* joeclark !joeclark Is this thing on?

Cortex-ircCortex- has joined wai-wcag

benircben has joined wai-wcag

wendyircwendy has left wai-wcag

Yvette_HoitinkircYvette_Hoitink has joined wai-wcag

Yvette_HoitinkHello!just checking the time: is the meeting in 45 minutes
or in 1h 45 minutes?

benHi Yvette - 45 minutes

Yvette_Hoitinkgreat, that's what I thought :-) that's an hour earlier
than last week for me so I can actually finish around midnight :-)

ben:)

Cortex[audience]-Cortex-ircCortex- is now known as Cortex[audience]-

wendyircwendy has joined wai-wcag

RRSAgentircRRSAgent has joined wai-wcag

RRSAgentlogging to http://www.w3.org/2005/04/07-wai-wcag-irc

wendyAgenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0012.
htmlagenda+ Techniques Task Force report

wendyagenda+ Agenda review

wendyagenda+ Parameters for choosing baselines described by the WCAG WG
(introduce and form task force to investigate)

wendyagenda+ Techniques analysis

wendyagenda+ Conformance analysis / proposal

wendyagenda+ Impact analysis for guideline 4.2

wendyagenda+ (Time permitting...) Walk recently recommended changes to
guidelines

wendyagenda+ Plan for next week's discussion of structure prototype

bengtircbengt has joined wai-wcag

wendyRegrets: Jason White, Roberto Scano, Sebastiano Nutarelli, WATANABE
Takayuki, Roberto Castaldo, Roberto Ellero

LucaMascaroircLucaMascaro has joined wai-wcag

joeclark+joeclark

Yvette_Hoitink:-)

MichaelircMichael has joined wai-wcag

DavidircDavid has joined wai-wcag

wendyjoe, after you call in you will need to associate your phone number
with your irc nick.

DavidTest

* joeclark One has already dialed in.


mcmayircmcmay has joined wai-wcag


Becky_GibsonircBecky_Gibson has joined wai-wcag



bengtI get a lot of choppy sounds

Yvette_Hoitinkbengt: we all do

AndiircAndi has joined wai-wcag



bengtlet me call in again somethihng is strange

bengtbetter ?

wendymc: looking over impact of baseline.  thought about how this
impacts requirements.

wendymc: issues that came up: 1. guide doc vs general techs.  one or 2
docs?mc: still a need for general techniques.  not clear on
relationships between documents or how people will use them.mc: 2.
requirements issue - need reqs for how writing techs wrt baseline. need
to add info to techs. how apply to diff baseline.mc: next issue: wanted
to finalize matrix of user agents.mc: what UAs will we keep in mind? 
need a small list that is not overwhelming.mc: returned to matrix of UAs
from 1 yr ago.mc: created list. longer than would like (wrt
managability)mc: reads list. (available from minutes)

MakotoircMakoto has joined wai-wcag

wendyhttp://www.w3.org/2005/04/06-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item03mc: list
is windows-only. conern about accessibility features evolving on linux
and macs/conern/concernmc: returning to review of test files

LucaMascarotksq+

wendyjs: process reminder - to get into queue type "q+" in irc or 61#

* joeclark I know, yes.

wendyack gregg

wendygv: the need for general techniques to be separate from guide doc. 
thought that the model was to attempt to bring things together not take
apart.js: reminder, we'll be looking at a draft next week.

* joeclark Is there an agenda item to talk about Michael's list of UAs
in detail later?

wendygv: thought baseline by tech not UA. what is the list of
browsers?mc: we have repair techniques, to address UA failings. we don't
expect those to be in baseline, but we do have techniques to address.joe
- that list is being discussed in wednesday telecons until have proposal
for thursday call

Yvette_Hoitinkack Luca

wendyluca - we can't hear you.

LucaMascaroi'm a problem sorry

wendyluca, can you type your question in irc?

LucaMascaromy question is about if is useful to test also with safari on
Mac OS X?

mcmayq+

mcmayq+ to talk about Safari

wendymc: we considered that, but don't know of accessibility features in
safari or mac os so didn't include.

Yvette_Hoitinkq+ to ask "Focus on screenreaders only?"

wendyack mc

wendym3m: rumor is that apple will release os10.4 in april or may and
should have accessibility hooks into SR and SR, etc.

joeclarkq+ to talk about rendering engines

wendyjs: maybe get ppl to look at.tb: thought we agreed to include
disclaimer that if ppl wanted tool tested, they could submit a
request.mc: yes, but don't have resources to test everything.js: we're
getting into discussion of baseline analysis on techniques.

* joeclark Yeah, we could make those agenda items.

joeclarkq-

wendyack yvette


wendyhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0010.html

* Yvette_Hoitink wonders when the Tuesday call starts

wendyyvette - not tuesday, wednesday. info on wcag wg home page under
"meetings"

TimircTim has joined wai-wcag

wendymc: goes through proposal. 3 baselines.

Yvette_Hoitinkwendy - thanks, I thought I hears Michael say Tuesday so I
thought it was a different meeting

wendynot that i'm aware of. ;)mc: the union of techniques required for
both baselines is the set of techniques we recommend using today.mc:
caveat - current scripting techniques written w/assumption that scripts
will degrade gracefully. do not have techs for scripts that are
required. therefore, analysis not complete.mc: will write some techs
that would be in that category so can complete the analysis.

greggircgregg has joined wai-wcag

Timconcerned about coverage of techniques re: Guidelines for
particularbaseline (numbers) - have we covered all the Guidelines re:

wendyjs: reactions?q+ tim

wendyack tim

wendytb: for a particular baseline, what coverage do we have for
techniques? sufficient # of techniques to use to meet all guidelines?mc:
did not to that. if adopt baseline proposal, would be place to start.
unofficially, we are likely missing techniques. 1st need to choose
baselines we are going to write techniques for, then perform that
analysis, and then fill in the gaps.

benhttp://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2005/02/11-sc-techniques-mapping.html

greggQ+

wendybc: this shows the mapping of techniques to SC. you'll see several
SC that have no techniques.js: if we can get SC and GL set, then more
can shift attn to writing techniques.ack gregg

wendygv: may need to refine the baselines.  but, it gives us a place to
start and a way to sort techniques and determine what we have or not.

joeclarkq+

wendyack joe

tecksirctecks has joined wai-wcag

DoyleBtecksirctecks is now known as DoyleB

wendyjc: if we put good effort into filling holes and then put out a
call, imagine they will be able to create techniques. these are the type
of problems they love to solve.

Michael"they" being standards oriented designers, "high minded people"

joeclarkthe standards-compliant developers can probably come up with at
least one technique for each guideline we're missing in HTML+CSS and
*possibly* scripting.

DoyleBWendy, I am here, student I was to see medi-vac'd out of teh
village.  Just back from emergency dental stuff, will likely ONLY do
IRC.  Count me as here - albeit late.  Doyle

benscribe: ben

benwc: bc and I sent summary -
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0021.htmlwc:
some issues related to 3rd party verifying claims - may need more
details about UA and assumptions made by authors - depends somewhat on
what bc, mc and bg come up with regarding techniques baselineswc: would
be interested to get more feedback on required technologies vs.
technologies usedjs: questions or clarifications?

greggQ+

bentb: wondering if conformance allows claims for resources that rely on
multiple conformance claims?wc: yes, examples we gave include mult.
technologiesone exmaple relied on HTML, but used various image formats,
another relied on HTML and script, but used others

bendidn't create an objective measure to diff. which are required vs.
used. basically, "relied upon" means an author isn't providing a
graceful degradationwc: relied upon means techs must be supported and
turned on.used means that technologies can be turned off or not
supported, but content would still be usable(you still get all the
content, it is just presented differently)wc: example 3 (web application
for photo site) was that script and CSS was relied upon and would not
work without support for these techs

joeclarkq+

greggQ+  perhaps use  " xxxx technologies must be supported and turned
on.  xxxx are used but not required.

bentb: usability testing needed?ack gregg

bengv: think this is interesting, one suggestion is that relied upon is
hard to interpretperhaps change it to say xxx technologies must be
supported and turned on.  and xxx technologies are used, but not
required (might make it clearer)is a very interesting way to point out
exactly what we meanjc: 2 things (btw, flikr works ok w/ out flash) -
example 2 example (s5) is a pretty good one - any example we come up
with that relies on CSS, there's really no such thing as turning it off
(you're turning off author CSS and using default UA CSS unless we're
talking about lynx)

benwc: we can clarify that, but there are cases where the authors CSS
isn't supported in conjunction with script, problems may come upgv: I
think joe's comment is particularly good because if you said CSS is not
req'd and people said, "oh good, I can use lynx," then we're sending the
wrong messagewc: can see clarification that adds author CSSwc: have
talked about 3 baselines dependent on HTML, CSS and Javascript, but over
time, we may add other technology examples

wendyq?

benjs: other comments and questions?

wendyack joe

joeclarkq-

bengv: what about audience assumptions in conf. claims?wc: didn't focus
on that yetgv: would like to suggest that audience not be part of it
because people often say that people with disabilities are not in their
audience.wc: that was something that came out of F2F - #1 assumption is
that people with disabilities are in every audiencewc: think that as
long as audience info is optional, audience information may be very
useful for 3rd parties trying to verify validity of conformance claims,
but need to give people some parameters for what audience assumptions
can be made.

wendyq+

bengv: audience is a red flag because people can make a number of
problematic assumptions about their audienceack John

wendyq-

benjs: note that I'm getting ready to propose updates to 3.1 that will
include some details about identifying audience, will try to address
them, if not in guidelines, then in the guide doc.js: other
questions/responses?wc: next steps?js: since all 3 of these things
(techs analysis, conformance and 4.2) might make sense to go through
that first and come back to harvest action items

benlgr: in going through 4.2 as we looked at assumption of moving
baseline out, we concluded that there was nothing left for 4.2list
discussion raised some questions about that

wendyq?

bensummary:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0015.htmllgr:
techniques work seems to be consistent with the recc. to clarify
required technologiesjs: conformance work does tos/to/too

greggq+

wendys/draming/dreaming

benjs: what I pick up here is that there are some very specific
proposals here, may not need to decide todayone is proposal to delete
4.2 from guidelines in its entirety

Andiq+

benjs: also jason's proposaljs: definitions for "baseline" and
"technology" neededack gregg

bengv: concern (wanted to have group help think this through) if reason
we drop 4.2 was because it was being covered by UA and other guidelines,
but purpose for 4.2 was about what happens when authors create user
interfaces that are not part of user agent

Davidq+

bengv: these elements would not be covered because they don't exist
until they are rendered by the UA - 4.2 says if you do that, then you
need to meet reqs. from UAAGgv: if pieces of user interface come with
content, it is authors responsibility to make sure that that UA software
that they've created through their interface, it also needs to meet UAAG

joeclarkq+

benack Andi

benq+ Andi

benack Loretta

benlgr: one reason I have troulbe with this is that maybe I'm not
familiar enough with techs that can do this - are we just talking about
scripting?gv: could be java, could be flashlgr: question is whether this
is fundamentally a scripting issue?gv: if you sent something down in
flash or java, you could create whole new user interfacesgv: JavaScript?
no.lgr: trying to think about types of techs where it is possible to
create a user interface - not sure if those are captured by the rest of
our guidelinesack joe

joeclarkq?

benack david

joeclarkq+

wendydmd: 4.2 was looking through the lens of html.  in 2.0, if
something is a user agent, it would fall under UAAG.scribe: wendy

bendm: seems to me that in 4.2, we were looking at guidelines through
the lens of HTML, seemed to be applying to HTML + plugins, etc. the
thinking was (and we may want to correct it) that in 2.0, we're tech.
agnostic and if something really is a UA, then it would fall under UAAG
guidelines, if it's something that relates to content

greggQ+

wendyoops.ack joe

wendyjc: as for UI embedded into content, e.g., flickr organizer. flash
app to upload, tag photos.

TimircTim has left wai-wcag

wendyaction: joe look for links and create demo account re: UI embedded
into content (stock tickers?)

* RRSAgent records action 1

wendyjc: stock tickers. updated instantaneously. great example to work
from.jc: fidelity stock calculator.jc: why not send them to UAAG? that
makes sense to me.

wendygv: that's what 4.2 said. "if you do x, implement relevant portions
of UAAG" that is being removed.

benq+ to say, "It seems that 4.2 in current draft is not only applicable
to *custom* UI"

wendyjc: the advantage of leaving them in is that UAAG and ATAG are less
known. ppl have to make conscious decision to look them up.ack andi

wendyasw: re: jason's proposal, concern about #2. "is satisifed..." not
sure if that is testable.

wendyasw reads #2 from jason's message:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0028.html

* joeclark Link to that proposal text, please?joeclark whoops.

wendyasw: how apply to html? there is no UAAG conforming browsers that
support html.js: that's the point of the 2nd clause.asw: the things that
don't conform to in uaag don't matter

mcmayq+

wendyq+

wendyaction: john contact jason to clarify proposal and reword for
better understanding by the group.

* RRSAgent records action 2

wendyq-

wendyasw: concern that if we say, "if you are creating a UA-like thing
have to conform to UAAG" - then putting higher standard on ppl writing
embedded UA than those writing UAs.

benq-

wendyasw: we're not requiring ppl who write UAs to conform to UAAG.gv:
higher standard - as a user could get a UA that doesn't meet UAAG but
then also get an AT that can help get me content. howevr, have no way to
get a tool to deal with content that springs UA on me when i access
content.q+ to say, "not limited to ua, also atag"

joeclarkFlickr Organizr:http://www.flickr.com/photos/organizefor the
record.

Andiq+

wendyack loretta

greggack g

greggQ+

wendylgr: my understanding of the proposal is there are aspects of uaag
that content author can not repair. e.g., if not accessible
documentation provided for the UA, we can't ask the content author to
provide that.(in order for them to use that tech)lgr: if the uaag
requirement had to do with contet, then make sure you satisfy it.lgr:
uaag is good at requiring functional requirements, but not sure if it
will be clear for which parts of uaag is a content author to compensate
for.gv: propose postpone discussion of jason's proposal until he's
here.ack mc

wendym3m: we have substantial support for what is there (uaag). can
assume line of demarcation between ua and content.m3m: when get into
content that is also a ua, then in a grey area between app and browser,
uaag at least defines what we expect of the browser.m3m: if that is
something that is failing, that's another way of asying, "until user
agents"js: clarification - adovcating leaving 4.2 (in some form) in?m3m:
don't have solid answer. responding to earlier comment.

wendyack wendy

mcmayq+ about Flickr

mcmayq- about

mcmayq- flickr

mcmayq+ to talk about Flickr

joeclarkq+

joeclarkq+ to make an actual proposal about WCAG+{ATAG|UAAG}

greggack a

wendywac: hard to imagine flickr as a user agent.  depends on the
functionality of the interface element. therefore, ought to consider
atag as well.asw: know we need to have something that addresses custom
interfaces, could we make the SC be something like the functional
perforamance criteria in 508. meeting uaag could be a technique.

benack gregg

wendygv: be good for jason/john to touch base with lgr/wac/et al to
discuss?ack lor

wendylgr: should we require uaag? even if not all conforming pieces in
one uaag.lgr: think uaag is best effort to characterize what is
important, but uncomfortable that no ua's are completely conforming.lgr:
then nervous about the role we give uaag in wcag.lgr: also concerned
about the circularity that we could gt into (wcag ref atag ref
wcag...)ack mc

wendym3m: uaag is one of the most rigorous set of requirementsm3m: if it
were easier, more ppl would do it.m3m: the gaps in the system, would not
call catastrophic.

wendyack joe

wendyjc: could we have guideline like 4.2 "if web content also has
functions of authoring tool, conform to relevant parts of atag. if has
ua functions, conform to relevant parts of atag."jc: eg., if blogging
tool, have authoring tool components in your web content.jc: e.g., if
can arrange slideshows, that is user agent, conform to abc of uaag

Cortex[audience]-ircCortex[audience]- has left wai-wcag

Minus-ircMinus- has joined wai-wcag

wendyjc: technique provides more info about doing this. may raise
awareness of the complete set.action: joe write proposal for 4.2 to link
to atag and uaag depending on function of content

* RRSAgent records action 3joeclark I'll do that tomorrow.

wendyaction: wac, jason, loretta, john (maybe joe) work together on 4.2
ala link to atag and uaag depending on function of content

* RRSAgent records action 4

wendylgr: we should identify some of the guidelines/checkpoints from
uaag.lgr: we're subsetting uaag.lgr: also making those claims will
depend on underlying ua.

mcmayq+

wendylgr: if none of those uaag have published a conformance claim, then
there is no documented info for the author to fallback to. make his/her
determination more difficult.ack lor

wendyjs: sounds like another item to take back into the mix.

* joeclark [ahem]

wendyjs: one big action item is to take 4.2 group + wendy, joe (if
possible), jason, john and think about the interface among wcag, atag,
and uaagjs: also asw's suggestion about 508 and loretta's suggestion
about documenting wrt uaag and atagjs: propose that for the sake of
having a date on it, we discuss it 2 weeks from today. 21 apriljs:
something to the list on tuesday 19 april at latest.

* joeclark I'm OK with that.

wendyaction: loretta assemble 4.2 group + wendy, joe (if possible),
jason, john and think about the interface among wcag, atag, and uaag,
asw's suggestion about 508, loretta's concern about documenting wrt uaag
and atag

* RRSAgent records action 5

wendyaction 5 = loretta assemble 4.2 group + wendy, joe (if possible),
jason, john and think about the interface among wcag, atag, and uaag,
asw's suggestion about 508, loretta's concern about documenting wrt uaag
and atag. have something to the list by 19 april.

* RRSAgent records action 5 replaced

wendyaction: michael et al continue techniques analysis by 12 april

* RRSAgent records action 6

wendyaction: wendy & ben document issues raised by tim

* RRSAgent records action 7

benscribe: benjs: are there things that came out of conformance
discussion that require specific actions?gv: yes, in conformance claim,
might be worded to say a list of those that must be supported and turned
on and a list of those that are not needed -- and reflect that in
examples

wendyaction 7 - wendy & ben document issues/incorporate suggestions
raised today, look at QA chunks to determine if addressedaction 7 =
wendy & ben document issues/incorporate suggestions raised today,
look at QA chunks to determine if addressed

* RRSAgent records action 7 replaced

benjs: next week, main item is to talk about structure, specifically
some drafts of guide to WCAG 2.0 document that deal with specific SC -
should help to focus concern in techniques report about whether general
techniques has been/should be subsumed into guide or if gen. techniques
are available in a separate documentjs: please watch the list for drafts
and proposals and read them prior to the mtg. as this is another
critical piece in this discussion of where we're goingjs: I think we're
much further along than we were 3-4 weeks ago and lots of good work has
been done in recent past

* joeclark TTFN!

Becky_GibsonircBecky_Gibson has left wai-wcag

wendyRRSAgent, make log world

RRSAgentI have made the request, wendy

wendyRRSAgent, draft minutes

bengtircbengt has left wai-wcag

RRSAgentI have made the request to generate
http://www.w3.org/2005/04/07-wai-wcag-minutes.html wendy

LucaMascaroircLucaMascaro has left wai-wcag

Yvette_Hoitink* TTFN 2U2

* Yvette_Hoitink TTFN 2u2

Yvette_HoitinkircYvette_Hoitink has left wai-wcag

MakotoircMakoto has left wai-wcag