BeckyircBecky has joined wai-wcag * Becky will be on call shortly greggircgregg has joined wai-wcag wendyscribe: wendyagenda - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0915.html bengtircbengt has joined wai-wcag wendymc: no techniques discussion at F2F. only updates to css, html, and scripting techniques for this publication is to update links to 30 june draft and a blurb that no major changes since november.mc: hoping that guidelines/success criteria will settle/stabalize and focus of WCAG WG will turn to techniques AndiircAndi has joined wai-wcag TimircTim has joined wai-wcag wendyresolution: publish css, html, and scripting techniques with updates to abstract/status and updated links to guidelines/success criteria(comments made previously are in our issues list. no need to resubmit comments) * Andi will minute wendyTopic: Guideline 1.2 L1 SC1: captions - should they remain level 1 or move to level 2?regrets+ yvetteresults - http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/misc0621/results Michaelq+ to say yvette's comment might overlap with mine Michaelq- wendydiscussion about proposal for caption and/or transcript at level 1 * bengt wonders what happend to line wendyaction: michael suggest editorial note for captions and/or transcript at level 1 * RRSAgent records action 1 wendyresolution: keep captions at level 1 DavidircDavid has left wai-wcag wendyTopic: Guideline 1.2 L1 SC2: audio descriptions - should they remain level 1 or move to level 2? DavidircDavid has joined wai-wcag wendysurvey results:Prefer audio descriptions at Level 1 11Can live with audio descriptions at Level 1 8Can not live with audio descriptions at Level 1 2Prefer audio descriptions at Level 2 6Can live with audio descriptions at Level 2 1Can not live with audio descriptions at Level 2 5concern that there are no examples of audio descriptions in japaneseconcern about lack of knowledge joeclarkMakoto said there are no examples of multimedia with audio description in Japan. * joeclark there is audio description on TV in Japan (see NHK). Davidq+ wendyconcern about skill required to write audio descriptions (art form) Makoto(we have TV, but not multimedia on web) wendyconcern that too complex for level 1ack david joeclarkq+ wendyconcern that some people find the audio descriptions confusing and would need a way to turn them off.ack joe wendyconcern addressed by a technique for providing multiple versions wendysome multimedia requires audio descriptions, vs most multmedia requires captionss/multmedia/multimedia * joeclark says that people can just send it out of house if it's "too complicated." DavidircDavid has left wai-wcag wendyresolution: keep audio description at level 1. tweak editorial note that policy would describe scoping. DavidircDavid has joined wai-wcag joeclarkq? joeclarkq+ wendyconcern that definition of audio description needs to include information that listening to the AD is optional. Counter that don't want to add to every definition that viewing the info is possible and should be handled in techniques.s/viewing/viewing or experiencingack joe wendyack tim wendyresolution: keep audio description at level 1Topic: Updated proposal for Guideline 2.3, its success criteria, and related definitionsProposed wording is better than current wording. 12Current wording is better than proposed wording. 4Other 2concern that taking specificity out opens up the guideline to say "you must do x, but we won't tell you x"concern if don't specify which standards there will be fragmentationrationle for removing - those that had been included were computer screen adaptation created with Graham Harding. Some of those guidelines/standards are being revised plus an attempt to create an international standard.further, if we engrained numbers in our guidelines and the international standards came out with different numbers, there would be a conflict.q+ wendyoptions: 1. proposed wording + ednote (with specifics) and ask for feedback2. current wording with understanding that if/when inat'l standard published publish an updated wcag 2.0 wendy3. these are our recommendations, but if national, or international those will prevailq- wendyoption 1: proposed wordingoption 2: currentoptiion 3: current w/possibility to publish updated recoption 4: current wording with clause that national or international standards prevailoptions 1 and 4 had some support, 2 and 3 did not have any supportresolution: keep current wording and add a clause that national or international standards prevail benq+ wendyTopic: Keep the existing text of Guideline 2.4 Level 2 SC1: More than one way is available to locate content within a set of delivery units?q- benq- wendyaction: gregg propose clause for guideline 2.3 * RRSAgent records action 2 wendyCan live with the current wording for the 30 June 2005 Working Draft. 17Can not live with the current wording for th 30 June 2005 Working Draft. 2Other 1concern that this is a problem for web applicationsconcern about how you apply to voicexml David_ircDavid_ has joined wai-wcag wendyresolution: keep current wording w/ednote about concern about applying to web applicationsTopic: Move Guideline 2.4 Level 3 SC1 from Level 3 to Level 1?Move G2.4 L3 SC1 to Level 1 9Keep G2.4 L3 SC1 at Level 3. 8Other 3 DavidircDavid has left wai-wcag wendyGuideline 2.4 level 3 SC1: When a page or other delivery unit is navigated sequentially, elements receive focus in an order that follows relationships and sequences in the content. benq+ to ask, "what was the rationale for this proposal?" joeclarkq+ wendyack ben wendyconcern about rationale for moving. response that it is critical for successful navigation and meets our defn of level 1.ack joe David_q+ wendyneed to test css layouts and tab order and that this might be a wcag 1.0-esque "layout table" issueack or wendyack lor wendyconcern that have seen tab order and dom order not the same and issue.ack dav wendyconcern that if people can choose their own order they'll get confusedseveral people can't live with it at level 1, uncertainty about level 2, everyone can live with at level 3 wendyresolution: leave Guideline 2.4 Level 3 SC1 at Level 3 TimircTim has left wai-wcag relleroyes without microphone wendyroberto ellero - can you give us more information about why you prefer the current wording or can you live with the proposed wording? * joeclark notes that this is turning into a _Star Trek_ Commander Pyke scenario ("beep once for yes") relleroi've indicate prefer second choice wendyyes, can you give more information about why?can you live with the proposed wording? relleroit's more intelligible wendyroberto, can you accept the proposed wording even if you prefer the current wording? relleroi find the new wording is less specific andintroduce ambiguity asalternative version in a generic wayok wendyresolution: adopt proposed wording for Guideline 4.2 Level 1 multiple criterion to replace current level 1 success criterion 2scribe: David David_scribe: david wendyTopic: Delete current Guideline 4.2 Level 2 SC1 or move to Level 3? David_4.2 Level 2 SC1 or move to Level 3? wendyscribe: David_ David_Delete Guideline 4.2 Level 2 SC 1 4resolution: leave it where it is and write editorial noteresolution: leave 4.2 L 2 where it is and write editorialaction: write an editorial note by John * RRSAgent records action 3 wendyaction 3 = John write editorial note for Guideline 4.2 Level 2 SC1 * RRSAgent records action 3 replaced David_Resolusion: Proposed wording for guideline 4.2 new Level 3 SC1:adopted wendyTopic: wo or three levels of conformance? David_Resolution: Proposed wording for guideline 4.2 new Level 3 SC1:adopted bens/Resolusion/Resolution wendys/w/two David_topic: Two or three levels of conformance?summary : the 3 top options (1) 3 levels (2) 2 levels everything in 3 to advisory (3) 3 level with 3rd divideda few people can't live with 3 levelsa bunch can't live with 2nd option bengt! David_a bunch can't live with 3rd option Andiq+ wendyack mi wendyack an David_concerns that were getting into policy when we specify conformance in verticle segments, let governments to that (Mike B)asw: concerned that with 3 levels and 3rd unachievable some poliy people would expose uscan't get unanimity, so we'll go for broad concensis and invite people with concerns to submit themwc: we can specifically ask for this in review.... joeclarkq+ David_gv: we try to reach broad consenus to document that we cold not reach unanimitys/cold/couldwc: we can record formal rejection joeclarkq!q? David_js: proposal to leave it as it is for this draft and invite opposition wendyq+ to read defn of consensus wendyack joe joeclarkjoeclark said on the call that we don't have consensus on either three or two levels (at best one of those camps has a couple more votes than the other camp); it is also inaccurate to say that we have consensus on the current status quo with objections. I believe that the entire issue of three vs. two levels is up in the air and there is no consensus at all. David_dessent is at least one objection wendyhttp://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/policies.html#Consensus David_resolution: there is a decision to stay with 3levels with serious dessent wendys/dessent/dissent David_s/dessent/dissent * wendy apologizes. joe had correct defn of consensus benq+ wendyq- wendyack ben benhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0932.html joeclarkq+ wendyack joe David_bc: wanted clarification on 1.3 Level 3 critierion, we resolved to move from 3.2 to 1.3, question o we need a sc under gl 1.3 or is it coveredjc: with css layouts it is not immediately obvious of the reading order, and sometimes not an issueResolution: unanimous consent to accept the f2f resolutons for GL and SC under Principle 1 benq+ benhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0936.html David_bc: want to make sure we open up anbigiuos wording I proposed 2 options Level 1 SC2 , L2 Sc1 wendyq+ wendyack ben joeclarkq+ David_s/anbigiuos/ambiguous wendyack wendy wendyack joe David_jc: previous wording clearer on plain language, Andiq+ David__ircDavid__ has joined wai-wcag wendyack john greggq+ David__js: I want to say information conveyed by colour is available without colour joeclarkjoeclark said on the call that the original intent was to prevent authors from relying solely on colour (which really means confusable colours like red and green), which is an easy thing to say in plain language. The current wording is a no-brainer-- colour is always programmatically determinable (unless it's in an image), same with text features. Let's give this one another try. David__js: same true about variation of text wendyack andi David__asw: can't always tell colour ie, in flash wendyack gregg David__gv: the reason we moved away from od language, is because people are discouraged from using colur and sometime it helps David_ircDavid_ has left wai-wcag David__testurrg I keep dropping am I in now wendyack mike David__q+ David__q- wendyack john David__mb: we came back to "the colour info is conveyed, not the info itself is conveyed without colour" * Andi suggests a friendly amendment: When information is conveyed with color, the color can be programmatically determined or the information is also conveyed through another means that does not depend on the user's ability to differentiate colors.David__ I like that David__Asw: When information is conveyed with color, the color can be programmatically determined or the information is also conveyed through another means that does not depend on the user's ability to differentiate colors.Resolution accept andi's proposals "When information is conveyed with color, the color can be programmatically determined or the information is also conveyed through another means that does not depend on the user's ability to differentiate colors." wendyfor guideline 1.3 L1 SC2 David__Resolution: accept andi's proposals "When information is conveyed with color, the color can be programmatically determined or the information is also conveyed through another means that does not depend on the user's ability to differentiate colors."Resolution: accept andi's proposals "When information is conveyed with color, the color can be programmatically determined or the information is also conveyed through another means that does not depend on the user's ability to differentiate colors." for guideline 1.3 L1 SC2 wendyack loretta Andiq+ wendyack andi Andiscribe: Andi benproposed: When information is conveyed with color, the color information is also conveyed through another means that does not depend on the user's ability to differentiate colors. Andiresolution: GL 1.3 L2 SC 2 - move example to "examples" or guide document. David___ircDavid___ has joined wai-wcag * David___ I'm back joeclarkq? joeclarkq+ David___q+ benWhen information is conveyed by color, the color information is also conveyed through another means that does not depend on the user's ability to differentiate colors without the use of assistive technologies. David___q- Andiresolution: modify proposal for GL 1.3 L1 SC 2 to say "by color" instead of "with color"q+ wendyack joe David__ircDavid__ has left wai-wcag wendyack andi David___test Andiresolution: GL 1.3 L2 SC 2 - accept Ben's proposal: "When information is conveyed by color, the color information is also conveyed through another means that does not depend on the user's ability to differentiate colors without the use of assistive technologies." with the provision that the editors have permission to clean up the wording but not change the intent. * joeclark joeclark has to go. Later, skaters.