15:58:17 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
15:58:17 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/01/21-wai-wcag-irc
15:58:19 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:58:19 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wai-wcag
15:58:21 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
15:58:22 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
15:58:22 <trackbot> Date: 21 January 2014
15:58:22 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WAI_WCAG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
15:58:53 <Zakim> WAI_WCAG()11:00AM has now started
15:59:00 <Zakim> +vinay
16:00:09 <Kathleen> Kathleen has joined #wai-wcag
16:00:38 <AWK> Chair: AWK
16:00:41 <AWK> Zakim, agenda?
16:00:41 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
16:00:48 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:00:57 <AWK> Agenda+ Continuing the discussion of Evaluation Methodology Note and approval for publication of working draft https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20131126EM_Review/
16:00:57 <Joshue> zakim, [IPcaller] is Joshue
16:00:59 <Zakim> +Joshue; got it
16:01:01 <Zakim> +Kathleen
16:01:12 <AWK> agenda+ UAAG review
16:01:28 <AWK> agenda+ Techniques and understanding timeline
16:01:49 <wwu> wwu has joined #wai-wcag
16:01:49 <adam_solomon> adam_solomon has joined #wai-wcag
16:01:56 <AWK> Agenda+ Review updated technique https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ARIA_tech_Jan21_2014/
16:02:07 <Loretta> Loretta has joined #WAI-WCAG
16:02:10 <Zakim> +??P26
16:02:17 <MichaelC> zakim, ??P26 is Michael_Cooper
16:02:18 <Zakim> +Michael_Cooper; got it
16:02:20 <MichaelC> zakim, I am Michael
16:02:20 <Zakim> ok, MichaelC, I now associate you with Michael_Cooper
16:02:22 <MichaelC> zakim, mute me
16:02:22 <Zakim> Michael_Cooper should now be muted
16:02:26 <MichaelC> zakim, call cooper-mobile
16:02:26 <Zakim> ok, MichaelC; the call is being made
16:02:27 <Zakim> +Cooper
16:02:37 <shadi> zakim, code?
16:02:37 <Zakim> the conference code is 9224 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), shadi
16:03:13 <urmila> urmila has joined #wai-wcag
16:03:14 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:03:16 <Joshue> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:03:16 <Zakim> On the phone I see vinay, Joshue, Kathleen, Michael_Cooper (muted), Cooper, [IPcaller]
16:03:20 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
16:03:26 <adam_solomon> i just got on
16:03:31 <Loretta> zakim, IPcaller is Loretta
16:03:31 <Zakim> +Loretta; got it
16:03:33 <Zakim> +David_MacDonald
16:03:39 <Zakim> +Shadi
16:03:50 <Joshue> zakim, mute Lor
16:03:50 <Zakim> Loretta should now be muted
16:03:51 <shadi> zakim, mute me
16:03:51 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
16:04:03 <Joshue> zakim, unmute Lor
16:04:03 <Zakim> Loretta should no longer be muted
16:04:26 <AWK> Zakim, vinay is AWK
16:04:26 <Zakim> +AWK; got it
16:04:32 <AWK> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:04:32 <Zakim> + +1.703.825.aaaa
16:04:32 <Zakim> On the phone I see AWK, Joshue, Kathleen, Michael_Cooper (muted), Cooper, Loretta, [IPcaller.a], David_MacDonald, Shadi (muted), +1.703.825.aaaa
16:04:52 <AWK> Zakim, ipcaller.a is Adam Solomon
16:04:52 <Zakim> I don't understand 'ipcaller.a is Adam Solomon', AWK
16:05:03 <AWK> Zakim,
16:05:03 <Zakim> I don't understand '', AWK
16:05:16 <Joshue> zakim, 825.aaaa is Sailesh
16:05:16 <Zakim> sorry, Joshue, I do not recognize a party named '825.aaaa'
16:05:18 <AWK> Zakim, .aaaa is Sailesh
16:05:18 <Zakim> sorry, AWK, I do not recognize a party named '.aaaa'
16:05:28 <AWK> Zakim, aaaa is Sailesh
16:05:28 <Zakim> +Sailesh; got it
16:06:03 <David> David has joined #wai-wcag
16:06:26 <Joshue> zakim, mute me
16:06:26 <Zakim> Joshue should now be muted
16:06:31 <AWK> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:06:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see AWK, Joshue (muted), Kathleen, Michael_Cooper (muted), Cooper, Loretta, [IPcaller.a], David_MacDonald, Shadi (muted), Sailesh
16:07:02 <adam_solomon> zakim, [IPCaller.a] is adam_solomon
16:07:02 <Zakim> +adam_solomon; got it
16:07:21 <AWK> Zakim, a is Adam Solomon
16:07:21 <Zakim> I don't understand 'a is Adam Solomon', AWK
16:07:34 <Zakim> +EricP
16:07:55 <wwu> zakim, EricP is wuwei
16:07:55 <Zakim> +wuwei; got it
16:07:57 <adam_solomon> im having communication problems but i am the ipcaller.a
16:08:04 <wwu> zakim, mute me
16:08:04 <Zakim> sorry, wwu, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:08:12 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag
16:08:21 <Loretta> Scribe:Loretta
16:08:24 <Zakim> +Marc_Johlic
16:08:26 <AWK> Zakim, take up item 1
16:08:26 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Continuing the discussion of Evaluation Methodology Note and approval for publication of working draft https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20131126EM_Review/" taken up
16:08:29 <Zakim> ... [from AWK]
16:09:02 <wwu> zakim, mute wuwei
16:09:02 <Zakim> wuwei should now be muted
16:09:07 <shadi> ack me
16:09:11 <Loretta> AWK: we had some discussion last week, but needed to talk more about scoring metrics.
16:09:24 <w3c> w3c has joined #wai-wcag
16:09:36 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129
16:10:13 <Loretta> Shadi: See link to disposition of comments from WCAG WG on the previous draft.
16:10:22 <w3c> w3c has joined #wai-wcag
16:10:31 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #wai-wcag
16:10:49 <Loretta> Shadi: Most comments we wrote resolutions to; people have been asked to review the disposition of their comments.
16:11:13 <Loretta> Shadi: scoring metrics is still an open issue. It has been an issue since the beginning of this work.
16:11:39 <Loretta> Shadi: There have been repeated requests for some way to simplify the status of how well a web site conforms to WCAG.
16:11:50 <Zakim> -Cooper
16:11:55 <Loretta> Shadi: Other people have been opposed to this for a variety of reasons.
16:11:57 <Zakim> + +1.301.367.aabb
16:12:27 <Zakim> +Kathy_Wahlbin
16:12:27 <SPanchang> SPanchang has joined #wai-wcag
16:12:31 <Loretta> Shadi: Some of the ideas: we are not doing any kind of sophisticated scoring, just computing a ratio.
16:12:39 <Zakim> +Katie_Haritos-Shea
16:12:44 <Loretta> Shadi: it does give some indication for the web site.
16:12:48 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
16:12:59 <Joshue> zakim, queue?
16:12:59 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
16:13:15 <Loretta> Shadi: Possibly we should rename this (aggregation?) rather than calling it scoring, since that raises expecttions that aren't being met.
16:13:35 <Loretta> Shadi: We would like to keep it in for the coming draft, to get more feedback and also to try it out in practice.
16:13:59 <Loretta> Shadi: We hope this will be the last draft; if we remove it now, we lose any opportunity for more public input.
16:14:50 <Joshue> +q
16:15:04 <Joshue> zakim, unmute me
16:15:04 <Zakim> Joshue should no longer be muted
16:15:09 <Loretta> AWK: suggestion call this issue out as one for which we are especially soliciting comments.
16:15:16 <AWK> ack Josh
16:15:21 <Loretta> Shadi: That is the idea. Publish with an editor's note asking for input.
16:15:48 <Loretta> Josh: That is a good way to deal with this. Publish as is, aggregate feedback, and make a final decision.
16:16:01 <David> q+
16:16:02 <Joshue> zakim, mute me
16:16:02 <Zakim> Joshue should now be muted
16:16:09 <AWK> ack david
16:16:34 <Zakim> +James_Nurthen
16:16:37 <Zakim> -adam_solomon
16:16:37 <Loretta> David: I'm attracted to the scoring idea. Gov of Canada is asking for something like this.
16:16:54 <Loretta> David: Because they had no metrics, they lost that part of the judgment in court.
16:16:57 <Joshue> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:16:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/01/21-wai-wcag-minutes.html Joshue
16:17:15 <Loretta> David: personnaly I'm sceptical we can find a good metric.
16:17:18 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:17:31 <shadi> q+
16:17:53 <Loretta> David: THe problem with the current scheme is that 1.3.1 really covers about 50% of the accessibility issues. But failing 1.3.1 only has a small impact on the score.
16:18:10 <shadi> ack me
16:18:10 <AWK> ack shadi
16:18:16 <Loretta> David: I am afraid that people want this so badly that whatever we call it, it will become the score in the field.
16:18:51 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/TR/accessibility-metrics-report/
16:18:57 <Loretta> Shadi: IN the Research and Development WG, we tried to find a more sophisticated metric.
16:19:21 <Loretta> Shadi: We did find what David described. To date, we aren't aware of a metric that meets the requirements we were looking for
16:20:10 <Loretta> Shadi: One thought: you don't only take the SC across the website, but each page gets a score. So repeatedly failing one SC will have a larger impact on the metric.
16:20:24 <Loretta> s/take/count
16:21:14 <Loretta> Shadi: We added lots of warnings about how this is not appropriate for comparing the accessibility of different web sites. We can clairy that language even more if this stays.
16:21:45 <Loretta> David: I think that is the best we can do.
16:22:35 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
16:23:16 <Loretta> AWK: proposal is to publish this version as an updated Editor's Draft with an editor's note asking for feedback on the scoring metric.
16:23:42 <shadi> [[Eval Task Force specifically asks feedback on this section. Please indicate if the score provided now is useful for you or if possible provide input for improving the concept of a score in this evaluation methodology.]]
16:25:27 <Joshue> zakim, unmute me
16:25:27 <Zakim> Joshue should no longer be muted
16:25:29 <Joshue> +q
16:25:47 <AWK> ack j
16:25:49 <Joshue> ack me
16:26:37 <Loretta> Josh: is the question whether there will be a scoring mechanism, or whether this is the right scoring mechanism?
16:27:06 <Loretta> Shadi: one of the suggestions is to completely remove the section about the scoring methodology..
16:28:19 <Loretta> Shadi: Are you asking whether this suggestion should be in the note?
16:28:53 <Loretta> Josh: evaluation and metric go hand-in-hand. SOme kind of metric is needed.
16:29:34 <Loretta> Josh: But better to get this out for comments, and then we can come back and thrash it out.
16:29:35 <David> q+
16:29:38 <Joshue> zakim, mute me
16:29:38 <Zakim> Joshue should now be muted
16:29:48 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:30:07 <Loretta> Shadi: Eval TF is not committed to having a scoring metric. The TF is split on this issue.
16:30:27 <Loretta> Shadi: In the previous draft we also asked for input about scoring, and the comments were also half and half.
16:30:50 <Loretta> Shadi: This time we are tweaking the question to ask how to improve the scoring.
16:30:58 <AWK> ack d
16:31:07 <adam_solomon> adam_solomon has joined #wai-wcag
16:31:31 <Loretta> David: has anyone surveyed the scoring performed by the major evaluatinon tools?
16:32:02 <Loretta> Katie: I have. They weigh it with other factors, like how often something appears on a page.
16:32:31 <Joshue> zakim, unmute me
16:32:31 <Zakim> Joshue should no longer be muted
16:32:34 <Joshue> +q
16:32:34 <Loretta> David: Has anyone considered this type of approach, looking to see if there is any commonality among the tools. Is a pattern starting to emerge?
16:32:39 <shadi> q+
16:33:32 <Loretta> Katie: one of the things my org includes in that algorthm is how many instances per page, and also rate some things as more important than others, and they also take remediation cost into account.
16:33:53 <Joshue> ack me
16:34:01 <Loretta> James: I also assume that their algorithms are proprietary.
16:34:25 <Loretta> Josh: nyone's algorithm will be weighted by their own experiences and biases.
16:34:46 <Loretta> Josh: and there is a disconnect between computed scores and the results of user testing.
16:35:01 <shadi> ack me
16:35:03 <Loretta> q+
16:35:07 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/TR/accessibility-metrics-report/
16:35:28 <Loretta> Shadi: I refer again to the research report on web accessibility metrics. It does look at a fair number of approaches to such metrics.
16:36:03 <Loretta> Shadi: conceptually a lot of the research in this report looks at the different tools and their approaches.
16:36:39 <Loretta> Shadi: you start getting into validity issues, where they consider what they think is more important. Is that a measure of WCAG conformance?
16:36:44 <Loretta> Katie: it is not.
16:36:59 <Joshue> zakim, mute me
16:36:59 <Zakim> Joshue should now be muted
16:37:13 <Loretta> Shadi: we also get into issues of complexity. Those tools tend to measure the failures more, or what they can automatically check.
16:38:13 <Loretta> Shadi: we might end up dropping the type of scoring, but the current method is fairly simple to compute.
16:38:28 <Loretta> Shadi: it is an optional part of the methodology.
16:38:43 <AWK> ack lor
16:39:21 <Joshue> LGR: We seem to be diving into the score - I don't think we'll get through that today. Lets stick on whether we should publlish.
16:39:31 <Joshue> s/publlish/publish
16:39:46 <Loretta> Loretta: we seem to be diving into details of how to compute score. I don't think the WG will settle this today. Can we decide whether to publish with the note.
16:40:21 <Joshue> lets do it
16:40:22 <Loretta> AWK: are there any other issues?
16:40:47 <Zakim> -James_Nurthen
16:41:02 <Zakim> +James_Nurthen
16:41:42 <Loretta> Resolution: Approve publication of an updated editor's draft of the Eval note with an Editor's note asking for feedback on scoring.
16:42:13 <Loretta> Shadi: We still need to generate an updated draft. Expecting to publish by the end of next week.
16:42:18 <shadi> zakim, mute me
16:42:18 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
16:42:22 <AWK> zakim, agenda?
16:42:22 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
16:42:23 <Zakim> 1. Continuing the discussion of Evaluation Methodology Note and approval for publication of working draft https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20131126EM_Review/ [from AWK]
16:42:23 <Zakim> 2. UAAG review [from AWK]
16:42:23 <Zakim> 3. Techniques and understanding timeline [from AWK]
16:42:23 <Zakim> 4. Review updated technique https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ARIA_tech_Jan21_2014/ [from AWK]
16:42:32 <AWK> Zakim, close item 1
16:42:32 <Zakim> agendum 1, Continuing the discussion of Evaluation Methodology Note and approval for publication of working draft https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20131126EM_Review/, closed
16:42:35 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:42:35 <Zakim> 2. UAAG review [from AWK]
16:42:52 <Joshue> http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG20/
16:43:01 <Joshue> http://www.w3.org/TR/IMPLEMENTING-UAAG20/
16:43:17 <Loretta> AWK: UAAG group requests that we review the last call working draft of UAAG20. The comment period has been extended to Jan 31.
16:43:24 <Joshue> Please send comments public-uaag2-comments@w3.org
16:43:30 <Zakim> -Shadi
16:43:55 <Loretta> AWK: Are there WG members who would be particularly interested in doing this?
16:44:12 <MichaelC> ack me
16:44:51 <Loretta> AWK: do we ask individuals to review, or do we try to develop a consensus group review?
16:45:04 <MichaelC> zakim, mute me
16:45:04 <Zakim> Michael_Cooper should now be muted
16:45:09 <Loretta> Michae: it is our call how to handle this.
16:45:34 <David> q+
16:45:38 <Loretta> AWK: if individuals see particular red flags, please brings those issues back to the WG for discussion.
16:45:43 <AWK> ack d
16:46:06 <Loretta> David: WHen we make statements as a WG< they are usualy heeded. WHen individuals submit, it doesn't carry the same weight.
16:46:33 <Loretta> AWK: This isn't surprising.
16:47:19 <Loretta> AWK: If there are things that individuals feel strongly about and this the rest of the WG would as well, we could put those on a survey. But there is not much time.
16:47:33 <Joshue> zakim, unmute me
16:47:33 <Zakim> Joshue should no longer be muted
16:47:36 <Joshue> +q
16:47:39 <Loretta> AWK: We would need to identify such things by Friday.
16:47:54 <AWK> ack j
16:48:04 <Loretta> Josh: has anyone looked at this draft?
16:49:30 <MichaelC> ack me
16:49:31 <Loretta> Josh: maybe people with familiarity with UUAG would skim?
16:49:45 <MichaelC> zakim, mute me
16:49:45 <Zakim> Michael_Cooper should now be muted
16:50:01 <Loretta> Michael: the point of a WCAG review is to make sure there are no incompatabilities with WCAG.
16:50:40 <Loretta> (THose with familiarity have no time...)
16:51:38 <Joshue> I'll certainly have a look.
16:51:51 <Joshue> zakim, mute me
16:51:51 <Zakim> Joshue should now be muted
16:51:54 <Loretta> AWK: people are encouraged to do what they can and comment to the UAAG group by Jan 31.
16:51:59 <AWK> Zakim, close item 2
16:51:59 <Zakim> agendum 2, UAAG review, closed
16:52:00 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:52:00 <Zakim> 3. Techniques and understanding timeline [from AWK]
16:52:18 <Joshue> zakim, take up item 3
16:52:18 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Techniques and understanding timeline" taken up [from AWK]
16:52:19 <MichaelC> ack me
16:52:21 <AWK> ZAkim, take up next item
16:52:21 <Zakim> agendum 3 was just opened, AWK
16:52:36 <MichaelC> zakim, mute me
16:52:36 <Zakim> Michael_Cooper should now be muted
16:53:08 <Loretta> AWK: Request for review of our latest draft went out to mailing lists, twitter, etc.
16:53:46 <Loretta> AWK: Sources are hosted on github. ANyone can access those files, make edits in their local repository and send a pull request to apply their edits.
16:53:59 <AWK> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/comments/
16:54:15 <Loretta> AWK: IN our comment instructions, there is info about how to use github to comment on WCAG.
16:54:55 <Loretta> AWK: You still need to provide comments on the rationale for a change, but they can be very clear and explicity about what changes they would like to see.
16:55:39 <Joshue> s/ANyone/anyone
16:55:47 <Loretta> AWK: If someone submits a comment via github, either minor to fix a spelling request or bad link, or more substantial like rewriting a paragraph, they submit the pull request.
16:55:52 <Joshue> zakim, queue?
16:55:52 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
16:56:05 <Loretta> AWK: That comes to us as an email, and we will log it (as usual) in the comment tracker.
16:56:50 <Loretta> AW: We still bring that to the WG for discussion. Depending on the outcome, we might merge it in (which sends an email to the submitter). We will also send a response to the public list, as always.
16:57:08 <Loretta> David: so anyone can file an issue?
16:57:17 <Loretta> AWK: Yes.
16:57:18 <Joshue> zakim, unmute me
16:57:18 <Zakim> Joshue should no longer be muted
16:57:21 <Joshue> +q
16:58:09 <Loretta> David: from the low tech end, just clicking the issue button is easy.
16:58:39 <Loretta> Da vid: people can say anything generally. No need to write code, etc.
16:59:18 <Loretta> AWK: I should look into that feature. The solution may not be known to the commenter, for instance. That may be a good way to expand our comment process.
16:59:49 <Joshue> ack me
17:00:32 <Joshue> zakim, mute me
17:00:32 <Zakim> Joshue should now be muted
17:00:42 <Joshue> zakim, queue?
17:00:42 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
17:01:08 <Loretta> Sailesh: Will github scare off commenters who aren't so technical WIll it make them not submit their comments?
17:01:34 <Loretta> AWK: If that were the only way to submit comments, it probably would. But it is not the only  way. There is still the online form and email comment submission.
17:03:56 <Loretta> David: the editors may find the github issue tracker a better way to track our bugs.
17:04:48 <Ryladog> * testing note
17:05:03 <Loretta> AWK: Timeline: coments are due on Feb 14. We will process comments as we get them and finish accepting comments on March 4. This is a pretty rapid timeline. It gives us 2 and 1/2 weeks to address all the comments we have.
17:05:34 <Loretta> AWK: We will have more time if people submit comments early. We have a couple of editorial comments that have already come in and will just be handled by the editors.
17:06:06 <Loretta> AWK: Goal is to have a final version that could be approved for publication on March 11, to be published on March 13.
17:06:51 <Joshue> zakim, unmute me
17:06:51 <Zakim> Joshue should no longer be muted
17:07:08 <Joshue> LGR: It's an ambitious timeline!
17:08:10 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #wai-wcag
17:09:06 <Loretta> AWK: CSUN - we are targeting Tuesday for a Face to Face. The only thing that might change it is if some magic benefactor would host us, but couldn't do it on Tuesday.
17:09:45 <AWK> ZAkim, take up next item
17:09:45 <Zakim> agendum 4. "Review updated technique https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ARIA_tech_Jan21_2014/" taken up [from AWK]
17:10:48 <Joshue> zakim, mute me
17:10:48 <Zakim> Joshue should now be muted
17:11:04 <Ryladog> URL is dead
17:11:21 <Joshue> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ARIA_tech_Jan21_2014/
17:11:36 <wwu> wwu has joined #wai-wcag
17:12:29 <Loretta> Sailesh: I had concerns on the old version that I commented on when we reviewed it.
17:12:53 <Loretta> Sailesh: if you look at the bottom section, the rationale for the writeup.
17:12:55 <Ryladog> * katie thanks Josh
17:13:05 <Loretta> Sailesh This could also be used for 3.3.3. That is missing.
17:13:36 <Loretta> Sailesh: IN the current example, all errors go into a p tag. They should be marked up as a list.
17:13:50 <Loretta> Sailesh: Just putting them in a paragraph is not good practice.
17:14:14 <Loretta> Sailesh: there is a nuisance between using role=alert and arialive=assertive
17:14:29 <Loretta> They could be crafted as separate techiques or combined into one
17:15:02 <Loretta> Sailesh: The current technique test is focused on the details of coding. Would such a test procedure endure? How can we make it robust?
17:15:55 <Loretta> Sailesh: Re Kathys comment that example 1 doesn't work in IE, I tested it in Firefox, where it works.
17:16:09 <Loretta> Sailesh: What makes it work in IE is to set focus on it.
17:16:21 <wwu> wwu has joined #wai-wcag
17:16:46 <Joshue> zakim, unmute me
17:16:46 <Zakim> Joshue should no longer be muted
17:17:25 <AWK> Loretta: biggest concern is direction of test procedure
17:17:37 <Joshue> LGR: My concern with the test direction is that it makes more sense to have a technique that highlights the distinction.
17:17:46 <Joshue> zakim, mute me
17:17:46 <Zakim> Joshue should now be muted
17:18:17 <Joshue> LGR: I don't know what is the diff between various UA a11y support
17:18:26 <Joshue> LGR: It's complicated.
17:18:59 <Joshue> AWK: There is the issue of how we deal with UA support - it's common to many places.
17:19:13 <Joshue> AWK: Kathy agrees with Loretta.
17:19:21 <Ryladog> */ trying to figure out how to author a *silent* comment
17:19:26 <Joshue> AWK: Discussion on tech support
17:19:33 <wwu> wwu has joined #wai-wcag
17:20:17 <David> q+
17:20:27 <Joshue> AWK: We can check that out - Adams made some editorial comments.
17:21:01 <Joshue> AS: Explains his comment
17:21:41 <Joshue> SP: Elements without content are not exposed by NVDA or JAWS.
17:21:55 <Joshue> AS: What if alert element has no content?
17:21:59 <Joshue> SP: Not a problem.
17:22:31 <Joshue> SP: Only when populated with an error message, is it read out.
17:22:39 <Joshue> <discussion continues>
17:22:58 <Zakim> - +1.301.367.aabb
17:23:35 <Joshue> AS: If it has the CSS declaration display:none will the AT pick it up?
17:23:43 <Joshue> JN: No.
17:23:50 <Joshue> SP: You don't need it.
17:24:03 <Joshue> AS: Will that be a problem, if so it should be avoided.
17:24:10 <Joshue> JN: That shouldn't be a problem.
17:24:13 <Joshue> AS: Ok.
17:24:16 <Joshue> <discussion continues>
17:25:11 <Joshue> JN: It must be present in the DOM on page load - not via the A11y API. This is why they work in IE in pre ARIA versions, as they bypass the A11y API.
17:26:04 <Zakim> -James_Nurthen
17:26:08 <AWK> ack David
17:26:14 <Zakim> +James_Nurthen
17:27:15 <Joshue> AS: Another comment, the Live Region would pick up on a change in content, if I toggle display:none, would that be enough to trigger the Live Region?
17:27:22 <MichaelC> ack me
17:27:24 <Joshue> That would be cool.
17:27:44 <MichaelC> I actually don´t know...
17:27:51 <Joshue> <discussion continues>
17:28:08 <David> q+
17:28:22 <Loretta> I'm going to have to leave promptly too.
17:28:56 <Loretta> Outstanding issues: test procedure, and complete examples?
17:29:30 <Loretta> Sailesh: 2 techniques or 1 technique?
17:29:39 <AWK> ack d
17:30:05 <Loretta> David: we've been looking ta these error messages and how to make them the most accessible.
17:30:50 <Joshue> zakim, unmute me
17:30:50 <Zakim> Joshue should no longer be muted
17:31:18 <Loretta> Out of time: we will leave this issue open for more discussion.
17:31:20 <AWK> Scribe: AWK
17:31:22 <Zakim> -Joshue
17:31:27 <Zakim> -Kathleen
17:31:28 <Zakim> -Loretta
17:31:28 <Zakim> -Katie_Haritos-Shea
17:31:32 <AWK> RESOLUTION: Leave open
17:34:58 <Zakim> -Kathy_Wahlbin
17:35:42 <Zakim> -wuwei
17:36:40 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
17:42:37 <Zakim> -Michael_Cooper
18:00:04 <Zakim> -James_Nurthen
18:00:07 <Zakim> -Sailesh
18:00:09 <Zakim> -David_MacDonald
18:00:09 <Zakim> -Marc_Johlic
18:00:09 <Zakim> -AWK
18:00:09 <Zakim> WAI_WCAG()11:00AM has ended
18:00:09 <Zakim> Attendees were Joshue, Kathleen, Michael_Cooper, Cooper, Loretta, David_MacDonald, Shadi, AWK, +1.703.825.aaaa, Sailesh, adam_solomon, wuwei, Marc_Johlic, +1.301.367.aabb,
18:00:10 <Zakim> ... Kathy_Wahlbin, Katie_Haritos-Shea, James_Nurthen, [IPcaller]
18:00:56 <SPanchang> SPanchang has joined #wai-wcag
18:01:07 <AWK> rrsagent, make minutes
18:01:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/01/21-wai-wcag-minutes.html AWK
18:08:41 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
18:13:46 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
18:18:44 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
19:15:39 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
19:16:40 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
19:31:21 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
19:53:31 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
19:55:31 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
19:57:31 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
19:58:45 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
19:59:34 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
20:00:34 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
20:02:31 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
20:04:31 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
20:06:31 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
20:08:31 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
20:10:31 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
20:11:46 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
20:12:19 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
20:13:31 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
20:15:31 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
20:17:31 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
20:19:31 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
20:21:31 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
20:23:31 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
20:25:31 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
20:26:30 <Barry> Barry has joined #wai-wcag
20:27:31 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
20:29:31 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
20:33:31 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
20:35:31 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
20:38:35 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
20:39:34 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
20:58:26 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
21:00:22 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
21:02:22 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
21:04:22 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
21:08:31 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag
21:13:42 <wwu> wwu has joined #wai-wcag
21:19:27 <wuwei> wuwei has joined #wai-wcag