On the phone: John Slatin, Wendy Chisholm, Lee Roberts, Matt May, Andi Snow-Weaver, Doyle Burnett, Bengt Farre, Paul Bohman, Gregg Vanderheiden, Ben Caldwell, Cynthia Shelly, Peter Batchelor, Preety Kumar
On IRC: bengt, Zakim, Ben, MattSEA, rscano (Roberto Scano), bazz, wendy
Loretta Guarino Reid, Roberto Scano, Geoff Deering, Gian Sampson Wild, Eugenia Slaydon, Lisa Seeman, Avi Arditti
GV 1.3 - make structure available, 3.1 - make that structure visible.
gv 3.1 strikes me as navigable and understandable.
gv structure is important for understanding.
gv reactions?
wac think there is some overlap, but also think we can focus on these two checkpoints and not try to address the whole of guidelines 3 and 4 and their overlap.
wac would like to look at concrete example of how different.
js part of the problem, one thing that comes to mind is that the requirement that the doc be structured is prereq to making the structure evident.
[16:18] Zakim -Peter_Batchelor
gv don't go there. too many dependencies.
wac but they exist. when testing, you will perform some tests before others.
cs agreeing. not meant to be gone through by steps.
js clearly related but widely separated in the document.
js while interdependent all necessary.
gv there are a lot that are closely related and separated. Grouped in a way to call out basic principles.
gv checkpoints underneath work together.
gv don't want to restructure today. if we look at 1.3 and 3.1, /*gv reads success criteria of 1.3 at minimum level and asserts that they belong there */
gv reads 3.1 at min level asserts, "don't see overlap."
cs might help if instead of "elements" said something else. not implying pointy brackets.
gv min structure is present.
db "the following minimums are present..."
wac is what we are trying to express is there?
cs these are tech-indie. titles in paragraph. divided words into paragraphs.
cs 1.3 is markup, 3.1 is english composition.
wac how differs from 4.1?
gv this is what i was refering to earlier.
cs 3.1 subsumed by 1.3 and 4.1?
gv you can jump around.
cs if AT can get at DOM.
gv can divide up but not in DOM. 1.3 doesn't come into effect...
cs isn't scanability part of 4.1. regardless of technology, jump around.
gv understandability not efficiency of movement.
gv more overlap between 3 and 4 not 1 and 3.
js we've assumed "document = text" what if it is a movie?
gv same thing.
js no paragraphs.
gv sections, scenes. long shot = visual indicator.
js 3.1 only talks about paragraphs. if change it to other things that don't have words, might differentiate.
js 4.1 primarily about text.
gv 4.1 is about content. scene changes is not navigation, it is understanding. so, all 4.1.
gv only example for 3.1 is ability to jump between chapters.
wac web applicatiosn?
cs apply the interaction ones. probably not applicable.
wac SVG example - a technique (navindex piece) for 3.1?
wac related piece is level 3 success criteria #2 under 3.1.
gv the overlap I see is that success criteria (diagrams are constructed in a fashion so that they have structure that can be accessed by the user.)
gv the first 1/2 belongs in 3.1, the ability to access structure is a 1.3 issue.
gv thus: 1.3: diagrams have structure that can be accessed by the user.
gv and 3.1: diagrams are constructed in a fashion so that they have structure.
cs i think a diagram can have structure. suppose 1.3 issue.
[16:36] Zakim +Preety_Kumar; got it
cs exposing visually obvious info in non-visual ways.
gv once have structure, making it in a form that is electronically accessed is 1.3.
cs what is initial structure? other than draw it?
gv bicycle - all elements of the wheel including hub and spokes.
cs or 5.4.
wac main differntiation with 5.4 are things that are not relying on browser to provide (Interpret) user interface.
cs in html techniques, what checkpoint does tab order go with?
gv in success criteria, not really an overlap between 1.3 and 3.1, except for 2 things:
gv 1. "elements" - does not mean markup.
gv "the following min structure is present:
s/:/"
cs and db - sounds fine.
gv "long docs are broken into sections..."
cs generalize the term "document"
js instead of generalizing, specify "for text documents..."
cs good idea. "for other kinds of media, sections have to apparent in some way"
cs open issue: think about general media-indie way to say that?
action cs: think about general media-indie way to say that
js at F2F, "the structural elements that are appropriate to the media are present..." in movies there are scenes.
gv change to, "authors have reviewed list below and have added..." move everything to the list.
gv what if a long doc, historical. you can't add titles and break it up.
cs need a general discussion of where might run into copyright or legal issues.
js diff between original content and republished content (in terms of rights and stuff).
gv need to define "long"
js paragraphs invented in middle ages. if put up something before that, might not be paragraphs.
cs don't do rules, but a note about considering issues of copyright and historical fidelity before making these changes.
js an xml markup scheme for historical documents. the TEI made this.
db long docs that are produced up front and currently need to be broken up.
db otherwise, consider copyright laws.
cs copyright and republishing anything you can't edit it.
gv we seem to have gotten rid of the overlap.
gv 2nd part: concern that was is the minimum level succes criteria has 2 problems: 1. it requires something of long docs w/out defining "long." thus not testable.
gv 2. need a mechanism for making recommendations that don't deal with markup. this changes how things are written.
gv if not an original document, there is a problem.
lr anytime i write an article for someone they say 500 or less. long doc would be 500 or more.
cs that's about right. 5 paragraph essay generally doesn't have headings.
gv if i write a letter, more than 500 words.
wac probably only for english.
js trying to get away from 5 paragraph essays in english comp.
s/freshmen english comp
[16:53] also in italian
wac don't feel we're really making this testable.
gv no. there might be subjective things to think about, but it objective if they have made the statement or not.
as but she is saying that to make that it requires subjectiveness.
gv no. testing whether you did it or not.
gv people can't check it off differently.
wac people can either check it off diferently or in this case, everyone will check it off.
gv yes, some people will lie. it will cause them to focus on it.
gv is it better than nothing? can't put stuff there that is subjective. it would be meaningless.
wac we're really getting rid of the subjectivity.
wac avi or js made a suggestion for generalizing this.
js yes, i raised the issue, avi suggested generalization.
wac thus, perhaps another benefit of 4.1 is increased navigation.
gv except the part about moving around.
gv: Checkpoint 3.2 Emphasize structure through presentation(s), positioning, and labels.
[17:02] Zakim -Preety_Kumar
gv does this increase navigation? no, it's comprehension.
gv 3.3. is navigation
gv 3.4?
cs definitely navigation. primary page is blue, time roman. secondary different. perhaps orientation rather than navigation.
gv understanding when moved.
js navigation elements might not be the same but in roughly in the same place.
cs helps people find things.
perceive, understand, operate, navigate.
gv: some navigation is orientation
wac instead of restructure again, i would like to see people apply to evaluating sites.
cs especially to complex sites - those that had difficulty applying wcag 1.0.
cs don't reorg, just delete.
gv if orientation is really understanding, then go to comprehension.
cs i think they are all appropriately categorized. i wouldn't mind deleting 3.1, but others are fine.
gv 3.5 predictable response. 3.6 methods to minimize error.
gv navigation or operation?
js 1.3 - making structure available. 3.2 - about structure visible and audible. thus, perceivable.
cs buy that
gv when see next to each other, easier to reconcile.
js made wording so that 1.3 is emph. through markup and other is emp through presentation.
js make the parallel more evident by adding "emphasize" to 1.3.
gv move existing 3.2 to 1.4 and make parallel with 1.3.
gv can we delete 3.1?
cs it's covered under 4.1
js implicit under 1.3
gv doesn't mean structure is there, but emphasize that it's there.
gv reading order...
cs should be in 1.3
gv making content and struct available.
cs true. that's p3?
cs seems important.
gv b/c not testable. hard to determine what "logical" reading order means for all sites.
js any hypertext doc would have that problem.
cs for multiple docs?
gv have a "book" where there are no chapters...when put textbook up page from beg to end, but we're developing something...not sure how you go through it linearly w/out a lot of redundancy.
cs info that would allow at least one reading order...thought that was about pages...tables specifically.
gv what if have an n-dimensional array? www.kurzweil.ai.org ask her about kurzweil speeches.
s/.org/.com
http://www.kurzweilai.net/
how do this linearly?
gv same names to differnt things.
js what about someone w/a screen reader?
gv b/c of what is under it (context).
js in wcag 2.0 and bring up jaws headers list. here "benefits informative benefits informative"
gv the titles should say "checkpoint 1.3 - benefits"
cs custom user interface built in script. it would have to do it's own action with SR software.
gv trying to stretch imagination.
cs more important to get at everything than linear order.
gv think linear order was b/c SR couldn't navigate arrays.
wac fumbles about semantic web, order, and such
gv that's 1.3
cs this UI, i wouldn't call a document. the rules for doc don't apply. custom UI does.
wac available in dom
cs or tab to those that are visible. tells you what has changed. etc.
gv we have to come up with something specific...this says "info" not "document." it says "linear".
gv not "some mechanism" to get all info.
cs is linear the right word there?
wac having a path is linear.
gv doesn't matter what order, as long as can get.
gv kurzweil
cs need a site map
[17:30] I think "linear" is difficult to understand and flash interface don't apply this term... "flash" movie always needs to have parallel markup document...
gv it is
gv a single doc that is 2000 items...you'd never have more than 100 on a time.
[17:30] (or I wrong understand the discussion?) :/
[17:31] yes... flash also is a "commercial standard" and need to have a "parallel version"
gv should 3.1 continue to exist? 1st level looks covered. 2nd doing notes below. then requirement for logical reading order.
gv does that fit under understanding or does it stay?
gv people asked, "why is it level 3? it sounds important" then discussion about linear order and if that was something to require.
gv seems that the feeling was "not whole site, but one doc."
gv in full potential, the web is not linear.
cs a navigation control for getting to documents.
gv wrestling w/development of a tool that is n-dimensional. won't be good linear way through.
gv should everything be linear?
cs let's get back to what this was intended to address. i believe it was for tables that caused screen readers. rather than get into the interesting navigation control.
gv couldn't read tables b/c couldn't walk.
js still an issue
db backwards compatibility?
js many layout tables are a problem.
js if this checkpoint is about tables, then we should say that.
wac isn't this covered by 1.3?
wac if not using tables, but structure and css (for positioning - to create table-like structure). handles by 1.3 and 3.2
gv new success criteria to address layout tables.
gv "any relationships expressed spacially would be exposed programmatically."
gv "e.g. tables used for layout"
cs in the existing tech impossible for author to expose?
gv if pull table away get logical reading order.
gv if layout collapsed into logical or groupings or...
cs possible with divs and css.
wac you can markup tables so that when pull away they make sense.
gv most are created by tools that create nested tables.
[17:41] The problem is when tables are complex, nested tables...
cs if could specify reading order, like tabindex. would be great.
[17:41] so, agree with gv...
gv put in at level 2.
gv not saying linear, saying solve the problem.
gv won't live there until come up with techniques.
gv only one more piece: diagrams are constructed...
gv all agreed that if they were, then 1.3 would expose it.
cs sounds like 1.3.
gv this recomend using SVG instead of jpeg.
cs it's a 1.3 kind of thig.
s/thig/thing
gv create diagrams so create hierarchical...if not there already...1.3 would expose it. if not, ...
cs if creating from scratch...
gv unlike a bike, not everything breaks down that logically.
cs basically saying "use vector not raster"
gv use hierarchically constructed and grouped diagrams.
gv "if diagrams constructed hierarchically, must be exposed. " under 4.1...
gv diagrams be constructed hierarhically.
gv so 3.1 is gone. rest sounds like either 4.1 or 1.3.
gv then look at benefits, example, definitions, etc.
[17:47] *** rscano (~rscano@62.211.9.161) has left #wai-wcag (rscano)
agreement: float proposal to the list w/rewritten 1.3 and 4.1 that include pieces of 3.1 so that can delete 3.1.
$Date: 2002/08/22 23:41:35 $ Wendy Chisholm