Andiscribe: Andi MichaelircMichael has joined wai-wcag benagenda? Andimc: this AM agreed on some overall tasks Andimc: talk about overall features of a project plan RyladogircRyladog has joined wai-wcag Andimc: concious of deliverables as required by charter - requirements, guidelines, techniques, checklists, test cases, implementation tests and reports, issue tracking reportsmc: divide into tasks - resolve blocer issues, define implementation testing, complete requirements, guidelines, techniquesmc: techniques includes mapping to guidelines, plugging holesmc: are these the right top level tasks?js: doesn't think mapping things aremc: add checklists to top level tasksmc: identify tasks, sub-tasks, time to complete each task, dependencies, milestones, responsibilitiesal: since don't have all variables identified, have to start with milestonesal: then do tasks, sub-tasks, dependenciesal: then assign responsibilitiesmc: last is time to complete each taskjs: 4 of 7 editors are here - can take this plan to the main groupmc: ask main group to fill in the blanksmc: that they ownbc: assumption is we will release another public draft about two weeks after CSUNbc: can't identify number of public draftsmc: can identify what we need to have arrived at in order to go to Last Callwc: current schedule has one more public draft before Last Callmc: milestones are Last Call, Candidate Rec, Proposed Rec, Recjs: have to define deliverables needed for each stageal: tasks define how to accomplish the milestones kenircken has left wai-wcag Andimc: requirements documents are not subject to the same milestones as the guidelines areal: need to agree on the deliverablesmc: defined by chartermc: charter doesn't specify "which" techniquesmc: documentsjs: what deliverables are the techniques task force responsible formc: everything except guidelines requirements, guidelines document, and guidelines issue trackingwc: issue tracking reports only needed for normative documentswc: general techniques are part of Thursday call discussions nowmc: define tasks for techniques requirements documentsal: have to limit review cycles so you don't end up in infinite loopal: have to define groundrules from the beginningwc: up to the chair to close itwc: define date for when we want to publish it as a noteal: can build in two rounds into cycleal: if then decide to do a third round, affects the rest of the schedule wendy ACTION: mc add defn of positive test case [1] * RRSAgent records action 3 wendy ACTION: mc update references to "additional ideas" [2] * RRSAgent records action 4 wendy ACTION: mc add applicability conditions to req [3] * RRSAgent records action 5 wendy ACTION: wac and mc create change log for reqs document [4] * RRSAgent records action 6 wendy ACTION: mc to use the same definition in requirements document [5] * RRSAgent records action 7 wendy ACTION: mc move testability language from wcag 2.0 into requirements doc ("The Working Group believes that all success criteria should be testable. Tests can be done by computer programs or by people who understand these guidelines. Tests done by people who understand the guidelines should get the same results testing the same content for the same success criteria." [6] * RRSAgent records action 8 wendy ACTION: jenae compare definitions from reqs doc with QA glossary [7] * RRSAgent records action 9 wendy ACTION: wac proposal about mapping techniques to success criteria or guideline ok [8] * RRSAgent records action 10 wendy ACTION: mc and wac incorporate/link to scenarios/personas (that eowg evolved from tom's earlier work) [9] * RRSAgent records action 11 wendy ACTION: mc add the importance of linking from wcag 2.0 techniques to wcag 1.0 checkpoints [10] * RRSAgent records action 12 wendy ACTION: mc delete first two sentences of UA support documentation requirement [12] * RRSAgent records action 13 wendy ACTION: mc delete the untestable techniques / additional ideas stuff [13] * RRSAgent records action 14 Andiwc: for SMIL, first step is to analyze accessibility features of SMIL joeclarkq+ Andijc: what is the relationship between SMIL and timed text?ack joeclark Andijc: captions and subtitles do not work in SMILjc: too complicatedjc: feature creep in timed text specificationjc: SMIL 2 just came outjc: multi-media going towards open captioningjc: are we just being very thorough with our own specifications? it's going to be a lot of work for not a lot of gainjs: so what is your proposal for what we could do that would be minimal, meet current need, and not make us do anything we don't absolutely have tojc: could WC contact SMIL group to ask them what they think the relationship of SMIL and timed text to usjc: minimum thing to do is find out what they think the requirements are.wc: talked to SVG group about them writing the techniques documentwc: preference is for other groups to do their own techniques documentsjc: ask them what they think the relationship should be? then ask them if they would be willing to write the documentwc: find someone who is interested in participating in both groups who might do thiswc: Andrew Kirkpatrick more interested in working on ERT WGjc: we will have to do SMIL guidelinesjc: timed text spec is not complete yetjc: volunteered to write techniques for non-SMIL multi-media technologiesjc: if we need themjs: Joe, will you write general techniques for multi-mediawc: if techniques exist somewhere else, can just refer to them joeclarkJOE WILL CONSIDER Andiaction: Joe will consider doing this * RRSAgent records action 15 Andijc: can make accessible multi-media using no "special features"mc: have to create techniques for some other technology besides CSS and HTMLas: what about PDF? don't have to be part of our deliverables but still a proof pointwc: Flash alsojc: PDF would be a better choice. There is a PDF Accessibility working groupwc: if we give PDF group a timeline when things have to be done, maybe that would help move that alongjc: PDF can embed multi-media into itmc: would love to have an interactive technology where content changes on youjc: Loretta is part of PDF groupmc: don't have to do SMIL before we go to rec joeclarkPDF-Access Working Group item:http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailarchive/uaccess-l/msg02853.shtml mcmayircmcmay has joined wai-wcag Andimc: how do we resolve blocker issues?wc: have a pretty good idea of what our blockers areal: have to resolve blocker issues for each major task<hi matt> * mcmay waves joeclarkq+ action item to Wendy to ask Loretta to help us out? joeclarkq+ action item to Wendy to ask Loretta to help us out joeclarkwell, there you go. mcmayACTION: wac ask Loretta to help us out * RRSAgent records action 16 Andiwc: need to resolve baseline for good * mcmay notes that the next word after q+ must be a participant's name or "to <verb> <predicate>" Andiwc: agree that there could be blocker issues on individual tasks that don't keep the entire project from progressing but there are also some blocker issues that need to be resolved at the project level joeclarkah. * mcmay also notes you can evade being archived in the minutes by using /mejoeclark ahAndi like this?mcmay PFWG r00lzmcmay see?joeclark it even works in Firejoeclark was trying to figure that out, actually Andibc: 3 blocker issues and 1 elephant issue in Bugzillabc: how do we make it clear that some techniques are sufficient and some are optionalwc: <reads the other two from Bugzilla>kg: vote on most important two issues to resolve at CSUN face to face meeting - all in favor except 1 abstentionkg: 2 issues are baseline and checklist of success criteria rather than techniques * wendy laughing that matt assigning me action items from pfwg meeting. ;)Andi discussion degraded here to bubblegum and gerbilswendy will look at the spaces in the minutes and remember silly conversations... joeclarkfor information, UAAG definition of "content": http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/glossary.html#def-content * Andi thanks Joe Andijs: present to Tuesday afternoon editors' call that these two items should be on the agenda for the Thursday call 3/10 and at CSUNkg: must be brought up at the editors' meetingkg: TTF voted that these two items are the most important for us to resolve and should be on the agenda at the 3/10 call and the CSUN meetingal: proposes that we have a vote before the end of the CSUN meeting to close these issuesas: I think the process requires that all members in good standing be allowed to vote even if not present at the face to face meetingwc: we will come to a decision at the face to face meeting, summarize, publish to the list, give people a deadline to raise an objectionwc: have until March 8th to complete the process of re-joining WCAG joeclarkq+ joeclarkq? Andimc: reviews statusmc: agreed that we want to do everything in our power to resolve blocker issues at CSUNmc: have holes in the project plan but it's a good startack joeclark Andijc: doesn't think that a vote of "participants in good standing" vs a vote of everybody attending would make a differencejc: process is biased towards people with expense accountsas: is participating via phone an expense issue?jc: not usually wendyeveryone has until 8 march to complete the rejoin process as outlined at:http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/participation.html#Becoming Andikg: third major blocking issue we need to focus on is the overall project plan