14:53:45 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
14:53:45 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/10/01-wai-wcag-irc
14:53:54 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wai-wcag
14:54:08 <AWK> meeting: WCAG Working Group Teleconference
14:54:45 <AWK> regrets: Bruce, cherie, alan, kerstin, gian
14:55:04 <Joshue> zakim, this will be WCAG
14:55:04 <Zakim> ok, Joshue, I see WAI_WCAG()11:00AM already started
14:55:26 <Zakim> +[Adobe]
14:55:30 <AWK> Zakim, Adobe is AWK
14:55:30 <Zakim> +AWK; got it
14:55:30 <Joshue> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:55:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller], AWK
14:56:07 <AWK> Agenda+ WCAG review of Techniques Task Force: ARIA techniques for 10 September 2013  (We need to do #8 only) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAGTechs20130910/
14:56:19 <Joshue> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:56:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller], AWK
14:56:24 <AWK> Agenda+ Review of Techs comments and ARIA techniques for September 22, 2013 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20130922comments/
14:56:44 <AWK> Agenda?
14:57:18 <AWK> Zakim, IPC is Joshue
14:57:18 <Zakim> sorry, AWK, I do not recognize a party named 'IPC'
14:57:24 <AWK> Zakim, [IPC is Joshue
14:57:24 <Zakim> +Joshue; got it
14:57:39 <Joshue108> Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag
14:58:29 <Joshue108> zakim, this will be WCAG
14:58:29 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108, I see WAI_WCAG()11:00AM already started
14:58:41 <Joshue108> zakim, who is on the phone
14:58:41 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', Joshue108
14:58:46 <Joshue108> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:58:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see Joshue, AWK
14:58:48 <Zakim> +Cooper
15:02:36 <Loretta> Loretta has joined #WAI-WCAG
15:02:55 <Zakim> + +1.703.225.aaaa
15:03:03 <AWK> Zakim, aaaa is Loretta
15:03:03 <Zakim> +Loretta; got it
15:03:26 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:03:36 <Loretta> zakim, IPcaller is Loretta
15:03:36 <Zakim> +Loretta; got it
15:03:50 <AWK> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see Joshue, AWK, Cooper, Loretta, Loretta.a
15:04:03 <Loretta> aaaa is someone else
15:04:16 <MichaelC> zakim, Loretta is Sailesh_Panchang
15:04:16 <Zakim> +Sailesh_Panchang; got it
15:04:22 <MichaelC> zakim, Loretta.a is Loretta
15:04:22 <Zakim> +Loretta; got it
15:04:31 <AWK> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:04:32 <Zakim> On the phone I see Joshue, AWK, Cooper, Sailesh_Panchang, Loretta
15:05:21 <SaileshP> SaileshP has joined #wai-wcag
15:05:28 <AWK> regrets+ Kathy
15:05:43 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag
15:06:01 <Zakim> +Marc_Johlic
15:06:32 <AWK> regrets+ peter korn
15:06:44 <AWK> Chair: Joshue
15:07:54 <Joshue108> ScribeNic: Loretta
15:08:01 <Joshue108> ScribeNick: Loretta
15:08:09 <AWK> Zakim, agenda?
15:08:09 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
15:08:11 <Zakim> 1. WCAG review of Techniques Task Force: ARIA techniques for 10 September 2013  (We need to do #8 only) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAGTechs20130910/ [from AWK]
15:08:11 <Zakim> 2. Review of Techs comments and ARIA techniques for September 22, 2013 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20130922comments/ [from AWK]
15:08:13 <AWK> Agenda?
15:08:32 <Joshue108> zakim, take up item 1
15:08:32 <Zakim> agendum 1. "WCAG review of Techniques Task Force: ARIA techniques for 10 September 2013  (We need to do #8 only) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAGTechs20130910/" taken up
15:08:35 <AWK> Scribe: Loretta
15:08:35 <Zakim> ... [from AWK]
15:09:25 <AWK> TOPIC: 8. ARIA-edit: F68: Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.1 and 4.1.2
15:11:48 <Joshue108> ack Sailesh
15:11:48 <Loretta> DIscussing Kathy's comment about whether implicit labels should be a failure.
15:12:22 <AWK> q+
15:12:24 <Loretta> Sailesh: Tested this example and found many screen readers and browsers that handle it correctly.
15:12:39 <Loretta> Conclusion: do not include this as a failure example.
15:12:43 <Joshue108> ack awk
15:14:01 <Loretta> AWK: H44 test procedure says to check for the for attribute. So that technique doesn't describe implicit labels. But that doesn't mean that implicit labels can't be sufficient.
15:15:34 <Loretta> Sailesh: many examples in other techniques use implicit labeling.
15:15:58 <Loretta> JOC: Support for implicit labeling is improving. The story might have been different 2 years ago.
15:16:15 <Loretta> Sailesh: Still concerned about how it works with voice activate software.
15:17:04 <Loretta> Loretta: Recommends that Sailesh should join the task force working on the accessibility support data base!
15:18:12 <Loretta> RESOLUTION: Accept F68 as amended.
15:18:48 <Joshue108> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/failures.html#F68
15:19:52 <Loretta> Take up item 2
15:20:41 <Loretta> LC-2850: Title Change for G86
15:21:11 <AWK> G86: Providing a text summary that requires reading ability less advanced than the upper secondary education level.
15:22:30 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20130905/2850
15:23:09 <Loretta> Michael: Just using "less than" with no comparison is ambiguous.
15:24:03 <Loretta> Use AWK's suggestion: G86: Providing a text summary that can be understood by people with lower secondary education level reading ability
15:24:35 <Loretta> RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2850 as amended.
15:25:27 <Joshue108>  LC-2847: Comments on the following: LC-2790 @longdesc
15:25:37 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20130905/2847
15:27:24 <Loretta> AWK: John and Laura seem to be advocating a full discussion of the comparison between longdesc and describedby any time describedby is mentioned.
15:28:01 <Loretta> AWK: Agree that we don't want the describedby technique to say that it is the preferred way; we should just say that it is one way to meet SC.
15:28:32 <Loretta> AWK: Some of the changes made in response to Laura's comment include a more even-handed comparison in the longdesc technique.
15:29:25 <Joshue108> +q
15:30:08 <Loretta> JOC: Will this be sufficient to put this topic to bed? Will we be giving longdesc the status it deserves?
15:30:32 <Loretta> LGR: We need to modify the proposed response to include Andrew's proposal, then send this to survey again.
15:30:48 <Joshue108> -q
15:32:19 <Loretta> RESOLUTION: Leave LC-2847 open, Andrew to craft new response to this and LC-2848.
15:33:32 <Loretta> RESOLUTION: Leave LC-2848 open, per previous resolution.
15:33:33 <Joshue108> LC-2846: F91 example 1 contains markup error
15:33:39 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20130905/2846
15:34:08 <Loretta> LC-2846: F91 example 1 contains markup error
15:36:18 <Loretta> Change response to accept the accepted change.
15:37:01 <Loretta> AWK argues that this really was a cut-and-paste error, and that we didn't mean to introduce this markup error.
15:37:30 <Loretta> RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2846 as amended.
15:37:47 <Joshue108> LC-2844: Out of date User Agent Support info
15:37:53 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20130905/2844
15:39:33 <AWK> q+
15:40:18 <Loretta> MC: Response needs to be more concrete. Are we going to change anything, or not?
15:40:52 <Loretta> JOC: What do we say about the ASD?
15:41:03 <Loretta> MC: Should discuss this, but probably can't decide today.
15:41:11 <Loretta> MC: Suggestions for what we might do:
15:41:46 <Loretta> MC: Add dates for all the user agent notes. Downside: this would be hard to do for all our historical user agent notes. Perhaps we only do this for user agent notes going forward.
15:42:11 <Joshue108> +q
15:42:35 <Loretta> MC: Another option: remove all the existing user agent notes and move them to another page. Not clear the best way to organizing this information. But this would let us update that page, and just reference the page from the techniques.
15:42:56 <Loretta> This makes it easier to update the user agent info, but still doesn;t guarantee it doesn't get stale.
15:43:18 <Loretta> MC: THird option: wait for the accessibility support data base. But we don't have a schedule for this.
15:43:25 <Loretta> MC: My preference would be option 2.
15:43:47 <Joshue108> ack awk
15:43:48 <AWK> ack me
15:43:54 <Joshue108> -q
15:44:02 <Loretta> Eventually, this links in the techniques could move from this page to the accessibility support database.
15:44:12 <Loretta> AWK: I thought we had already decided to go with option 2.
15:45:21 <Joshue108> +q to say that at least agreeing to start adding dates to UA support notes from here on in would be helpful. We could also look at the history for techs and then use that as a timestamp.
15:45:45 <Loretta> LGR: For ARIA techniques, we have been assuming user agent notes would not be in the techniques. But I didn't recall that we were planning to go back and change all the existing techniques.
15:46:06 <Loretta> MC: I can automate extracting the user agent notes from the techniques.
15:47:10 <Loretta> MC: Easiest approach: set up a wiki page called User Agent notes that has a bookmark and header for every technique.
15:47:28 <Loretta> The section would contain exactly what is in the current user agent notes right now.
15:47:44 <Loretta> MC: It would be obvious how random our user agent notes are.
15:47:59 <Loretta> JOC: COuld they we edited and manually updated after the fact?
15:48:20 <Loretta> MC: Yes, this could be done after the automated part. But it is going to be a big page.
15:48:37 <Loretta> MC: If we wanted to organize them by user agent, for instance, it would be a lot of manual work.
15:49:12 <Loretta> MC: Since it would be a lot of work and since the ASD might come along and do that anyway, suggest not doing this.
15:49:31 <Joshue108> ack me
15:49:31 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say that at least agreeing to start adding dates to UA support notes from here on in would be helpful. We could also look at the history for techs and then
15:49:34 <Zakim> ... use that as a timestamp.
15:49:36 <Loretta> JOC: We could give this a try.
15:50:32 <Loretta> JOC: Can we extract dates for existing user agent notes?
15:50:52 <Loretta> MC: It would be a manually process of looking through the CVS entry and finding the edits. THis would be a lot of work and slow.
15:51:06 <Loretta> JOC: Like the idea of the wiki and it being easy.
15:51:20 <Loretta> JOC: I like having all the user agent data in one place.
15:51:33 <Loretta> JOC: I am uneasy about removing the user agent notes from each technique.
15:51:52 <Loretta> MC: There would be a link to this page in each technique.
15:52:09 <AWK> q+
15:52:10 <Loretta> SP: Include "last updated by" information for this data.
15:52:54 <Loretta> JOC: Can this be done by the Task Force?
15:53:05 <Loretta> LGR: I think this is the wrong place to do it.
15:53:46 <Loretta> LGR: When techniques are authored, you don't know when the technique will be published.
15:54:40 <Loretta> JOC: But you can record when the user agent testing was done.
15:55:00 <Loretta> LGR: Would rather see the energy put into the ASD.
15:55:31 <Loretta> JOC: Have some concerns about whether anything is happening with the ASD. Last talked with Shadi several months ago.
15:55:45 <Loretta> AWK: Invite Shadi to join editor's meeting for an update?
15:56:32 <Loretta> AWK: My understanding is that we are planning to have a separate User Agent notes document for ARIA, similar to PDF.
15:56:55 <Loretta> AWK: Also, how much are we discussing ASD publicly?
15:57:00 <AWK> Thanks for the comment, your feedback is very useful. We agree about the need to better 'time stamp' the user agent support notes so we can track progress as we develop techniques.  For ARIA techniques we intend to combine all user agent notes into a single document to be available and linked from individual techniques at the time of publication.  For all other techniques we are considering extracting all user agent notes from the individual techniques and combining
15:57:19 <Loretta> JOC: Agree, there is still staging needed for the ASD (accessibility support database).
15:57:41 <Loretta> q+
15:57:44 <AWK> these into a separate linked resource that can be more easily updated.
15:57:46 <Joshue108> ack awk
15:59:09 <Loretta> JOC: Would separating these out help with the ASD?
15:59:24 <Loretta> MC: I don't think they will incorporate our user agents note since they are so unreliably.
15:59:40 <Loretta> MC: I think the ASD will be organized differently, too.
16:00:14 <Loretta> JOC: I was under the misimpression that the user agent notes from the ARIA techniques would be of some use to ASD.
16:00:37 <Joshue108> ack lore
16:01:03 <MichaelC> q+
16:01:51 <Loretta> LGR: SHould set expectations that WCAG will not be going back and updating the user agent notes.
16:02:29 <Loretta> JOC: Should make it clear that the user agent notes are just a snapshot in time, and that the ASD is the proposed mechanism for addressing this problem.
16:02:34 <MichaelC> ack me
16:03:11 <Loretta> MC: Don't think it would take much time to pull out the user agent notes (maybe an hour or two), and think it will be less confusing .
16:03:11 <Joshue108> +q
16:03:36 <Loretta> MC: We can put information in that document explaining that we aren't planning to update the information.
16:03:36 <Joshue108> ack me
16:03:53 <Loretta> JOC: THis sounds good to me.
16:04:32 <Loretta> JOC: But how much can we discuss ASD in responses?
16:04:55 <Loretta> MC: We need to treat it something that may not ever happen, so we can't be too public in our discussions.
16:05:48 <Loretta> AWK: I updated the proposed response.
16:06:06 <Loretta> MC: WOuld like to decide whether we are going to create the single document, and should get WG approval.
16:06:21 <Loretta> AWK: Doesn't seem like it should be controversial.
16:06:45 <Loretta> MC: It is a change to the structure, and there may be people who want to comment on it.
16:07:10 <Loretta> JOC: WOuld making a trial run of the new document help?
16:07:20 <Loretta> MC: It may help with WG acceptance.
16:08:16 <Loretta> RESOLUTION: Michael to produce a draft combined user agent note page; leave LC-2844 open and survey again when page is available.
16:09:18 <Joshue108> LC-2849: If there is a focusable element inside a div then the onkeypress works
16:09:21 <Loretta> LC-2849: If there is a focusable element inside a div then the onkeypress works
16:10:23 <Loretta> AWK: Added comment about how he thinks we should respond.
16:10:59 <Loretta> AWK: Example isn't relevant to this failure, which is specific to creating links.
16:13:23 <Loretta> DIscussion about whether it is possible to emulate a link in a way that shouldn't trigger the failure.
16:15:34 <Loretta> AWK: I will update the response and we can resurvey.
16:16:04 <Loretta> RESOLUTION: Leave LC-2849 open. ANdrew to update response.
16:16:11 <Joshue108> RIA Technique: modifying F43
16:16:17 <Joshue108> RIA Technique: modifying F43
16:16:23 <Joshue108> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/F43:_Failure_of_Success_Criterion_1.3.1_due_to_using_structural_markup_in_a_way_that_does_not_represent_relationships_in_the_content
16:16:27 <Loretta> ARIA Technique: Modifying F43
16:18:37 <Loretta> Modifying test procedure per LGR comment.
16:20:39 <Loretta> AWK: Note that there is a flip side and presentation could be misused to cause this failure.
16:20:52 <Joshue108> +q
16:20:52 <Joshue108> ack Sail
16:20:56 <Joshue108> ack Sail
16:21:35 <Loretta> LGR: Some background: this failure used to try to address both sides, and the TF was having a hard time making a test procedure that was understandable. It was suggested that it would be easier to split these into two failures.
16:21:49 <Joshue108> ack me
16:22:01 <Loretta> SP: Agree that it would be better to make using role presentation inappropriately a separate failure.
16:23:53 <Loretta> JOC: role presentation does not suppress all the content, e.g., setting role=presentation on a layout table would not hide the contents of the table. If the contents are not exposed, that would be an AT bug.
16:24:06 <Loretta> JOC: can anyone confirm?
16:24:22 <Loretta> LGR: I think James Nurthen has expressed this before, as well.
16:25:00 <Loretta> SP: But it you have a data table with labels in the column and row headings, you don't want to use role=presentation.
16:25:31 <Joshue108> ack queue
16:25:36 <Joshue108> zakim queue
16:25:41 <Joshue108> zakim, queue?
16:25:41 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
16:29:00 <Loretta> RESOLUTION: Also provide a failure to expose relationships in the content because of the misuse of role=presentation
16:29:49 <Loretta> AWK: Still find the first 2 sentences awkward. Suggest removing the last sentence from my proposal and use that to replace those sentences.
16:31:38 <Loretta> q+
16:31:49 <Loretta> Reviewing Sailesh's comments.
16:32:24 <Joshue108> zakim, queue?
16:32:24 <Zakim> I see Loretta on the speaker queue
16:33:29 <Joshue108> ack Loretta
16:37:28 <Loretta> Discussion about first item in Sailesh's comments (not captured in minutes)
16:38:03 <Loretta> RESOLUTION: Resume discussion of this item next week; leave open for further discussion.
16:38:04 <Zakim> -Joshue
16:38:08 <Zakim> -Sailesh_Panchang
16:38:10 <Zakim> -Cooper
16:39:08 <Loretta> rrsagent, stop log
16:39:08 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'stop log', Loretta.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:39:16 <Loretta> rrsagent, create minutes
16:39:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/10/01-wai-wcag-minutes.html Loretta
16:39:33 <Zakim> -Marc_Johlic
16:39:45 <Loretta> rrsagent, make minutes public
16:39:45 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', Loretta.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:39:47 <AWK> rrsagent, set logs member-visible
16:40:09 <AWK> rrsagent, set logs world-visible
16:40:29 <Loretta> zaki, please part
16:40:39 <Loretta> zakim, please part
16:40:39 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were AWK, Joshue, Cooper, +1.703.225.aaaa, Sailesh_Panchang, Loretta, Marc_Johlic
16:40:41 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wai-wcag
16:40:57 <Loretta> rrsagent, please part
16:40:57 <RRSAgent> I see no action items