* joeclark ?

YvetteHi Joe

jslatinI meant MIRC.

* joeclark I'm gonna be late for the call, but I should be on it
eventually.

jslatinHi, Joe. Thanks for the heads-up.

* joeclark What program do you use for IRC, John?

Yvettenope, he's not here yet

jslatinLaggard!

Yvette:-)

* Yvette ben - that's true too...

* jslatin hears scripting wheels whirring...

Yvettewhere's a script kiddie when you need him ;-)

jslatin- another laggard!

Yvetteprobably :o)

Yvetteben - hmm, that complicates matters yes. I didn't think about that

benso, maybe the best strategy for you John would be to type "q?" when
you want to know who is in the queue

jslatino lawdamercy (as they say down here in Tejas)

YvetteLOL

YvetteWe get the Dr. Phil show here so I know how people from Texas
sound :-)

jslatinYup, I'll try that, Ben. This client has a keystroke to repeat
last message, so it'll work sometimes.

MakotoircMakoto has joined wai-wcag

ben_ircben_ has joined wai-wcag

jslatinHi, Makoto!

MakotoGoog morning, John :-)

YvetteBTW: if you hear funny noices during the telecon, we just got a
new cat that is looking for company right now :-)Hi Makoto

jslatinWhat's the diff between ben and ben_ in the nicklist?

MakotoHi Yvette

* Yvette thinks a schizophrenic is never alone

ben_I just undocked my laptop and it autologged me back on with the
underscore

* jslatin grins

Yvetteit sounds better in Dutch, where 'schizophrenic' and 'alone' rhyme

jslatinYeah, loses a *lot* in translation!

benircben has left wai-wcag

Yvettethat's why I read English so much :-) My favorite authors are
american

greggircgregg has joined wai-wcag

Becky_GibsonircBecky_Gibson has joined wai-wcag

bengtecho ?

RRSAgentircRRSAgent has joined wai-wcag

RRSAgentlogging to http://www.w3.org/2005/04/14-wai-wcag-irc

wendyRRSAgent, make log world

RRSAgentI have made the request, wendy

mcmayircmcmay has joined wai-wcag

wendyagenda?

wendyAgenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0122.
htmlagenda+ TTF summary

wendyagenda+ Agenda overview

wendyagenda+ Guide Doc and Structure proposals

wendyagenda+ Update on 4.2 and conformance

wendyagenda+ Looking ahead: Work Plan and scheduling next F2F

wendyagenda+ review of baseline issues and attempt to close those that
seem ready to close

* Yvette Makoto, try without the .

benben_ircben_ is now known as ben

wendyhttp://www.w3.org/2005/04/13-wai-wcag-minutes

YvetteWHO's TAKING MINUTES?

Becky_GibsonTTF looked at proposal from UAAG and PF

Yvettea, ok :-)

Becky_Gibsonprototyping how to use rel and link for in page navigation

benscribe: Becky_Gibson

Becky_Gibsondiscussed our concerns; Wendy has action item to bring this
to xtech grouplooked at DM's review of object test files; action for WC,
CR, DM, MC to look at object test filesBG and DM tooked at some test
files with respect to baseline and determining UA supportJA took action
to update UA matrix; JS will be looking at different AT support - and
see what info they can provide

Becky_GibsonJS will raise issue about object support with PF groupJS had
an idea about dividing techs into chapters and has sent summaryCR took
action item to review test files

wendyjohn's email:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0129.html

Becky_Gibsonjs: MC had suggested talking about req. documents - but
decided to wait until today's guide doc discussion for more input

* Becky_Gibson sorry, usually do type colon :-)

Becky_Gibsonjs: want feedback on Guide Doc draft - questions, concerns,
info to help us clarify and determine how to move forwardjs: at LA F2F
attendees decided need a doc to provide stronger bridge betwn guidelines
and techs

wendyhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0121.html

Becky_Gibsonjs: want to provide more info than envisiones for techs
docjs: provide rationale for SC; so understand what it says and why;
statements of benefits of SC; plus gen techsJS: and links to specific
techsjs: JS mocked up sample outline and sent to subgroup for comments
on the outlinejs: once outline agreed upon sent it to folks in group to
work on specific SCjs: also sent outline to non-WCAG members to see if
headings and descriptions made sensejs: group members filled in the
outline for specific SC - these have been sent to the list

Yvetteq+

Becky_Gibsonjs: each group member took a slightly different track - and
raised diff. issuesjs: how to define terms, do the Guide docs do what we
need to do? what do we say in certain sectionsjs: consistent feedback
from group that received sample outlinejs: every user had a completely
diff. notion of what would fit under "Technology Independent
Techniques"js: and all were diff. from this group's notion of general
techs

Becky_Gibsonjs: intent and benefits sections also caused confusion; also
diff. between techs and samples

Yvetteq?

rscanoircrscano has joined wai-wcag

Yvetteack y

Becky_Gibsonyh: devil's advocate: understand by Guide docs prepared but
worried that we are throwing more work at the problemyh: we seem to
solve problems by trying to get more info; concerned readers of WCAG
will contain too much informationyh: and people won't find info they
really need

greggq+

benack gregg

Becky_Gibsongv: as we write we need to not repeat things that have
already been said/writtengv: need to focus on consiceness (sp?)

Becky_Gibsongv: don't try to make a tutorial; should help people
knowledgable in the area understand our intentgv: wants to put in a vote
for modularity idea - cite general techs by name that can be expanded as
needed

Becky_Gibsongv: worried that whole doc is getting very big - too big to
comprehend or look at

wendyack j

Becky_Gibsonjs: surprised to hear you say we are addressing this to
audience that already has some understanding

DavidircDavid has joined wai-wcag

Becky_Gibsonjs: from F2F thought it was to help people understand better
than don't already have knowledge?

Davidwas me who joined late

Becky_Gibsonjs: if trying to provide overview for people who aren't
familiar than think this is helpfuljs: we need to clarify the audience
served by the guide docgv: need info for those not familiar with WCAG
2.0 but need to assume audience is familiar with web techgv: don't want
to repeat what EO is doinggv: but don't repeat info that is already in
the techs

rscano there are other working groups that has done similar initiatice?

Becky_Gibsongv: audience should be able to read and understand techs
without it being tutorialgv: want to cover broad range of audiences but
don't want too verbose and overlap with EOjs: that is why we wrote the
drafts so we have something to look at and discussjs: another idea
discussed at F2F was that this doc would swallow up the gen. techs
docjs: for 1.1 L3 SC 1 - BC took existing content from gen. techs and
put it into the guide doc;js: then gen techs doc wouldn't need to exist
separately  OR guide doc would contain links to general techsjs: guide
doc begins to act as traffic cop for navigationjs: also discussed if
benefits should be in GL or be moved to the Guide doc?js: hope the
examples will help us understand the issues and resolve these
questionsjs: do Examples and benefits belong in GL? in Guide Doc? is it
an either or?js: GL can have brief benefits that get expanded in GD
(guide doc)js: do gen techs get subsummed into the GD?js: looking for
feedback from the group......

Davidq+

Becky_Gibsondm: like the distinction of not overlapping with EO - imp.
issue I hadn't thought ofdm: like techs to be in a separate document -
think the audience will be different

Becky_Gibsondm: policy makers looking more at guide doc; devs and techs

wendyack dav

wendyack john

Becky_Gibsondm: scribe correction: devs looking at techsjs: no one
outside of WCAG seems to think of gen. techs as a place to look for how
to write good alt text

greggq+

Becky_Gibsonjs: think of techs as code samples then get confused betwn
gen and tech specific

wendyq+

Becky_Gibsonjs: still looking for a good name for general techs to make
distincion clearer

wendyack gregg

Becky_Gibsongv: what if we list techniques by a single sentence name

* wendy suggests look at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/att-0121/
guide_to_G1.1L1SC2.html

Becky_Gibsongv: writing alt text so it is x y z....gv: each sentence has
"ing" action word - each is a link to the specific technique document

Yvetteq+ to say "What about other technologies?"

Becky_Gibsonwc: BC suggested links to all techniques without specifying
general or specificwc: which is what I did in my mock up

jslatinq+

Becky_Gibsongv: goal is to read document and if don't understand can
click on a link for more information

wendywac reads the text from:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/att-0121/
guide_to_G1.1L1SC2.htmlack wendy

wendyack ja

Becky_Gibsonjw: if believe need benefits, examples, more info -then GD
is a good idea; agree with JS that combine gen techs into GD

benq+

Becky_Gibsonjw: imp that GL doc be as self contained as possible; user
should be able to read and understand SC and purpose

Yvetteack y

csirccs has joined wai-wcag

Becky_Gibsonjw: so don't want to see benefits and examples taken out of
GL docyh: was suggested that could link from GD to tech specific techs -
but have concerns because

greggq+

Becky_Gibsonyh: but as new techs docs for additional technologies occur
then have to update GD

greggack j

Becky_Gibsonjs: currently examples offered are just descriptions but
don't link to any specific sitejs: when asked outside group - they
expected examples to be live links to examples on the webjs: can we do
this as we move to candidate rec. since we have to prove viability with
real examples

rscanoi think that user are usually served with guideline + techniques:
more docs means more problems. why don't set guidelines + techniques
with example?

Becky_Gibsonjs: much of what we write in GD might go back into GL as
informative material

wendyack ben

rscano(sorry only irc tonight)

Becky_Gibsonbc: imp. to sep gen tech from GD - if include all the gen
tech in the GD get too much info so other info about SC gets lostbc:
when look at benefits and ex. in GL it can be difficult to know which
ex. goes with which SCbc: GD really helps with this

wendyack gregg

Becky_Gibsongv: each tech in a separate doc has raised some ques.  do we
include gen in each technology specific doc?gv: also issues when use
multiple techs ex: html & cssgv: we understand that new techs will
have to be added; that is why GD is non-normative sogv: it can be
refreshed as neededgv: worry about issue when need multiple techs
working together - worry if each of those techs are on separate pages
will lose some context for problem being sovled

jslatinq+

wendyack js

Becky_Gibsongv: links for examples is good idea for GD and techs but not
in GL; can't have links to real sites in normative GL

* joeclark P11 is probably me.

Becky_Gibsonjs: maybe that is one way for GD to differentiate itself;
try to make short ex. descriptions in GL related to real ex. links in GD

Davidq+

Becky_Gibsonjs: suggest group working on these examples get back
together to review the issues raised today

Becky_Gibsonjs: would like to hear from others not as closely involved
in the GD

wendyack dav

Becky_Gibsondm: have GL 1.0 open and it does link to techniquesjs: can
link to our own docs but not outside of our docgv: any more comments?

wendyaction: js, bc, wac, et al, continue work on guide doc

* RRSAgent records action 1

Becky_Gibsonjs: LG, JC, WC and DM? on call yesterday about 4.2; Loretta
please update us on 4.2lg: trying to understand web apps and what is
role of UUAG and ATAG relative to themlr: wc wrote up a summary to try
and define UA and web applg: looks like we will need to selectively ref.
parts of ATAG and perhaps UAAGgv: you are seeing the need for a 4.2 and
would apply to interface delivered as content?lg: not sure we need 4.2
but maybe more specifcs in other GL.  ex. GL 1.3 would require thatlg:
state info should be exposed

joeclarkq+

* joeclark shouldn't be me.

Becky_Gibsonjs: issues of struct and func. lead to discussion of what is
diff. between UA and web app

joeclarkq+ to make a quickie clarification

greggq+

Becky_Gibsonjs: result from yesterday was better understanding of
questions that need to be askedjs: for ex. what do authors need to do to
allow UA to render info in a more accessible way

wendyack joe

Becky_Gibsonjs: action to map GL to checkpoints in UA - not sure anyone
has taken it upjc: GL 1.3 does say .....separable from presentation; 
should be structure, presentation and behavior

Becky_Gibsonjc: structure==html; presentation==css; behavior==javascript
(as exmaples) should use this formatgv: where is information?jc: no one
will create empty document with just <p></p> - no web pages
with no contentgv: is important to say that info is separate from
presentation - that is intent of the GLjc: can use CSS to add content -
but existing wording is problematic

Yvetteq+ to ask "1.3 summary"

Becky_Gibsonjs: JC to take action to explain this better

wendyaction: joe write proposal for rewording on guideline 1.3 ala
structure, presentation, behavior and explanation how it address gv's
concern about separating out information.

* RRSAgent records action 2

Becky_Gibsongv: remember that orig inspiration of 1.3 was to maintain
original information in alternate presentations

wendyack gregg

jslatinintent of 1.3 to ensure that info is preserved when presentation
format changes

Becky_Gibsongv: if content acts as UA follow UAAG; if authors content
follow ATAG was suggested last week

wendydo we want to solve this now or is this what the group should be
doing on our call tomorrow?

Becky_Gibsongv: sometimes UA separately, somtimes get with something
else

Becky_Gibsongv: same rules for shipping UA separately and as part of
content

wendyq+ to say that content doesnt' function as a UA

Yvetteack y

Becky_Gibsongv: also helps to cross link the guidelinesyh: back to 1.3
comment from JC - was going to 1.3 summary for next week - should I do
2.4 next week so can incorporate JC's proposalyh: or better to do my 1.3
summary and have it to discuss with JC's 1.3 proposalgv: have JC to
issue summary for 1.3 as well; YH does 2.4

ben1.3 issues:
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/issuereports/content-structure-
separation_issues.php

Becky_Gibsonjs: can JC take on that extra work?jc: yes

wendyaction: joe do the issue summary for 1.3 and as part of incorporate
proposal for new 1.3

* RRSAgent records action 3

wendyaction: yvette issue summary for 2.4 by next tuesday

* RRSAgent records action 4

Becky_Gibsonlg: suggesting GV join 4.2 group since complexity of his
proposal is what is perplexing the groupgv: will tryq+

Becky_Gibsongv: 4.2 has been perplexing us for awhilegv: issue with
sites that allow others to post

wendyack loretta

wendyack jason

Becky_Gibsonjw: authoring tools dependency was discussed in the meeting;
UA issue is more problematic-

greggq+

Becky_Gibsonjw: content acting as UA generally isn't something that you
can't apply UAAG to

Becky_Gibsonjw: so should add more specifics to our GL for that

wendyack wendy

Becky_Gibsonwc: propose that working group be given more time before we
keep discussing in larger groupwc: then can perhaps provide a proposal

wendyack becky

benbg: concerns about expecting embedded content to meet ATAG or UAAG -
hard to do

Becky_Gibsonbg: concerns about req. Abg: meeting ATAG and UAAG for tools
embedded in content - will wait for more from the group

Becky_Gibsonjs: two issues - WC and others have been working to create
detailed plan to get us to last call and candidate rec. etcjs: not ready
for distrib. to list yet but lots of progress being madejs: will help us
set the agenda for future callsjs:quickly need to figure out next F2F in
Junewc: week of June 13 for F2F seems preferablewc: have been dividing
up GL for each week; 3 GL proposals per week with two weeks to discuss
then resolvewc: also scoping out techs; want to have ttf shadow the GL
WG; techs would work on GL in the week following its dicussion at the WG
Thursdya meetingwc: F2F in Europe; 1st day open to public -then 2 days
of techs and 2 days of glwc: propose techs before GLwc: 13th June -
public day; 14-15 - techs; 16-17 GL

Yvetteq+ to ask "where?"

Becky_Gibsonwc: do those dates work for people?

Becky_Gibsongv: would like regular WG to also participate in techs
meetingsgv: so don't have to do a recap of everything for full WG and
can help the techs groups

Becky_Gibsongv: so if can come would be good to come for at least 4
daysyh: where?wc: possibilities are Venice, Spain, Germanyyh: probably
can't make unless in Germanygv: any issues with the dates?  silence - so
assume date is ok

Yvetteq+ to ask "levels"

Becky_Gibsonwc: playing with different schedules;wc: one shows Last call
with no new Working draft; another shows sched. hit of another public
Working draftwc: sched. actually shows internal drafts each two weeks as
issues are closedwc: need to check with editors on hit of drafts every 2
weekswc:  need to coordinate with people's schedules based on vacations
and issues at work since we need everyone to be taking up and working on
action itemsjs: heads up that you will be getting email or call from
Wendy to do an issue summary by a certain datejs: please be honest when
you commit to doing the work - it needs to get done on timejs: better to
decline the work if you know you can't complete it; but we need everyone
to take actions

Yvetteq?

wendyack yvet

joeclarkq+

Becky_Gibsonyh: still need to address how many levels we are going to
have - a year ago we picked 3 but did we ever make a firm decisionyh: we
have assumed that no one will do everything in level 3 - need to decide
what we will do with level 3wc: bugzilla has 13 GL as components but
also have others; conformance, etc. all of these components need issue
summarieswc: conformance needs to be done sooner rather than later due
to baseline issues

greggack g

Becky_Gibsonwc: in sched. on some weeks might address 3 GL and another
componentwc: interesting to see how missing something by one week can
really affect the sched. esp in summer months when don't have as many
people (due to vacation)wc: need to balance getting a quality doc out
and getting things done quicklygv: need to mentally stay focused

* Becky_Gibson can someone minute for a bit?

Becky_Gibsonwc: if do addn working draft before last call will add 2
months to sched

joeclarkq?

Becky_Gibsongv: need to push forward as fast as we can and resolve key
issuesjc: been making printouts of WCAG 2.0; went through each GL to
find ones that do not have

wendyaction: joe send summary of analysis re: 2 levels of conformance

* RRSAgent records action 5

Becky_Gibsonlevels 1,2 and 3;  my preference is for only 2 levels (as
has been stated before)js: wc, bc, and asw have already been working on
conformance issues; who took conformance issue summary at dublin
meeting?wc: gvwc: but still 18 issues openjs: want to see that issue
summary rolled into conformance discussions

wendyaction: wac, bc, et al consider conformance issues issue summary in
work on conformance claims

* RRSAgent records action 6

Becky_Gibsonjs: want to look at what issues might be candidates for
closure but didn't get summary out to list on time

Becky_Gibsonjs: prospose adjourning

wendyaction: js, gv, wac go through summary of issues to determine what
can be sent to list to close.

* RRSAgent records action 7

Becky_Gibsonlg: need to coordinate 4.2 w

* joeclark can't make a telecon tomorrow for 4.2.

Becky_Gibsonlg: working group tomorrow

DavidircDavid has left wai-wcag

Becky_GibsonircBecky_Gibson has left wai-wcag

Yvettelater!

wendybye!

YvetteircYvette has left wai-wcag