benircben has joined wai-wcag joeclark[tap tap tap] AndiircAndi has joined wai-wcag Andiscribe: Andimc: 3 breakout groups - UAAG impact analysis, work plan to resolve baseline, long term work planmc: can work plan to resolve baseline procees without completion of UAAG impact analysis?attending: Alex Li, Paul Thorpe (from binary characterization WG), Alistair Garrison, David McDonald, Andi Snow-Weaver, Jenae Andershonis, Michael Cooper, Carlos Iglesias,Joe Clark, John Slatin, Ben Caldwell, Katie Haritos-Shea, Wendy Chisholm wendyircwendy has joined wai-wcag Andimc: Combine UAAG impact analysis and work plan to resolve baseline groupsmc: Ben, Joe, Alex, AndiWendy, Michael, Jenae on long term planningDavid on UAAG impact analysisAlistair - long term planningKatie on UAAG impact analysisbreak into groups for 1 hour until 10:10 joeclarkBREAKING! sh1mmerircsh1mmer has joined wai-wcag joeclarkUAAG evaluations:http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/impl-pr2/ Michaelscribe: Michaeltopic: Planning subgroup kenircken has joined wai-wcag Michaelwc: looked at requirements to pass through the stages to get to Rec RyladogircRyladog has joined wai-wcag Michaeldeliverables, tasks to complete deliverables, owners for tasks, Gantt chart of all thiswe have more to do to make the planjs: consider availabilities of the people with tasks so we have a realistic timelineeven if timeline longer than we want we can get things donewc: no dates for tasks set, but looked at minimum timeframesmc's intuition 1.5 years to get to PRset of things we must do, in a particular orderneed a clear set of deliverables and divide into tasksjs: this is the biggest project involved in - geographic, time, organizations - very complicated, keep this in mindfeeling way through it; we need to help each other stay on taskmc: have to take into account the work of the larger groupwc: need to know each task we have to do to clear rec. Don't know the time will take on each task yet.going forward: we need to finish the project plancould have people look at deliverables and figure out the tasks for eachhave people look at issues and figure out tasks needed to closeassign owners to each deliverablecreate a Gantt chartwe have a lot of work assigned to people but it's not getting donejs: propose adding a timeline / milestone update to the Thursday call agenda each weekal: need to set big picture timeline firstdetermine major deliverables without timeline, break down into tasks, then assign timelinefinally calculate final deliverabletopic: UAAG impact analysis and baseline planningbc: discussed conditional content issue, take to UAAG as recommendation for changediscuss other technologies e.g., script, MathML, SVG, issue is what does WCAG say about using technology vs. switching to fallbackstc: what should be in WCAG and what should be in UAAG kenircken has left wai-wcag Michaelwill browser manufacturers comply with UAAG and should we provide fallback techniquesal: WCAG should assume standards met, but techniques reflect reality that ATAG & UAAG not metthe changing of technologies otherwise ties us up in keeping trackwe have to accept that there are a variety of standards from various sources, and various levels of proper implementationkhs: UAAG should require UA to support W3C technologydoesn't mean don't support other technologies also, but should at a minimum support W3Cbc: UAAG unclear about what to do when a feature is not supported, this issue affects uskhs: W3C tech will have gone through PFto clarify, if a technology for a feature exists, the UA should support the W3C version, but can also support other versionswc: not sure we can impose this requirement, nor does it necessarily guarantee accessible joeclarkq+ Michaelkhs: part of supporting multiple accessible formats wendyq+ to say, "uaag has content labels so that you can claim what you do conform to" Michaeltc: technologies used should be accessibility-capable a la UAAG, WCAG wendyq- Michaelto judge technology accessible, you need to be designed to work with UAAG compliant UA, and a UAAG compliant UA itselfack joe Michaeljc: WCAG 2 advantage eliminates chauvinism towards W3C specs in WCAG 1we can't therefore require UA to always support W3C version of the tech they implementwhen we talk about UAAG, we equate "web page with media in it" as a browser launching an external playerthis should not be the assumptionaffects baseline assumption joeclarkUIUC's UAAG evaluations:http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/wai-eval/index.php?option= Evaluations Tomsh1mmerircsh1mmer is now known as Tom Michaelbc: need a solid decisionwe say follow the spec and expect UA to catch upor we deal with practical realitywe need to decide whichq+ david wendyq+ to ask, "if informative, are any required for conformance?" Michaelal: techniques not part of conformancebc: yes, but we have to provide a way to say what the standard and supported way to do thingsdmd: doesn't repair techniques deal with this?ack david Michaelack wendy Michaelbc: need to walk the list of out-of-spec things and ask if someone can conform to WCAG 2 without a workarounde.g., alternatives for OBJECT and EMBED, UA can't get at it joeclarkq? Michaeltb: QA requirement: should have conformance model for WCAG 2 that doesn't contradict conformance models for technologiesthere is a large body of tests for technologies we could reuse to test for accessibility joeclarkq+ joeclarkStandards-compliant ways to use <object> that mostly work:http://joeclark.org/access/captioning/bpoc/embed-object.html Michaelwc: using NOEMBED doesn't break WCAG because of loophole to document spec violationsbc: but those techniques don't even work at all joeclarkq+ to say iframe, true alternative for video Michaelwc: find other techniquesconcerned about "techniques used for conformance" because we are non-normative so none of them are technicallyack joe Michaeljc: IFRAME alt content works and is a viable alternative techniquekeep in mind which kind of alternative a particular person needs, don't provide an inappropriate onewc: we have had a "minimum" alternative requirement to provide very base accessibilitycertainly you could go furtherbut we need some level 1 requirementjc: in real world, this base requirement met in a very simple way, e.g., link to transcript, not pluperfect directly associated transcriptwc: SC as checklist simplifies some of this joeclarkiframe reference, for the hell of it:http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/special/iframe.htmlnote that you can use name, longdesc (!), and title Michaelwe know that to truly determine if content accessible, need usability testing, but need simpler conformance requirementsdmd: we can suggest that in techniques(non-normatively)tc: advocating workarounds could stop progressionbad as it is to leave people behind with non-useful techniques, strict techniques needed to push technology forward joeclarkq+ John Michaelwc: but doing so could seriously damage credibilityack tom wendyq+ Michaeltc: but at least we're taking a solid position, this could enhance credibilityack john Michaeljs: we could do a "strict" and "transitional" techniquesmc: but that's another work itemwc: but then techniques affect conformancetc: would be too compromising, we need to put our foot downwc: how would we compromise things?tc: backwards compatibility may not compromise accessibility but gives permissoinEMBED joeclarkq+ wendyack w wendyscribe: wendyack joe Michaeltc: action item: itemize the cringe factors joeclarkhttp://www.alistapart.com/articles/customdtd/ wendyjc: in xhtml can make embed part of the dtd and validate.scribe: michael joeclarkThat URL teaches how to use a custom DTD.q++ joeclarkq+ Michaelq- + Michaelack joe Michaeljc: propose complete the UAAG analysis at all costs joeclarknot quite *all*. Give Ben help if necessary, but finishing that analysis should be done first. benscribe: Benmc: reviews deliverables from charter wendyhttp://www.w3.org/2004/04/wcag-charter.html#deliverables benmc: believe that we need to come out of this meeting with a pretty solid plan for completing these deliverablesmc: would like to have someone assigned to responsibility for thesewc: propose we do as much as we can with the plan today about who wants to do and really fill it out at the CSUN f2fjs: there is a proposal before the full WG about checklists that has a significant impact on this subgroup. is it appropriate for us to make a recommendation or take a position on that?mc: yes, would be useful for us to come out with a recc. on this.wc: proposal is that our checklist is just the SCwc: any discussion on that proposal?tc: have we talked about how it effects use cases and personas yet?tc: initial thoughts are that it will anger some audiencesjc, dm, others: would like to get a clearer picture of what the proposal iswc: would like to discuss this in preparation for CSUN mtg. wendyq? benagenda options for this afternoon: agree on reqs., features of project plan, baseline issue proposal, propsal re SC as checklist greggircgregg has joined wai-wcag benaction: subgroup get together on thursday to do further work, discussion on baseline analysis * RRSAgent records action 1 benmeeting with PF and UA this afternoon Michaeltopic: meeting with PF and UA benwc: has been a variety of discussions about AT support with various people where there is a frustration with AT not supporting what we need them to be supportingUA does a lot of their job, but AT finds it difficult to do what they need to do.wc: plan is to get together with other groups to determine what our message to AT vendors is and continue the discussion at CSUN.wc: PF is working on DHTML roadmap in cooperation with HTML WG. some of this is to determine what the common semantics for page layout (ex. navigation bar, etc.)? (ex. I want to go to the navbar vs. Navigation may or may not be found in a list)wc: a good deal of unknown info for AT. today, rich is going to present about roadmap and lisa will be talking about semantics and metadata that can be included to help with some of thiswc: I think PF wants feedback from us about what we see as common structural elements, but we also need to present some of our issues with baseline and the div. of responsibilitites between authors and user agentswc: one of the issues is that there are often types of information that never make it into the DOM to be made avail. to AT.wc: some of this relates to role and state informationmc: proposal of baseline as we came out of Dublin is something to describe to them (as well as the issues we have with it).mc: also dealing with AT vs. requiring conformance through fallbacks - need to discuss some reasons why we don't have consensus on thatmc: other thing is perfect world vs. real world - do we describe only techs. that work in spec or also techniques that lead to accessibiliy in "real world".al: we can do bothjs: if we were to do both, we don't yet have agreement on how to distinguish themjs: one of my concerns is that we do all this work and come out with a spec. My sense is that AT vendors aren't watching us very closely. Some haven't been following WCAG 2.0 work. We're just now getting to the point where AT supports what was in WCAG 1.0. greggircgregg has left wai-wcag wendyaction: wendy make sure that all UA and Asst. tech devs are on review list * RRSAgent records action 2 Michaelq+ to say a fourth point is that we don't know as much about accessibility of dynamic things as we need to benasw: not sure some AT is concerned about specsjs: would like to show that there are benefits to the techniques that we create through AT developers support for specs. want to encourage them to build WCAG 2.0 into their development cycles.q? Michaelack m benmc: want to suggest a 4th point: one issue we've been facing is accessibility of DHTML - seems like a weakness in our development of techniques.wc: thing is to ask rich what techniques they'd recommend we include?mc: question would be how much of a priority for us to get this kind of information into the group?wc: matt made an effort to do this with scripting developers, but the issue was we didn't make tasks for them clear.wc: feel that there is some more work we need to do - we've been asking for help, but need to give them clearer tasks.mc: other points? joeclarkLUNCHEON benbreak for lunch - mtg. begins @ 1:30 benircben has left wai-wcag wendyhttp://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/meetings/f2fmar05.html#agn TomircTom has left wai-wcag sh1mmerircsh1mmer has joined wai-wcag