6 Jan 2006


See also: IRC log


Doyle_Saylor, Andrew, Bingham, Judy, Helle_Bjarno, Justin_Thorp, Loughborough, wayne, Liam_McGee, Tanguay, Jack




<Justin> Scribe: Wayne

<Andrew> Hi Justin - thanks for the housekeeping

<Justin> ScribeNick: Wayne

<Justin> Greetings! It's my pleasure.

<Judy> judy: brief update of eowg breakout meeting in australia

Australia Meeting

<Judy> andrew: went over slides, for components, and business case

<Judy> helle: also worked on glossary, some items for discussion here

The meeting discussed slides for both the Essential Components and the Business Case.

<Judy> Chair: Brewer

<Judy> Scribe: Wayne

The Group also discussed the glossary, WAI Website, rss links, print style sheets, translation issues, ephmeral types of pages.

Streamline links and other features.

<Judy> wayne: outreach update -- we completed our first course on designing web pages accessibly

<Judy> ...now every single course in our computer department has required accessibility

<Judy> ...and every web page that they design has to be evaluated for accessibility; if it's not accessible, it drops their grade for the course!

<Judy> judy: how is the evaluation done?

<Judy> wayne: combination of tools. they have to be able to navigate by listening, also.

<Judy> harvey: how many students?

<Judy> wayne: 3 classes, 15 students per class

<Judy> harvey: congrats!

<Judy> wayne: will send some info

<Judy> judy: write an article?

<Judy> wayne: or maybe i could do a poster session at the usability conference

<Judy> Topic above was: outreach updates

Agenda item 2, EOWG Comments on WCAG 2.0 Working Drafts

Judy: Background -- EO Draft: Second Capture (email) -- This email can structure the conversation.

Henk and Judy carefully gleened the Glossary. They found much need for clarification changes. The WCAG WG is looking at glossary, so they would appreciate our comments.

At the same time the Melbounre Face-to-Face group worked on non intersection glossary with a eye to harmony across documents.

<Judy> wayne: our basic glossary is normative as well

<Judy> judy: how do you mean normative there?

<Judy> ACTION: wayn & judy discuss off line [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/06-eo-minutes.html#action01]

Judy: At this point the discussion will be based on the

Group: Abstract - no comment

Andrew: TOC - The table of contents appears deep in the document, after the introduction.

<Judy> go to: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

<Judy> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/intro.html#conformance

<Judy> (draft capture) they should diversify their to include other sectors in addition to the govt such as private corps, educational organizations, and member-based orgs)

<Judy> judy thx andrew & liam

Judy: Comment 10 on baslines neets to bel flagged as important. Make the hypothetical nature of these examples clear.

Andrew: We need to have private, educational organization, member based sites. Specifically, give non governmental examples.

Judy: The government examples may be to extensive ... 3. all citizens receive UAs>?

Group: On point 13 - general aproval.

<Judy> clarification -- on the additions to point 13

Judy: How is the navigation so confusing? Jumping between documents does not give sufficient location keys.

Justin: "How to meet" links have the navigation problem. There is a lack of clarity that a document change has taken place.

<Judy> comment 15: delivery units can be parsed unambiguously...

<Judy> judy: please review the way i've written this comments

<Judy> william: typifies jargonization of accessibility

<Harvey> Harvey: Principle 4: I'd like to have an introduction and outline of subsequent guidelines.

<Judy> wayne: on the contrary, the terms "delivery units" and "parsing unambiguously" are well-understood terms in the history of computing, for over 40 years

<Judy> ...and this is one of the most important concepts of accessibility

<Justin> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20051123/Overview.html#use-spec-parses

<Judy> liam: hard to understand w/out examples.... eventually, after plowing through various documents, you do get to useful examples.

<Judy> ...though the explanations still present circular reasoning

<Judy> william: we do have a "clear and simple" goal within this document

<Judy> liam: perhaps we could focus on the glossary, improving that definition

William: In a document that declares that a document can be written clear and simple. Writing for someone in the tower for people who are not in the tower.

Judy: We do need to have a clear and simple. The language is difficult even for technically conversant readers. EO is concerned.

<Judy> liam: this seems to be an unpacking problem.

<Judy> data structures are unambiguous

<Judy> liam: data structures are unambiguous

<Judy> wayne: concern: a gif file is unambiguous -- unless you have text embedded in the gif file, in which case you can't parse it.

<Judy> ...you should be able to unbundle the data unambiguously

<Judy> william: another word?

<Judy> wayne: think of "time flies"

<Judy> time: noun; flies: verb

<Judy> BUT: what if time: verb; flies: noun -- very different meaning.

Wayne: The "Time flies" comment comes for David Grease.

Judy: Two items: Focus on the glossary -plan language, clear. Make sure the examples are easy to get to.

Jack: There should be enough examples to cover the range -- not just one.

Judy: diverse...

<Harvey> Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like an apple!

<Andrew> Andrew: Guideline 1.1 - SC 1.1.5 currently reads "For live audio-only or video-only

<Andrew> content ...", however given the linked text it should read "For live

<Andrew> audio-only or live video-only content ..."

<Andrew> Andrew: Guideline 1.1 - SC 1.1.6 is confusing. The current "how to meet" describes captions as synchronised and describes audio description as something added to the soundtrack. The SC says to provide a combined document of these - maybe it should say to provide a separate text document containing the content of these. And I personally think this should be a Level 2 SC as it is about content design.

<Judy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2005OctDec/0127.html

<Judy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2006JanMar/0009.html

william: 4.2 seems to allow text alternative.

Liam: strengthen the accessible altenative to require equivalent.

<Liam> Guideline 4.2 of WCAG 2.0 'Ensure that user interfaces are accessible or provide an accessible

<Liam> alternative(s)'

<Liam> change to "Ensure that user interfaces are accessible or provide an equivalent accessible

<Liam> alternative(s)"

<Harvey> 4.2.1 "alternative version" not "alternate version".

<Liam> "sub-equivalent text versions are sucky. Don't do it" ?

<Judy> take 4.2.1 offline for follow-up discussion

Judy: Let's take this offline for careful discussion.

Group: The section is difficut understant to find 1.1.6 -- easy to understand. -- we think it should be Priority 2 instead of 3.

Judy: Given the way it is presented, we interpret it asl level 2. Was this intended.
... One problem from 16 Dec 05 is that some of the detail was difficult to clarify the items.

<Judy> orginal context: The natural language of each foreign passage or phrase in the content can be programmatically determined.

<Judy> 3.1.2

Judy: Originally the term foreign seemed wrong == multilingual might be better-- The term foreign can be dropped since the context is that it should be determined programmitcally.

<Judy> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/appendixA.html

<Judy> keyboard interface: why ambiguous?

<Liam> "An alternate method of generating text on devices that do not have a built-in or attached keyboard"?

Liam: The problem is connecting a keyboard when there is no keyboard.

<Helle> yes I'm here but muted

Group: EO had difficulty understanding both phrases Live audio only or audio only live.

<Liam> Judy: need definition for 'assistive technology'

<Judy> judy: propose adding existing AT definition plus proposed examples

<Judy> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/glossary/2005-12-13

<Liam> Group: no objections

<Liam> Judy: recommend that for audio descr, captions, normative and user agent we follow WCAG on it

<Liam> Judy: final part of comments to WCAG about title and organisation of Understanding WCAG doc -- comment by email by Monday

<Judy> EOWG/OZ team recommendations for glossary items that did not need further EOWG discussion: ok to send directly to WCAG WG

<Judy> EOWG/OZ team recommendations for glossary items that did need further EOWG discussion: insufficient time to process in EOWG teleconference; advise WCAG WG comments pending on those items; point them to our notes so far; and resolve the remaining issues online rather than in teleconf if possible.

<Judy> Comments on "Understanding" document -- jb remind people on the list to review that part too.

<Judy> jb thx for 10 minutes extended session.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: wayn & judy discuss off line [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/06-eo-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2006/01/06 15:44:28 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127  of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: Wayne
Found ScribeNick: Wayne
Found Scribe: Wayne
Inferring ScribeNick: Wayne
Default Present: Doyle_Saylor, Andrew, Bingham, Judy, Helle_Bjarno, Justin_Thorp, Loughborough, wayne, Liam_McGee, Tanguay, Jack
Present: Doyle_Saylor Andrew Bingham Judy Helle_Bjarno Justin_Thorp Loughborough wayne Liam_McGee Tanguay Jack
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2006JanMar/0002.html
Got date from IRC log name: 6 Jan 2006
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2006/01/06-eo-minutes.html
People with action items: wayn

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

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]