16 Nov 2007



Lisa Pappas, Shawn, Sharron, Doyle, Jack, Liam, Wayne_Dick, Justin_Thorp, Andrew_Arch, William, Sylvie, Helle
Alan, Henny, (others_from_list?)
Sharron Rush


Shawn: introduces Lisa Pappas

Lisa: From SAS, accessibility analyst, support developers in accessibility, will send longer intro

Shawn: Lisa has been working on Best Practices Guide for PFWG, and we are happy to have Lisa as liaison
... introduce yourselves if you were not in Boston

Doyle: From Wells Fargo, with accessibility focus for more than have a decade; radio show in California on disability rights

Sylvie: calling from Paris working at BrailleNet Association, active member of W3C, training etc for accessibility

Liam: Here from GAWDS, based in UK, accessibility consultant for a long time, many years

Shawn: William, we kicked off WAI-AGE project in Boston and thought of you. Lisa, we will get to the WAI-ARIA near the end of today's meeting. Shall we ping you when we reach that point?

Shawn: OK, referring to the agenda, we have a draft of the replies to WCAC-WG responses to our comments

Review WCAG-WG reply to EO comments

Shawn: I noticed some comments on list from Justin and Wayne about the questions. Did everyone read them?

Jack: Comments look good, agree with response

Doyle: Looked at them superficially

Liam: Not looked yet

Sylvie: Was a bit lost because of the many links to previous comments and replies to those comments. Uncertain about where to read what.

<Andrew> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007OctDec/0081.html

<shawn> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007OctDec/0087.html'

<Wayne> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007OctDec/0081.html

<shawn> draft replies: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007OctDec/0081.html

Shawn: At the face to face meeting in Boston, we discussed the comments in full. Judy's email does not include the group's acceptance of many of the WCAG resolutions. Please review to make sure you agree
... Comment 1 was definition of AT, and there was an additional reply to that. Any objections?
... Reads current definition, a bit of wordsmithing, remove "the"
... Comment 3: "Accessibility supported technology," they are rewriting the section. Our suggestion was to accept with another chance for EO review...shall we now fully accept?
... Comment 4 WCAG rewrote at our suggestion. We suggest that using the phrase "technologies with accessibility support" would improve.

Wayne: Yes, it is clearer this way

Shawn: Then I will bring this out a bit since it applies broadly
... although WCAG-WC accepted our change, comment 5 pointed out places they missed

Comment 7 - suggestions for rewrite of conformance section. They accepted, we asked for comment time, are we ready to accept?

Shawn: Comment 8...OK?
... Comment 9 - asked them to define "perceivable"...

Doyle: What was the follow up comment to that?

Wayne: They pointed us to another document but they did not define.
... I agree with WCAG that it is the ordinary definition of perceivable and does not need further definition.

Shawn: Can we let this go, then?
... Comment 9 is accepted
... Comment 11 - this section needs simplifying, we accepted with note

Comment 14: We accept Judy's comment.

Shawn: Put comment 15 on accept list?

Wayne: Yes and it reads well

Comment 15 accepted

Shawn: Comment 16 is contradictory, we asked for clarification

Liam: implies that one must achieve conformance with all Level AAA, AA and A requirements to claim Level AAA status

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20071102/appendixA.html

Wayne: It's correct, but may be clearer if they reverse the language...appendix A?
... If all Level A, Level AA and Level AAA are not met, then Level AAA conformance can not be claimed.
... And it is not recommended to require Level AAA for entire site.

Liam: Agreed

Wayen: So the contradiction is resolved, although it seems paradoxical the first time you read it.

Shawn: Would it help to emphasize "required"?

Liam: Well, it no longer seems to be contradictory, what was our original concern?

<LiamMcGee> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/Overview-diff.html

Liam: Found original, it was quite confusing

Wayne: It is clear enough now. In a conformance section the first priority must be correctness. Clarity is second. This may be as clear as it is possible to be.

Liam: It must be legally testable

Shawn: So we think it makes a bit more sense where they have moved it?
... do we want perhaps to stress the word "required?"

Liam: Don't use Level AAA in "shall or must" statements, but only for certain sections

Shawn: but we are accepting their change?

Accepted by group

Shawn: Comment 17...looks like placeholder comment

Accepted Comment 17

<shawn> Comment 19 Justin's email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007OctDec/0083.html

Shawn: Comment 19 - blinking and flashing distinction

<LiamMcGee> flash is 0.333 or below

Justin: The distinction between blinking and flashing is minimal as it is expressed here.
... perhaps each technique is trying to accomplish different purposes, which may make sense, but these definitions are self referential and understanding requires guessing...jargon alert!

William: Why are they using two differnt terms?

Liam: Flashing is change in brightness, light to dark; blinking is when object becomes visible and invisible
... the problem is to measure. Periodicity is the problem with blink and flash
... blinking is conceptually different: appearing and disappearing.

William: Why is the distinction important?

Liam: events triggered by flashing are specific, epilepsy

Wayne: blinking affects ADD

William: So there is no difference in events, only lables?

Shawn: No, there is real distinction between them.

Justin: Is WCAG 2.0 defining these differences? How would a person know?

Shawn: If I showed you a line of text that came on or off - you would say blinking. If I shouwed you a large screen where objects changed brightness you would say something like flashing

William: How would you treat them differently? what are the implications?

Wayne: Difference is that a person who is suseptible must never see the flash that triggers epilepsy, while blinking is a distraction only. The second is annoying, but the first is dangerous

Liam: Perhaps they need to present context.

Shawn reads from guideline

Liam: Yes, there is impact on people with visual impairments as well

Shawn: the definition of Flash should be linked. Liam's explanation of the two was easy to understand and in synch with the WCAG purpose. Provide those as a suggestion to help remove jargon and provide clear definition.

Liam: There are metrics, they should choose one and be consistant

Wayne: Formal, numerical definition needs summary or preface in plain language.

<LiamMcGee> Specifically, it's either something that happens more than three times in a second or it happens three times per second. Use one form across both definitions.

Justin: It would be interesting to develop test cases...to go to my friends and ask for their reaction...is it blink or flash?

<LiamMcGee> Flashing is a change in luminosity, which I think is technically different from brightness.

<scribe> ACTION: sharron to summarize definition and send to Shawn and Liam for review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-eo-minutes.html#action01]

<LiamMcGee> Flash/Blink differences are 1) period 333ms and faster vs 333ms-2000ms 2) dimension (luminosity variance vs visible invisible)

Shawn: Comment 20, sharron owes review

<scribe> ACTION: sharron to review and report today [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-eo-minutes.html#action02]

Wayne: On comment 21, I agree with WCAG-WG, disagree with our comment

<LiamMcGee> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#content-structure-separation

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20071102/#content-structure-separation

Wayne: They were previously dancing around this question and finally in this section stated the basic requirement that structure will not be conveyed through presentation.
... This solidifies the requirement...makes it programmatically determined, covers all bases in terms of semantic mark-up. It is stated generally to include all cases.

Liam: But doesn't it imply ALL information as currently stated?
... I'd like it to be presented more reasonably...all that CAN be, etc...will be...

Shawn: If you meet the sufficient techniques, you meet the success criteria.

Wayne: What about comma between info and structure?

Shawn: It is intended.

Wayne: Examples are things like pie charts, relational information. When that is the case, it must be provided in words.

Shawn: If you reveiw them, techniques are all about semantic mark-up.

Liam: Flash presentation of geographical info...is it covered there?
... I am afraid that one could follow sufficient techniques without fulfilling the purpose.

Wayne: We want to ensure that someone who can not see the structural presentation can still get meaning of material.

Shawn: Consider the sufficient techniques document...is there anything there that is NOT referring to semantics or structure? There doesn't seem to be
... So if this only covers structural relationships, is your example of presentation covered elsewhere?

Liam: It's covered by 1.1

Wayne: But in presentation of statistical information, etc, may need to pull back, may be beyond the guidelines.

Liam: Conveying information that underlies the visual element is tricky, perhaps use cases would be valuable.

Shawn: If so, we need someone to develop those use cases. Remember that comments must be resolved soon for release in early December.

Wayne: But since these are in the support documents, maybe we have more time?

Shawn: not really

<scribe> ACTION: wayne to develop use cases by Monday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-eo-minutes.html#action03]

<scribe> ACTION: Liam to reveiw [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-eo-minutes.html#action04]

Shawn: comment 22, pending review by Andrew
... need clarity

Andrew: It seems quite clear in techniques documents.

Shawn: should we ask them to consider putting <title> somewhere for clarity?
... any objections?

Andrew: it is given in example

<LiamMcGee> <title>The World Wide Web Consortium</title>

Wayne: supports <title> inclusion

Shawn: how about we accept the change with the suggestion to consider <title> somewhere high in the doc?

group agreed

Shawn: on to the last one

<shawn> 3.1.4 Abbreviations: A mechanism for finding the expanded form or meaning of abbreviations is available.

<justin> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007OctDec/0084.html

<lipapp> okay, dialing back i

Wayne: How about using "programatically determined" as they do everywhere else?

Justin: That would make more sense. As it is now "mechanism" is given more importance than the provision of meaning.

Shawn: I think they were trying to make clear that the abbreviation tag is not required, that you could use glossary or other way to make it known.
... anyone think the emphasis on "mechanism" is important?

Wayne: It is clear that we do not understand what they mean.

Shawn: Obviously Justin's version is clearer, I'm just trying to anticipate why they might have included this.

Liam: Perhaps it is a reference to internal mechanisms of AT.

Justin: That would be an ATAG issue.

Liam: Right.

Shawn: So let's send them our suggestion and let it be clear that if there is a reason for the wording that we have missed, we will work with them.

Group agrees

<scribe> ACTION: shawn to suggest Justin't simplification [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-eo-minutes.html#action05]

Shawn: I will remind you that the comments accepted by the Boston group are not on this list. If any EOWG members need to review please do so ASAP.
... any objections or additional info please send to list by 3:00 EST US Monday at the latest

Wayne: My conformance note is just nitpicky stuff, nothing wrong in thier intent, they just did not say what they meant
... hang my remarks on our general response to conformance section

Shawn: OK
... Liam sent additional separate comments. Do you want EO feedback?

Liam: yes, Wayne helped me clarify. I think the way it is currently worded is not possible to achieve.

Wayne: I agree

Shawn: Liam, what is the issue?

<shawn> SC 1.4.8

Liam: The requirement for text resizing without horizontal scrolling. But size of users screen is not in control of author. Iphone screen is very different from monitors, size of other windows. Suggested rephrase: Text resized..up to 200% in a way that does cause characters to be hidden or overlapped by other elements on the page

Wayne: Think about URLs...you can't resize to 200% and fit w/our scrolling

Shawn: Thinking about user agents and common problems

<justin> I gotta run... bye all

Liam: The problem they are getting at is in standard browsers, but the requirement as stated is not possible to achieve

Shawn: The reality check is that the issue needs to be communicated. along with your suggested language, include goals and explanation of limitations
... timeframe is critical so put all information in up front to help them think about different use cases.

Wayne: I will send you some of the work I am doing with Tom Jewett

<shawn> WAI-ARIA FAQ http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/ARIA/faq.html

<scribe> ACTION: liam to send comments, wayne to support [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-eo-minutes.html#action06]



Sharron: The main changes are the addition of 4. What is a widgit in ARIA, and removal of very technical items to keep the document more introductory.
... I'd appreciate group input about what additional questions people who are new to the subject in general or to ARIA work specifically might have.

<shawn> Requirements/Analysis and changelog for WAI-ARIA documents for education & outreach: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-aria-docs

Sharron: As it is now, the FAQ leans toward the techie side. So it is not ready for detailed review; but Would really like brief review for approach. Is this the right document for the content? How will it relate to other documents? What should the focus be?

Lisa: Looking at the library as a whole with regard to restructuring. Road map becomes small, The conceptual is new; Examples go to Best Practices.

Shawn: Will need to look at the Primer to inform the FAQ.
... The intended audience is tool developers.
... was in response to Lisa's check on EO's intent.

Lisa: needs EO comments on restructuring.

Shawn: meeting next week.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Liam to reveiw [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-eo-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: liam to send comments, wayne to support [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-eo-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: sharron to reveiw and report today [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-eo-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: sharron to summarize defintion and send to Shawn and Liam for review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-eo-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: shawn to suggest Justin't simplification [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-eo-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: wayne to develop use cases by Monday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-eo-minutes.html#action03]

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.128 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/11/17 00:25:03 $