:04:11 [wendy]
- RRSAgent, make log world
- 16:04:11 [Zakim]
- -Dave_MacDonald
- 16:04:12 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has ended
- 16:04:14 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Becky_Gibson, Michael_Cooper, John_Slatin, Dave_MacDonald, Wendy, Chris_Ridpath
- 16:04:16 [wendy]
- RRSAGent, draft minutes
- 16:04:16 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/04/27-wai-wcag-minutes.html wendy
- 16:04:28 [ChrisR]
- ChrisR has left #wai-wcag
- 16:27:32 [Michael]
- rrsagent, bye
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- I see 12 open action items:
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: wac ask tim about creating css test cases [1]
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/27-wai-wcag-irc#T14-27-28
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Wendy take 1.1 [2]
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/27-wai-wcag-irc#T14-33-53
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: David take 4.2, work with Loretta [3]
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/27-wai-wcag-irc#T14-37-58
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Michael take 2.4, work with Yvette [4]
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/27-wai-wcag-irc#T14-38-29
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Becky take 1.3, work with Joe [5]
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/27-wai-wcag-irc#T14-38-34
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: michael delete clause about positive tests and conformance [6]
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/27-wai-wcag-irc#T14-54-47
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: michael add definitions for sufficient, optional to section on definitions [7]
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/27-wai-wcag-irc#T14-58-41
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Michael put information about relation of sufficient and optional in baseline section [8]
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/27-wai-wcag-irc#T15-01-15
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: john research "inter-rater reliability" - is there a % cutoff point? [9]
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/27-wai-wcag-irc#T15-07-39
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: david send bg techs for 2.5 [10]
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/27-wai-wcag-irc#T15-24-53
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: wac new issue for 3.2 related to increasing font size [11]
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/27-wai-wcag-irc#T15-51-39
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: dmd do either magnification tool have ability to zebra stripe [12]
- 16:27:32 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/27-wai-wcag-irc#T16-00-58