JB is there language for interim?
DD we use "until"
JB used in guideline 10 text. therefore, AC member is requesting clarification. so the language for the defn of interim is significant.
DD same as the "until" lang.
GV - checkpoints that are necessary today until user agents incorporate 1 or more...
JW - defining an expression that is used only once.
PJ - says in note under the guideline. isn't enough?
GV - checkpoints that are interim all begin with the term "until."
JW - don't need defn for interim, since "until" so well defiend.
GV -handle in words after 10.
JB - defn. of "until user agents" says more info available but no link to it.
GV - create a place holder doc and link to it?
WC - info already in techniques.
JB - then don't bury.
GV - Does the techniques doc need to be frozen next week?
JB - need to submit as a note therefore need to be "frozen" to go to TR.
Resolved: from defn. we'll make links stand out. link to techniques doc. will discuss in more detail and links to other resources.
EH concerned about self-promotion of this section. capture unique aspects of the process. invite the world to do the same (disability aware design process).
JW - doesn't belong in this document.
JB - agree, it doesn't, but the proposed wording should suffice.
EH - dislike mandate that have to use a certain technology, say, "use w3c or something else that does x, y, z"
JB - member did not request change in checkpoint, only requested clarifiation.
JW - add to 11.1 that says if using proprietary, ... makes it clear that if a non-w3c technology
JB - not soley a matter of "is w3c only option" but what is the "or else."
EH - combine 11.1 and 11.4
/* lots of no's */
DD - ASCII file - non w3c technology that is accessible.
GV - 11.1 does not leave room for good business case.
CMN - if w3c the only technology...or if have choices, then
CMN "when they are available and applicable."
JB - "available and supported"
JW - "relevant"
WC - what about business case?
Resolved: ("only use w3c technologies")
Resolved: add example text to 6.3
/* PRI-4 skipped, cover later.*/
Resolved: add links to guidelines from checkpoint map (in tech. doc)
JB - how apply to nested tables?
JW - that type of detail belongs in techniques doc.
Resolved - use proposed wording. 5.4 does not change.
Resolved split the checkpoint that recommends providing redundant text links for image maps into 2 checkpoints - 1. - server-side p1, 2. - client-sdie p3.
fallback is the melded together.
/* concern about use of other split priorities */
CMN will look at while we go on.
/* discussion about moving to other places in document. decided to keep in same guideline */
PJ - should not have to do both a collated text transcript and syncrhonized captions
GV - amount of info in transcript vs. movie is different.
GV - as with alt-text and longdesc.
PJ - resolve in techniques doc. no good multi-media captioning examples (tools and formats).
PJ - are we removing significant barriers or making a preference easier to have.
CMN - how being presented part of the info available.
PJ - strongly believe info is available equally in either.
/* "religious" differences cited */
JB - we do not need to come to consensus on this. we can provide advice cite minority opinion as well as majority opinion.
PJ - depends on type of information being provided (whether video provides more info than transcript for person who can see).
JB - we clarify the requirement by using phrase "important" as in Checkpoint 1.
PJ - yes, could resolve.
EH - what about my suggestion re: "silent" animations/videos? particularly, "visual" track rather than "video"track.
PJ eric's rewording "text equiv of the video track" better english
/* discussed definition of "animation" vs. "video" */
PJ add to glossary - if animation through script - see guideline 6, if video see guideline 1. (or something along those lines).
JW - explained in techniques.
PJ - as well as 1.3
JW perhaps look at use of "until user agent" in 1.3.
/* JB sending proposal to GV and WC in regards to user agents and authoring tools */
/* working on exact wording of 1.3 - gregg capturing */
/* Almost resolved. when gregg read it back realizes how much jargon and how hard to parse. */
/* discussion of jargon. */
PJ proposes: provide a description of the video info and synch with audio info. P1
GV does not require it be done in audio.
JB PJ + and provide an auditory descrip of video track...?
PJ until most UAs can render text equiv of visual track, provide an auditory description of the visual track and synch with audio track. P1
Resolved: until most UAs can automatically read aloud the text equiv of the visual track, provide an auditory description of the visual track of multimedia presentations. Note. per 1.4 - this must be synchronized w/audio track. [Priority x] see 1.1 for equivs of video info.
EH wants P2
PJ wants P3
JW we previously discussed that it is a P1 until UAs can do this.
PJ regardless if auto or by human hands, the collated transcript is the same access as aud. descrip with multimedia.
JB is it an option to give it a split priority? P1 and P2?
PJ propose P1 and P3.
JB seems weird but may make sense.
JW - concerned of how "important" may be interpretted.
EH It is logical that the text equivalent of the visual track and the text equivalent of the audio track should constitute a text equivalent for the movie. But the key issue is whether the movie becomes "impossible to access" (definition of priority 1) if one fails to provide the synchronized multimedia; in my opinion, "No, because collated text transcript is already provided" (checkpoint 1.1, Priority 1). And therefore, the synchronization (including auditory descriptions) warrants Priority 2. If it were "impossible to access" then it would be Priority 1.[Wendy, I can't remember if this was the exact spot that I said all of this, but it does reflect the content of my comments during the call.]
/* discussion of priority */
/* bathroom break */
PJ new proposal
EH - if a collated text trasncript - good enough don't need synchronization.
PJ importance is on what info is lost when synch does not occur. provide aud. descrip and synch. so that important info not lost.
JW - synch not the sole issue.
/* more discussion on priorities */
JW - note that says, "important into 2nd clause of phil's proposal then, the note "if not important info in the visual track then this checkpoint may be regarded as satisfied."
EH seems to agree.
GV in defn of equiv. need to capture idea "the best that can be done."
GV - agreement on the language but not on the priority.
EH - A collated text transcript provides basic level accessibility, as is consistent with the definition of P1. Synchronization provides superior accessibility; it is beyond the basic level and "remove[s] significant barriers" per the definition of P2, and therefore warrants a P2.
Action Editors - in the techniques document provide additional info on formats. don't have to provide in all the diff players, one is enough.
/* consensus not reached. continued to debate philosophical issues. will capture both arguments in the "advice" sent to Tim as follows */
Resolution
DD french word for car (voiture), speech synth says "voter" visual person can see that it is a different word.
PJ - whole page a p3 is easier to understand whole page?
JW it is the mixture of languages in the document where the problem is. believe should remain P1.
PJ actually a p2.
/* discussion about difficulty of whole doc vs. changes in language mid-stream */
JW to translate to braille has to either have help or spell word by word.
explain comment to AC member as well as add more discussion in techniques.
PJ clarification needed, because it says, "so synthesizer can recognize it"
JB so synthesizer can apply proper text to speech rules. add it to, "Content developers should identify the predominant natural language of a document's content and indicate when language changes occur. " emphasize that it is the switching that causes problems. "so that when one appplies appropriate text to speech rules" "second sentence remove misunderstanding or misleading that the issue is the natural language of the netire doc.
Resolution:based on the following actions:
Action Editors: editors clarify use of language attribute based on judy's discussion
Action JW write vignette discussing the process he goes through to get accessible multilingual documents.
JW for speech synth important to know what is an acronym or abbreviation, but that cog dis should drive the priority.
EH suggests deleting it. benefit is not worth the effort.
JB we haven't been using a cost standard.
JB notes that Jaap just posted re: acronym and lang.
EH not clear what is an acronym vs what is an abbreviation.
JW tangential to central issue. AC comments didn't suggest deleting, it is a priority issue.
in consideration of cognitive disabilities, regard it as a comprehension issue and thus why we split the priorities.
EH no split priority. have p3 for first use.
JW concerned about text to speech and braille. in french braille system the full stop at end of abbreviation is different than full stop at end of the sentence. liekwise, text to speech need to know so they can spell out rather than try to speak.
JB wondering about the cognitive disability issue and how much it is being considered in the priority level.
EH we don't want to compenseate technically for illiteracy. we need to look at the issue where person has the knowledge but can't access it.
JB memory issue.
/* EH needs to leave */
GV let's come back to 10. are we approaching agreement?
EH i've stated my position. i could live with it, although i have great concern that it will unduly influence people's attempt to satisfy p2 or p3 rating.
DD tend to agree. what it brings in terms of pronunciation.
GV plus if in all caps, should be able to handle on screen reader side.
JW people are inconsistent in use of abbreviations.
GV severe usability problem or just usability problem?
JW in case of someone using text to speech or braille and reasonably literate, then just usability. in case of cognitive disabilities of various kinds, i'm not in a position to say.
JB not hearing anything that argues clearly that is different than what is currently in the docuemnt. to try to defend priority would not be able to prevent a clear argument.
PJ what about that no one supports it so no immediate benefit?
JB these are not for the month of may or june. they are for designing where we are going. therefore trying to handle future and backwards compatibility.
/* EH trying to leave - if haven't commented on 11 or 12, then no problem. */
/* We don't have consensus to change the priority. */
Those who believe we should be 3 EH, PJ
Those who can live with it either way - DD, CMN, JW (concerned about solid argument that might reduce priority for cog. dis)
JB if this will mean that doc not go to REC, then group can say, don't sacrifice doc over this issue.
Action PJ checking with cog. dis. experts on priority of abbr/acronym.
Consensus - o.k.
recommending changing wording back to frame specific.
JB if purely an issue to generalize, then could support.
CMN believes should stand as is, except remove NOSCRIPT from example. difference is that
/* group realizes that scope is too broad for 6.5 but it should not go away or solely discuss frames. the crux is that dynamic information that is updated without user notice is an issue - this issue for frames and scripts. */
CMN suggests another way to make frames accessible is to provide a "status" frame.
GV editorial change. insert GV's text.
JB very substantial. but appropriate.
Resolved: PRI-11 Column Wrapped Text and 12 Accessibility in Applets are closed.