IRC log of wai-wcag on 2005-05-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:47:57 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
19:47:57 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-wai-wcag-irc
19:48:13 [ben]
RRSagent, make log world
19:48:25 [ben]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
19:48:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html ben
19:48:47 [Michael]
Michael has joined #wai-wcag
19:48:51 [ben]
Meeting: WCAG WG Weekly Telecon
19:49:05 [ben]
Chair: Gregg_Vanderheiden, John_Slatin
19:49:08 [Luca]
Luca has joined #wai-wcag
19:49:20 [snutarelli]
zakim, snutarelli is Sebastiano Nutarelli
19:49:20 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'snutarelli is Sebastiano Nutarelli', snutarelli
19:50:31 [ben]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0392.html
19:50:48 [ben]
agenda+ Agenda review (including information about face to face) (John, 5
19:50:48 [ben]
minutes)
19:50:59 [ben]
agenda+ Techniques report (Michael, 5 minutes)
19:51:09 [ben]
agenda+ Guideline 2.4 proposal (Yvette, 25 minutes)
19:51:16 [ben]
agenda+ Guideline 1.3 proposal (Joe, 25 minutes)
19:51:26 [ben]
agenda+ Guideline 4.2 revised proposal (Loretta, 25 minutes)
19:51:41 [ben]
agenda+ Guideline 2.5 - preliminary discussion of issue summary/proposal (Andi: 25 minutes)
19:51:58 [ben]
agenda+ (Time permitting) Guideline 3.1 - preliminary discussion of proposal and issue summary (John)
19:52:10 [ben]
agenda+ Wrap-up, action items, next week (10 minutes)
19:52:13 [snutarelli]
zakim, snutarelli is Sebastiano
19:52:13 [Zakim]
sorry, snutarelli, I do not recognize a party named 'snutarelli'
19:52:13 [bengt]
bengt has joined #wai-wcag
19:55:58 [LucaMascaro]
LucaMascaro has joined #wai-wcag
19:56:28 [snutarelli]
snutarelli has left #wai-wcag
19:57:39 [gregg]
gregg has joined #wai-wcag
19:57:43 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started
19:57:48 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
19:57:49 [Zakim]
Attendees were
19:57:53 [jslatin]
jslatin has joined #wai-wcag
19:58:13 [Sebastiano]
Sebastiano has joined #wai-wcag
19:58:27 [Andi]
Andi has joined #wai-wcag
19:58:32 [jslatin]
hi andi
19:58:36 [Andi]
Hi John
19:58:43 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started
19:58:46 [Sebastiano]
zakim, who's here?
19:58:46 [Zakim]
On the phone I see no one
19:58:48 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Andi, Sebastiano, jslatin, gregg, LucaMascaro, bengt, Michael, RRSAgent, Zakim, ben, joeclark
19:58:50 [Zakim]
+[IBM]
19:59:00 [Makoto]
Makoto has joined #wai-wcag
19:59:05 [Zakim]
+John_Slatin
19:59:23 [Zakim]
+??P9
19:59:34 [ben]
zakim, ??P9 is Gregg_and_Ben
19:59:34 [Zakim]
+Gregg_and_Ben; got it
19:59:56 [ben]
zakim, [IBM] is Andi
19:59:56 [Zakim]
+Andi; got it
20:00:02 [ben]
zakim, who's here?
20:00:02 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Andi, John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben
20:00:03 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Makoto, Andi, Sebastiano, jslatin, gregg, LucaMascaro, bengt, Michael, RRSAgent, Zakim, ben, joeclark
20:00:50 [Sebastiano]
zakim, who's here?
20:00:50 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Andi, John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben
20:00:51 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Makoto, Andi, Sebastiano, jslatin, gregg, LucaMascaro, bengt, Michael, RRSAgent, Zakim, ben, joeclark
20:00:57 [Yvette]
Yvette has joined #wai-wcag
20:00:59 [Zakim]
+ +1.910.202.aaaa
20:01:07 [Yvette]
Hi all
20:01:20 [bengt]
zakim, +1.910.202.aaaa is Bengt_Farre
20:01:20 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
20:01:24 [Zakim]
+Michael_Cooper
20:01:40 [Zakim]
+Yvette_Hoitink
20:01:43 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
20:01:45 [bengt]
zakim, I am Bengt_Farre
20:01:45 [Zakim]
ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
20:01:55 [Sebastiano]
zakim, who's here?
20:01:55 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Andi, John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben, Bengt_Farre, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, [Microsoft]
20:01:56 [ben]
zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta
20:01:58 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Yvette, Makoto, Andi, Sebastiano, jslatin, gregg, LucaMascaro, bengt, Michael, RRSAgent, Zakim, ben, joeclark
20:02:00 [Zakim]
+Mike_Barta; got it
20:02:05 [Becky_Gibson]
Becky_Gibson has joined #wai-wcag
20:02:36 [Zakim]
+Becky_Gibson
20:02:44 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.558.aabb
20:02:46 [rcastaldo]
rcastaldo has joined #wai-wcag
20:02:53 [Zakim]
+??P18
20:02:56 [rcastaldo]
HI folks :)
20:03:00 [David]
David has joined #wai-wcag
20:03:04 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
20:03:07 [David]
test
20:03:09 [Michael]
zakim, unmute me
20:03:09 [Zakim]
Michael_Cooper should no longer be muted
20:03:12 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre.a
20:03:14 [Zakim]
+Matt
20:03:27 [Makoto]
zakim, [IPcaller] is Makoto
20:03:27 [Zakim]
+Makoto; got it
20:03:36 [Zakim]
+Dave_MacDonald
20:03:38 [mcmay]
mcmay has joined #wai-wcag
20:03:42 [ben]
zakim, ??P18 may be Joe_Clark
20:03:42 [Zakim]
+Joe_Clark?; got it
20:03:50 [Sebastiano]
zakim, who's here?
20:03:50 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Andi, John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben, Bengt_Farre, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Mike_Barta, Becky_Gibson, +1.202.558.aabb, Joe_Clark?, Makoto, Bengt_Farre.a,
20:03:54 [Zakim]
... Matt, Dave_MacDonald
20:03:55 [Zakim]
On IRC I see mcmay, David, rcastaldo, Becky_Gibson, Yvette, Makoto, Andi, Sebastiano, jslatin, gregg, LucaMascaro, bengt, Michael, RRSAgent, Zakim, ben, joeclark
20:03:59 [Zakim]
+Loretta_Guarino_Reid
20:04:01 [Makoto]
zakim, mute me
20:04:01 [Zakim]
Makoto should now be muted
20:04:13 [Zakim]
-Bengt_Farre.a
20:04:19 [Sebastiano]
zakim, who's here?
20:04:19 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Andi, John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben, Bengt_Farre, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Mike_Barta, Becky_Gibson, +1.202.558.aabb, Joe_Clark?, Makoto (muted), Matt,
20:04:23 [Zakim]
... Dave_MacDonald, Loretta_Guarino_Reid
20:04:24 [Zakim]
On IRC I see mcmay, David, rcastaldo, Becky_Gibson, Yvette, Makoto, Andi, Sebastiano, jslatin, gregg, LucaMascaro, bengt, Michael, RRSAgent, Zakim, ben, joeclark
20:04:33 [Yvette]
zakim, who's making noise?
20:04:37 [ben]
zakim, 1.202.558.aabb may be Sebastiano
20:04:37 [Zakim]
sorry, ben, I do not understand your question
20:04:44 [Zakim]
Yvette, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
20:04:47 [Zakim]
+Tim_Boland
20:04:49 [Zakim]
+JasonWhite
20:04:59 [Zakim]
+lmascaro
20:05:02 [bengt]
zakim, mute me
20:05:02 [Zakim]
Bengt_Farre should now be muted
20:05:05 [ben]
zakim, +1.202.558.aabb may be Sebastiano
20:05:05 [Zakim]
+Sebastiano?; got it
20:05:11 [Sebastiano]
zakim, mute me
20:05:11 [Zakim]
Sebastiano? should now be muted
20:05:31 [rcastaldo]
I'm trying to connect with dialpad... having some problems
20:05:47 [Yvette]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:05:47 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Andi, John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben, Bengt_Farre (muted), Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Mike_Barta, Becky_Gibson, Sebastiano? (muted), Joe_Clark?, Makoto (muted),
20:05:51 [Zakim]
... Matt, Dave_MacDonald, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Tim_Boland, JasonWhite, lmascaro
20:05:52 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.558.aacc - is perhaps Sebastiano?
20:05:54 [bengt]
they update the software just try to exit and start again
20:05:57 [LucaMascaro]
zakim, mute me
20:05:57 [Zakim]
sorry, LucaMascaro, I do not see a party named 'LucaMascaro'
20:06:11 [Yvette]
zakim, lmascaro is LucaMascaro
20:06:11 [Zakim]
+LucaMascaro; got it
20:06:16 [LucaMascaro]
tks
20:06:18 [LucaMascaro]
zakim, mute me
20:06:19 [Zakim]
LucaMascaro should now be muted
20:06:22 [Yvette]
np
20:06:39 [Yvette]
zakim, who's making noise?
20:06:42 [ben]
zakim, who's muted
20:06:42 [Zakim]
ben, you need to end that query with '?'
20:06:45 [Zakim]
-Sebastiano?
20:06:49 [Zakim]
Yvette, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Gregg_and_Ben (18%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (63%)
20:07:04 [ben]
zakim, mute Loretta
20:07:04 [Zakim]
Loretta_Guarino_Reid should now be muted
20:07:16 [Sebastiano]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:07:16 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Andi, John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben, Bengt_Farre (muted), Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Mike_Barta, Becky_Gibson, Sebastiano? (muted), Joe_Clark?, Makoto (muted),
20:07:19 [Zakim]
... Matt, Dave_MacDonald, Loretta_Guarino_Reid (muted), Tim_Boland, JasonWhite, LucaMascaro (muted)
20:07:40 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre.a
20:07:59 [bengt]
zakim, Bengt_Farre.a is Roberto_Castaldo
20:07:59 [Zakim]
+Roberto_Castaldo; got it
20:08:08 [rcastaldo]
Ciao italians :-)
20:08:15 [ben]
scribe: David_MacDonald
20:09:26 [Sebastiano]
Ciao Roberto!
20:09:30 [ben]
agenda?
20:09:40 [ben]
zakim, take up agendum 1
20:09:48 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Agenda review (including information about face to face) (John, 5" taken up [from ben]
20:09:56 [David]
js: techniques taskforce
20:11:13 [Tim]
Tim has joined #wai-wcag
20:11:42 [ben]
zakim, close this item
20:11:42 [Zakim]
agendum 1 closed
20:11:43 [Zakim]
I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
20:11:45 [Zakim]
2. Techniques report (Michael, 5 minutes) [from ben]
20:11:50 [mcmay]
zakim, ping me in 20 minutes
20:11:50 [Zakim]
ok, mcmay
20:12:01 [David]
js: tell zakim to ping us a 20minute tells us times up, a good reminder
20:12:21 [ben]
zakim, take up agendum 2
20:12:21 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Techniques report (Michael, 5 minutes)" taken up [from ben]
20:12:22 [gregg]
gregg has joined #wai-wcag
20:13:01 [David]
mc: shadowing issue summaries along with guidliines issues
20:13:30 [David]
mc: 4.2 we go less than half way through lots of stuff
20:13:43 [Sebastiano]
zakim, who's here?
20:13:43 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Andi, John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben, Bengt_Farre (muted), Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Mike_Barta, Becky_Gibson, Sebastiano? (muted), Joe_Clark?, Makoto (muted),
20:13:46 [Zakim]
... Matt, Dave_MacDonald, Loretta_Guarino_Reid (muted), Tim_Boland, JasonWhite, LucaMascaro (muted), Roberto_Castaldo (muted)
20:13:48 [Zakim]
On IRC I see gregg, Tim, mcmay, David, rcastaldo, Becky_Gibson, Yvette, Makoto, Andi, Sebastiano, jslatin, LucaMascaro, bengt, Michael, RRSAgent, Zakim, ben, joeclark
20:14:10 [David]
mc: some case issues into the guidelines. would be helpful, if the same person does the guidelines review as techniques reviews.
20:15:29 [David]
mc: lots of discussion etc... on of the things we missed was paying close attention to the baseline. take the three baselines. basic graphic browser, user agent. identified for each techniuqe within each baseline whether it is sufficient or opptional, not harmful,
20:15:54 [ben]
Regrets: Roberto Ellero, Doyle, Neil Soiffer, Roberto Scano, Takayuki Watanabe
20:16:03 [David]
mc: first this look....a proposal to remove a techniques might because on one baseline and not another.
20:17:06 [ben]
zakim, close this item
20:17:06 [Zakim]
agendum 2 closed
20:17:06 [Michael]
zakim, mute me
20:17:07 [Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
20:17:08 [Zakim]
3. Guideline 2.4 proposal (Yvette, 25 minutes) [from ben]
20:17:10 [Zakim]
Michael_Cooper should now be muted
20:17:15 [ben]
zakim, next agendum
20:17:15 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Guideline 2.4 proposal (Yvette, 25 minutes)" taken up [from ben]
20:17:25 [ben]
zakim, ping me in 20 minutes
20:17:25 [Zakim]
ok, ben
20:17:54 [ben]
yvette's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0371.html
20:17:56 [David]
js: move yh 2.4
20:19:02 [ben]
annotated proposal (wiki): http://esw.w3.org/topic/May_2005_Guideline_1%2e3_Proposal?action=show
20:19:02 [David]
yh: I don't see the message tonight about SC L1 about reading order. has simple examples of content that is not accessible.
20:20:26 [David]
jw: the problems I raised still stand, that will have to be treat as 1.3 issue or worded different. If you reword it it doesn't belong on level 1
20:20:40 [David]
jw: see mailing list for more
20:21:17 [David]
yh: some people think it is about aggregation, it is better to get consencous on problem then get solution
20:22:16 [joeclark]
q+
20:22:56 [David]
js: it boils down to what happens when a screenreader goes into say all mode...the problem is that I want that reading to make sense, so I don't want a paragraph of text to be interupted by avigation bar orother artifact that a sighted person wouldn't look at in the middle of their content readitng, on a page not constructed properly, that doesn'thappen for a blind person
20:23:16 [gregg]
q+
20:23:44 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
20:23:44 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
20:24:02 [David]
jw: everything I said in message is still true
20:24:49 [David]
joe: topic dogs us unecessarily over the years... if waiting for freedom scientific to do stuff properly, not our problem
20:25:15 [David]
joe: doesn't have to be in exact same order.
20:25:26 [gregg]
ack j
20:25:37 [gregg]
ask jason
20:25:37 [David]
joe: doument html read order
20:25:48 [gregg]
ask joe
20:25:57 [gregg]
ack jason
20:26:01 [gregg]
ack joe
20:26:03 [David]
joe: that is nvalid html and we tell people to use valid html.
20:26:49 [ben]
ack gregg
20:27:16 [David]
joe: not a real feal...if a lot of valid html, and valid css, lets put some examples together
20:27:46 [joeclark]
Also, a case of content interposing itself at the wrong point in the read order is probably a case of a bad user agent or incorrect HTML in the first place. Valid, semantic HTML has an intrinsically comprehensible read order.
20:28:13 [David]
gv: I'm still wrestling through first one.
20:28:49 [David]
gv: if reading order not im0ortant we could skip over this guideline
20:28:59 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
20:28:59 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
20:29:24 [Yvette]
q+
20:29:28 [ben]
ack john
20:29:35 [David]
gv: we have to be very careful about level ones. and with these kind of comments about it we should reconsider
20:30:38 [David]
js: gregg mentioned, and I say there are other technologies ie math ml, flash, pdf, order is extremly important. willing to grant that jaws etc have inadequate features regarding this
20:30:59 [Zakim]
-LucaMascaro
20:31:33 [David]
js: i have heard many examples where menaingful reading order of text was a clear messed up order that no sighted reader would have
20:31:51 [Zakim]
mcmay, you asked to be pinged at this time
20:32:20 [David]
js: not the intended behaviour behaviour by the author, I believe that it was not a validation problem, there are real issues. how to disentagle them...is a porblem
20:32:42 [ben]
ack yvette
20:33:00 [David]
yh: sc at level one, major overloap with 3.2 link text... this should be at level 2,
20:33:19 [gregg]
q+
20:33:27 [David]
yh: this could be a problem for content management systems.
20:33:33 [ben]
ack Jason
20:34:25 [Yvette]
q+ to say "keep overlap with 1.3"
20:34:43 [David]
jw: back to problem of John, the cause is not solved by writing markup by writing to spec,
20:35:11 [David]
jw: the problem is covered under 1.3
20:35:30 [LucaMascaro]
LucaMascaro has joined #wai-wcag
20:35:53 [David]
jw: but introducing a linear order requirement should be level 3 in 2.4 at best....not agood way to go . oet's move examoles to 1.3
20:36:05 [ben]
q+
20:36:21 [ben]
ack gregg
20:36:46 [Zakim]
+Roberto_Castaldo.a
20:36:54 [Zakim]
-Roberto_Castaldo.a
20:37:21 [David]
gv: 2 things, 1) right now sc 2 is too general, if we say the content or parts of content are arranged in a linear sequece to understand their secquense proerly then them should be probgramatically determined
20:37:25 [Zakim]
ben, you asked to be pinged at this time
20:37:46 [Zakim]
+LucaMascaro
20:37:54 [LucaMascaro]
zakim, mute me
20:37:54 [Zakim]
LucaMascaro should now be muted
20:38:37 [David]
gv: the comment was made thae sc 3 could not be done for some technology so it should go to L 2 , but you can't have something at level 2 that can't be done
20:39:47 [David]
bc: jason raised good point when he talks about an artifact of presentation, is that something that we really want. it the presentation is ajusted to present things in an audio form.
20:39:52 [ben]
ack ben
20:39:55 [ben]
ack andi
20:40:18 [David]
asw: if we take 3.2 wording it will be ok at level 2,
20:43:13 [David]
gv: I'm sorry I have a family emergency with my orphaned nephewsand I have to go, can someone jump in.
20:43:19 [Michael]
zakim, unmute me
20:43:19 [Zakim]
Michael_Cooper should no longer be muted
20:43:55 [Yvette]
scribe: Yvette
20:43:56 [Zakim]
-Dave_MacDonald
20:45:04 [ben]
action: john, yvette, joe, michael - revisit 2.4 wording and repropose
20:45:06 [Tim]
Testing linearity seems easier than testing "making sense"?
20:45:17 [ben]
zakim, close this item
20:45:17 [Zakim]
agendum 3 closed
20:45:19 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
20:45:20 [Zakim]
4. Guideline 1.3 proposal (Joe, 25 minutes) [from ben]
20:45:31 [Yvette]
zakim, ping me in 20 minutes
20:45:31 [Zakim]
ok, Yvette
20:45:35 [ben]
next agendum
20:46:30 [Yvette]
jc: rewritten 1.3 to explain about web standards (valid CSS, HTML and generic JS)
20:46:45 [Yvette]
jc: we even require valid code in WCAG 2
20:47:16 [Yvette]
jc: HTML will be majority of web content and will have structure, PDF might have structure but we will require structure
20:47:38 [Yvette]
jc: This is catching everyone up to standards and telling them how to do it
20:47:49 [Yvette]
jc: boils down to "write according to web standards"
20:47:58 [Yvette]
js: what's the def?
20:48:11 [Yvette]
jc: in all web pages you have 3 layers: structure, presentation, behavior
20:48:27 [Yvette]
jc: structure - HTML/tags. Presentation - CSS, behavior - JS
20:48:42 [Yvette]
jc: other technologies might not have all three layers but there still might be presentation and behavior
20:49:41 [Yvette]
jc: 'information' is redundant and circular. Information is purpose of website. We are Web CONTENT accessibility guidelines so no need to name information explicitely
20:49:53 [Yvette]
js: proposal before us. Some discussion on the list. Comments?
20:50:30 [Yvette]
gv: I've only found a proposal for the guideline text, not for success criteria
20:50:40 [Yvette]
js: there was one but forgot to include in the agenda
20:50:58 [ben]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0248.html
20:51:13 [Yvette]
js: cudos to ben for being the archive wizard
20:51:26 [ben]
ack john
20:51:28 [Yvette]
ack john
20:51:29 [ben]
ack yvette
20:51:30 [Zakim]
Yvette, you wanted to say "keep overlap with 1.3"
20:51:35 [ben]
ack jason
20:51:36 [ben]
ack tim
20:51:51 [Yvette]
tb: would all technologies follow that model?
20:52:31 [Yvette]
jc: one of the few experts on MathML is intrinsically structural because it's markup language
20:52:49 [Yvette]
jc: HTML requires MathML to mark up equations
20:52:59 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
20:52:59 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
20:53:12 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
20:53:12 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
20:54:08 [Michael]
q+ to say MathML is very baseline-dependent
20:54:14 [Yvette]
jc: ambiguity is part of math, don't think it's really a accessibility problem
20:54:21 [Michael]
ack michael
20:54:22 [Zakim]
Michael_Cooper, you wanted to say MathML is very baseline-dependent
20:54:26 [ben]
ack Michael
20:54:29 [gregg]
q+
20:55:00 [Yvette]
mc: MathML has some UA support but won't be part of every baseline.
20:55:08 [Yvette]
mc: it's baseline question
20:55:55 [Yvette]
jc: My issue with that is that you suggest there is an alternative but there isn't. For real mathematical equations there isn't a real alternative
20:56:27 [Michael]
zakim, mute me
20:56:27 [Zakim]
Michael_Cooper should now be muted
20:56:35 [Yvette]
mm: but there is (la)tex which has been around since the digital ice age
20:56:47 [Yvette]
q+
20:57:05 [ben]
ack gregg
20:57:34 [Yvette]
gv: Joe, you took 'relationships' out of SC 1. Did you mean that relationships are covered by structure?
20:57:53 [Yvette]
jc: I was one of the people who wondered about purpose of 'relationship'
20:58:21 [Yvette]
jc: that question was never really answered so I took it out
20:58:35 [Yvette]
js: so you believe that all the relationships are covered by structure?
20:58:48 [Yvette]
jc: Yes, all the structures are already in HTML
20:59:50 [Yvette]
gv: You keep referring to HTML but we must assume we don't know we're using
21:00:11 [Yvette]
gv: If they want to use something else we have to wonder what they need to do in order to conform
21:00:18 [joeclark]
The post I forwarded from Jacques Distler on MathML's "alternatives":
21:00:20 [joeclark]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0066.html
21:00:35 [Yvette]
gv: saying all relationships are covered by HTML structure doesn't address that because that might not be true for other technologies
21:01:30 [Yvette]
gv: does anyone disagree that relationships are a subset of structure?
21:02:03 [Yvette]
asw: relationship between form element and label, would that be structure?
21:02:29 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
21:02:29 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:02:39 [Yvette]
asw: web pages are not just documents
21:02:59 [Yvette]
jc: I would be happy to change that into whatever the group wants
21:03:13 [Yvette]
asw: what about 'content' that was in the original?
21:03:16 [Yvette]
jc: fine by me
21:03:38 [Yvette]
gv: add note in guidedoc that we consider relationships as part of the structure
21:04:14 [Yvette]
gv: Let's define relationships to be included in structure and change document back to content
21:04:32 [Yvette]
js: modified proposal for SC 1 "structures within the content can be programatically determined"
21:04:50 [Yvette]
js: anyone against adopting that new formulation?
21:05:06 [joeclark]
q?
21:05:11 [Yvette]
different one
21:05:14 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
21:05:14 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
21:05:31 [Zakim]
Yvette, you asked to be pinged at this time
21:05:42 [Yvette]
jw: someone should write a definition of structure and make sure it includes all those relationships
21:06:11 [Yvette]
jc: if someone can come up with a definition or link to definition, I can pass it on to standardistas and ask their opinions
21:06:38 [ben]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#structuredef
21:06:47 [Yvette]
jw: I'll take a look at the definitino
21:07:04 [Yvette]
jw: current def is fine, so am happy with the proposal
21:07:24 [Yvette]
js: any objections to unanimous consent?
21:07:25 [ben]
resolved: accept Joe's proposal to revise 1.3 L1 SC1 to read: Structures within the content can be programmatically determined.
21:07:32 [rcastaldo]
good
21:07:33 [Yvette]
js: next SC
21:07:47 [Yvette]
asw: did we have consensus on guideline?
21:07:49 [Yvette]
js: no
21:08:11 [Yvette]
asw: Had problem understand what was covered in SC 2 that wasn't in 1
21:08:12 [ben]
proposal for SC 2: 2. Structural markup or coding is used to encode semantics to the extent possible for the content.
21:08:28 [Yvette]
jc: 'the extent possible' is human testable just like correctness of alt-text
21:08:33 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
21:08:33 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:08:40 [gregg]
q+
21:09:22 [Yvette]
jc: common misunderstanding that standards compliance isn't semantic (for example: page with just <div> and <span>)
21:09:27 [ben]
ack andi
21:09:53 [Yvette]
correction: common misunderstanding that standards compliance = semantic
21:10:03 [Yvette]
jc: semantic is step beyond
21:10:16 [Yvette]
asw: still don't think that's testable
21:10:34 [Yvette]
asw: don't understand why we need it. If structures can be determined, that's enough
21:11:16 [Yvette]
asw: it might not be understood as well for other technologies
21:11:56 [Yvette]
jc: it's possible in tagged PDF
21:12:02 [LucaMascaro]
use just <div> and <span> is a violation of the validity of the code therefore the DTD, because we not use the correctly elements
21:12:15 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
21:12:15 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
21:12:18 [ben]
ack yvette
21:12:30 [ben]
ack Jason
21:12:35 [Yvette]
yh: forgot what I was going to say
21:12:47 [Yvette]
jw: serious problems with this one
21:13:18 [Yvette]
jw: it's redundant with SC1 1.3 and requirement of writing according to spec and 'to the extent possible' is not testable
21:13:44 [Yvette]
jw: it is not testable in different technologies.
21:14:21 [Yvette]
jw: we need SC about that it has to be relative to the technologies that author is user
21:14:52 [Yvette]
gv: just to clarify: we have no requirement to write good alt text because that's not testable
21:15:37 [Yvette]
gv: we would like to go further but don't have any objective way. We just specify what we can in a testable way. Especially in level 1 and 2 we're very careful about that because people might be required to conform
21:16:11 [Yvette]
gv: is there a word missing in SC? "structural semantics"?
21:16:28 [Zakim]
-Tim_Boland
21:16:32 [Tim]
Tim has left #wai-wcag
21:16:38 [Yvette]
jc: Mean semantics as normal in web standards field, using right element to mark up content
21:16:44 [Yvette]
jc: I want two things to happen:
21:16:56 [Yvette]
jc: Not allowing people to use just <div> and <span> to mark up page
21:17:48 [Yvette]
jc: I don't want standards-compliant people to be harassed if they use <b> and <i>
21:17:50 [LucaMascaro]
LucaMascaro has joined #wai-wcag
21:18:03 [Yvette]
jc: web standards should be the standards
21:18:06 [Yvette]
-s
21:18:32 [ben]
q?
21:18:37 [ben]
ack gregg
21:18:46 [Yvette]
js: what I would like is that we get another subgroup to work on 1.3
21:19:17 [Yvette]
js: take into account Joe's proposal, responses and 4.2 discussion
21:19:40 [Yvette]
Can someone take over scribing after this agenda item?
21:19:51 [Yvette]
js: Joe, could you focus on 1.3 more than on 2.4
21:20:03 [Yvette]
jc: sure
21:20:09 [Yvette]
js: Joe, Gregg and Becky to work on 1.3
21:20:18 [ben]
action: joe, gregg, becky to work on revised proposal for 1.3
21:20:28 [Yvette]
js: stay in touch with 2.4 to address the overlap
21:21:25 [ben]
scribe: ben
21:21:32 [ben]
zakim, close this item
21:21:32 [Zakim]
agendum 4 closed
21:21:33 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
21:21:34 [Zakim]
5. Guideline 4.2 revised proposal (Loretta, 25 minutes) [from ben]
21:21:42 [ben]
zakim, take up agendum 5
21:21:42 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Guideline 4.2 revised proposal (Loretta, 25 minutes)" taken up [from ben]
21:21:57 [ben]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0364.html
21:22:53 [ben]
lgr: looked at gregg's proposal to replace the word "baseline" - am liking the word less and less
21:23:06 [ben]
lgr: UA assumptions is not the same as baseline
21:23:16 [ben]
gv: what I meant was assumptions you're making about user agents
21:23:26 [ben]
lgr: agree with sentiment, but am soliciting alternative phrases
21:23:47 [ben]
gv: you said, you wanted to focus on techs, you're talking about UAs that use technologies?
21:23:57 [ben]
lgr: the technologies for which user agents exist
21:24:13 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
21:24:13 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:24:39 [ben]
js: think there was consensus that we should talk about technologies rather than user agents
21:25:00 [ben]
gv: yes, but 2 types of techs. techs user has or techs authors use
21:25:25 [ben]
lgr: reads proposed def (assumes are supported)
21:25:33 [ben]
gv: supported and turned on?
21:25:38 [ben]
js: and enabled?
21:25:42 [ben]
lgr: avail. to user?
21:25:56 [ben]
gv: if turned off, then it's avail
21:26:10 [ben]
lgr: looking for a word that implies that tech is both "there" and "on"
21:26:17 [ben]
ack mike
21:26:34 [ben]
js: supported and active? or you could define supported as meaning tha tUA is actually using and processing it
21:26:51 [ben]
second point is that it wasn't clear from revised proposal for definition that this was the min. that can be assumed
21:27:14 [ben]
js: not talking about larger set, but minimum assumptions - think that needs to be put in explicitly
21:27:22 [ben]
lgr: it is there, "minimum set of technologies"
21:28:10 [ben]
js: any preference about alternatives jason mentioned?
21:28:36 [ben]
gv: in this conversation, we've drifted between UA and users
21:28:58 [ben]
gv: not sure which we want to use in definition
21:29:41 [ben]
gv: any feature that can be turned on and off would have to be assumed to occasionally be turned on and off for whatever reason - would have to be not have to be turned off for accessibility reasons
21:29:43 [ben]
ack jason
21:30:05 [ben]
jw: supported in UA and active in those UA is the sense that we want - that's the assumption from the author's perspective
21:30:07 [ben]
ack andi
21:30:26 [ben]
asw: seems we're nitpicking - if you assume it is supported, you have to assume it's turned on, otherwise, what's the point?
21:30:42 [ben]
gv: may need to be turned off by users with disabilities
21:31:10 [ben]
mb: seems to be a distinction between supported and available - either say it's reasonable to assume something is available --or-- we know the user has it and is using it
21:31:13 [ben]
ack Mike
21:31:23 [ben]
mb: any consensus on which we mean or do we mean both?
21:31:45 [ben]
js: my sense was that wording jason mentioned might be nitpicky, but covers both of those possibilities
21:32:10 [ben]
mb: concern is that means that it is responsibility of person making claim to know whether user has something turned on and off, which author can't know
21:32:17 [ben]
mb: that's very restrictive
21:32:21 [ben]
asw: back to HTML only sites
21:32:35 [ben]
mb: if you're saying that you're picking techs based on a reasonable belief that techs are available
21:33:20 [ben]
ack Loretta
21:33:59 [ben]
lgr: remember, this is about trying to capture for WCAG the fact that someone will consider and make an informed decision about what is reasonable to assume - a lot of what we're churning on here is how someone makes a decision
21:34:02 [ben]
ack jason
21:34:05 [gregg]
q+
21:34:32 [ben]
jw: loretta's point captures it well, basically defining min. set of techs that author assumes are active in UA. reasonableness of that assumption is not part of the consideration here.
21:34:37 [ben]
ack gregg
21:35:22 [ben]
gv: one of the things we keep saying is "that can be assumed" question is by who? authors? companies? I think we should say a min. set of techs that are assumed to be supported. by who depends upon who is setting the baseline
21:35:35 [ben]
gv: or an established set of techs that the author assumes can be supported
21:35:57 [ben]
gv: so it would be "a standard set of technologies that the author can assume are supported by user agents"
21:36:14 [ben]
ack john
21:36:32 [ben]
js: don't think we can say "established" because there will be situations where nothing has been established
21:37:09 [ben]
js: current discussions in the TTF, list, etc. have been talking about 3 baselines, so word minimum may be problematic
21:37:20 [ben]
gv: no, all 3 assume a different minimum set
21:37:23 [rcastaldo]
I've got to leave the call now
21:37:30 [rcastaldo]
By everyone :-)
21:37:32 [ben]
gv: dropping the word "minimum" might be a good idea
21:37:35 [rcastaldo]
rcastaldo has left #wai-wcag
21:37:42 [Zakim]
-Roberto_Castaldo
21:37:43 [ben]
ack Lor
21:38:16 [ben]
lgr: think word "baseline" has wrong connotation. think "minimum" is critical
21:38:27 [ben]
ack Jason
21:39:06 [ben]
jw: was going to make the same point, emphasizing the importance of "minimum" in this context - agree with gregg's earlier assumption to say "are assumed"
21:39:56 [Zakim]
-Joe_Clark?
21:39:58 [ben]
js: propose we adopt this because it's better than what we've got now
21:40:12 [ben]
gv: if we did, we might say "supported/on" as a footnote to remind us to fix it
21:41:12 [ben]
action: loretta to wordsmith definition of baseline and post to list
21:41:30 [Zakim]
-LucaMascaro
21:41:54 [joeclark]
joeclark has left #wai-wcag
21:42:01 [ben]
resolved: accept "
21:42:01 [ben]
The minimum set of technologies that are assumed to be supported/enabled by user agents in order to access all information and functionality of the Web content.) as a working definition for baseline.
21:42:14 [Zakim]
-Sebastiano?
21:42:25 [ben]
definition of technology
21:42:39 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
21:42:39 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
21:42:47 [ben]
accept definition as proposed ("Technology" means a data format, programming or markup language, protocol or API.)
21:43:07 [ben]
lgr: added a couple of proposals
21:43:38 [ben]
lgr: new SC propsed: [9] New GL 2.4, Level 1 SC
21:43:38 [ben]
<proposal>
21:43:38 [ben]
Changes to content, structure, selection, focus, attributes, values, state,
21:43:38 [ben]
and relationships within the content can be programmatically determined.
21:43:38 [ben]
</proposal>
21:43:39 [ben]
Issue: how much of this is just a user agent requirement? When does
21:43:41 [ben]
the author have responsibility for any of this?
21:43:46 [ben]
js: reactions?
21:44:36 [ben]
yh: agree with loretta's doubts that if it's not possible to determine programmatically if something changes, then no UA will be able to show it. if a change to content isn't determinable, then no browser could show it. I really don't see what problem this is going to solve
21:45:01 [ben]
gv: if each one of those things can be accessed, then UA could compare "then and now" and programmatically evaluate whether a change has been made
21:45:35 [ben]
gv: usually this kind of a clause is surrounded by a requirement for notification, but I don't think we want to require that AT be notified at level 1 (we'd have to think about how that would be done)
21:46:03 [ben]
lgr: there is at least one case (ex. flash) where you have in fact tell things to update themselves - not sure if this is just a UA issue
21:46:10 [ben]
gv: sounds like a UA problem
21:46:16 [ben]
ack Jason
21:47:34 [ben]
jw: agree that this is a UA problem, UA must be able to detect a change, otherwise it can't change it - it's an internal issue w/in a UA. Only issue I can think of is if things are being updated in sequence, you might want a transaction or commit after a change so it doesn't become apparent to UA until all changes have been made - that's where you might want something in content to flag that a series of changes have been completed
21:48:47 [ben]
gv: having spoken against it, I was going to comment for it (slightly) - one of the things that author does do is have a choice for choosing a tech where this is possible. (ex. captions are synchronized) - they could choose a tech. that doesn't support synchronization. author is reponsible for using a tech for which there is a UA that can do somethinbg.
21:48:55 [ben]
s/somethinbg/something
21:49:01 [ben]
lgr: sounds like this should be withdrawn
21:49:09 [ben]
asw: what about applets? where do they fit in?
21:49:18 [ben]
gv: that's our big 4.2 issue
21:49:25 [ben]
lgr: would keeping this help us address applets?
21:49:42 [ben]
gv: I wouldn't drop it at this point because we haven't figure out all of 4.2 yet
21:50:07 [ben]
when we have content that delivers the UA along with the content, we do have to figure out where that gets distributed
21:50:55 [ben]
js: that is what the discussion is about and the proposal is an attempt to distribute 4.2 issues so that they are addressed in other guidelines
21:51:30 [ben]
js: think we should give loretta as much useful feedback as possible so we can get it done - can loretta (and team) take another shot at it?
21:51:53 [ben]
jw: think that whatever we do, this proposal for 2.4 is really a 1.3 issue because it's about programmatic determination, not about anything else
21:52:01 [ben]
lgr: I would have said it's about orientation
21:52:35 [ben]
gv: yes, it's a 1.3 category issue
21:53:26 [ben]
js: something that you just said suggests that we need to revisit guideline wording ("orient themselves" may not fit under 2.4)
21:53:49 [ben]
q?
21:53:53 [ben]
ack jason
21:54:16 [ben]
agenda
21:54:18 [ben]
agenda?
21:54:34 [ben]
gv: question: 4.2 is so complicated, I wonder if we should try to tackle at the face to face
21:54:59 [ben]
zakim, take up next agendum
21:54:59 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "Guideline 2.5 - preliminary discussion of issue summary/proposal (Andi: 25 minutes)" taken up [from ben]
21:55:08 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
21:55:08 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:55:21 [ben]
zakim, close this item
21:55:21 [Zakim]
agendum 6 closed
21:55:22 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
21:55:24 [Zakim]
7. (Time permitting) Guideline 3.1 - preliminary discussion of proposal and issue summary (John) [from ben]
21:55:49 [ben]
next week: 2.5, 3.1
21:55:53 [ben]
ack andi
21:56:22 [ben]
asw: 4.2 was coupled with baseline issue, which was a blocking issue that we needed to solve before moving forward - are we declaring that we've closed the issue?
21:56:36 [ben]
gv: we have a definition that's better than what we had, but still needs work
21:57:03 [ben]
asw: if we've agreed that baseline shouldn't be in guidelines (in principle), I'd hate to defer progress until next f2f
21:57:44 [ben]
gv: think we've been working on assumption that baseline won't be in the guidelines and we'll work off that assumption until we're proven wrong - is that what everyone else thinks?
21:58:28 [ben]
js: think we should continue discussing 4.2 in coming weeks even though progress is slow
21:59:02 [ben]
gv: suggestion to find those who are most interested in addressing this one and take an offline phone call/work session to try to see if we can help work it through
21:59:58 [ben]
gv: would like to ask for volunteers to do a multi-hour work session with loretta to help her out with this
22:00:47 [ben]
lgr: we might want to sunset that group and see who wants to continue
22:01:50 [Zakim]
-Mike_Barta
22:02:02 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
22:02:02 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
22:02:11 [ben]
action: loretta to follow up with subgroup (plus gregg) for continued 4.2 discussion
22:02:13 [Zakim]
-Bengt_Farre
22:02:16 [ben]
agenda?
22:02:26 [ben]
zakim, close agendum 7
22:02:26 [Zakim]
agendum 7 closed
22:02:27 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
22:02:28 [Zakim]
8. Wrap-up, action items, next week (10 minutes) [from ben]
22:02:30 [Zakim]
-Becky_Gibson
22:02:34 [ben]
zakim, close agendum 8
22:02:34 [Zakim]
agendum 8 closed
22:02:36 [Zakim]
I see nothing remaining on the agenda
22:02:37 [Zakim]
-Andi
22:02:38 [Zakim]
-Loretta_Guarino_Reid
22:02:40 [Zakim]
-Matt
22:02:43 [ben]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
22:02:43 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html ben
22:02:56 [Zakim]
-Gregg_and_Ben
22:02:56 [bengt]
bengt has left #wai-wcag
22:02:56 [Zakim]
-JasonWhite
22:06:41 [ben]
Present: Andi Becky_Gibson Bengt_Farre Dave_MacDonald Gregg_and_Ben JasonWhite Joe_Clark John_Slatin Loretta_Guarino_Reid LucaMascaro Makoto Matt Michael Michael_Cooper Microsoft Mike_Barta Roberto_Castaldo Sebastiano Tim_Boland Yvette_Hoitink
22:06:48 [ben]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
22:06:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html ben
22:07:05 [ben]
zakim, bye
22:07:05 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben, Andi, Bengt_Farre, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Mike_Barta, Becky_Gibson, Matt, Makoto, Dave_MacDonald,
22:07:05 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
22:07:08 [Zakim]
... Joe_Clark?, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Tim_Boland, JasonWhite, Sebastiano?, +1.202.558.aacc, LucaMascaro, Roberto_Castaldo
22:07:36 [ben]
RRSAgent, bye
22:07:36 [RRSAgent]
I see 4 open action items:
22:07:36 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: john, yvette, joe, michael - revisit 2.4 wording and repropose [1]
22:07:36 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-wai-wcag-irc#T20-45-04
22:07:36 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: joe, gregg, becky to work on revised proposal for 1.3 [2]
22:07:36 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-wai-wcag-irc#T21-20-18
22:07:36 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: loretta to wordsmith definition of baseline and post to list [3]
22:07:36 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-wai-wcag-irc#T21-41-12
22:07:36 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: loretta to follow up with subgroup (plus gregg) for continued 4.2 discussion [4]
22:07:36 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-wai-wcag-irc#T22-02-11