RRSAgentlogging to http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-wai-wcag-irc benRRSagent, make log world RRSAgentI have made the request, ben benRRSAgent, generate minutes RRSAgentI have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html ben benMeeting: WCAG WG Weekly TeleconChair: Gregg_Vanderheiden, John_Slatin + ben notes that you have to be on the phone to associate an IRC nick with a name benAgenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0392. htmlagenda+ Agenda review (including information about face to face) (John, 5 benminutes)agenda+ Techniques report (Michael, 5 minutes) benagenda+ Guideline 2.4 proposal (Yvette, 25 minutes) benagenda+ Guideline 1.3 proposal (Joe, 25 minutes) benagenda+ Guideline 4.2 revised proposal (Loretta, 25 minutes) benagenda+ Guideline 2.5 - preliminary discussion of issue summary/proposal (Andi: 25 minutes) benagenda+ (Time permitting) Guideline 3.1 - preliminary discussion of proposal and issue summary (John) benagenda+ Wrap-up, action items, next week (10 minutes) jslatinhi andi AndiHi John YvetteHi all rcastaldoHI folks :) Davidtest + Andi cinco de mayo here rcastaldoI'm trying to connect with dialpad... having some problems bengtthey update the software just try to exit and start again rcastaldoCiao italians :-) benscribe: David_MacDonald SebastianoCiao Roberto! benagenda? Davidjs: techniques taskforce Davidmc: shadowing issue summaries along with guidliines issuesmc: 4.2 we go less than half way through lots of stuff Davidmc: some case issues into the guidelines. would be helpful, if the same person does the guidelines review as techniques reviews.mc: lots of discussion etc... on of the things we missed was paying close attention to the baseline. take the three baselines. basic graphic browser, user agent. identified for each techniuqe within each baseline whether it is sufficient or opptional, not harmful, benRegrets: Roberto Ellero, Doyle, Neil Soiffer, Roberto Scano, Takayuki Watanabe Davidmc: first this look....a proposal to remove a techniques might because on one baseline and not another. benyvette's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0371.html Davidjs: move yh 2.4 benannotated proposal (wiki): http://esw.w3.org/topic/May_2005_Guideline_1%2e3_Proposal?action=show Davidyh: I don't see the message tonight about SC L1 about reading order. has simple examples of content that is not accessible. Davidjw: the problems I raised still stand, that will have to be treat as 1.3 issue or worded different. If you reword it it doesn't belong on level 1jw: see mailing list for moreyh: some people think it is about aggregation, it is better to get consencous on problem then get solution Davidjs: it boils down to what happens when a screenreader goes into say all mode...the problem is that I want that reading to make sense, so I don't want a paragraph of text to be interupted by avigation bar orother artifact that a sighted person wouldn't look at in the middle of their content readitng, on a page not constructed properly, that doesn'thappen for a blind person Davidjw: everything I said in message is still truejoe: topic dogs us unecessarily over the years... if waiting for freedom scientific to do stuff properly, not our problem Davidjoe: doesn't have to be in exact same order. greggack j greggask jason Davidjoe: doument html read order greggask joeack jason greggack joe Davidjoe: that is nvalid html and we tell people to use valid html. benack gregg Davidjoe: not a real feal...if a lot of valid html, and valid css, lets put some examples together joeclarkAlso, a case of content interposing itself at the wrong point in the read order is probably a case of a bad user agent or incorrect HTML in the first place. Valid, semantic HTML has an intrinsically comprehensible read order. Davidgv: I'm still wrestling through first one. Davidgv: if reading order not im0ortant we could skip over this guideline benack john Davidgv: we have to be very careful about level ones. and with these kind of comments about it we should reconsiderjs: gregg mentioned, and I say there are other technologies ie math ml, flash, pdf, order is extremly important. willing to grant that jaws etc have inadequate features regarding this Davidjs: i have heard many examples where menaingful reading order of text was a clear messed up order that no sighted reader would have Davidjs: not the intended behaviour behaviour by the author, I believe that it was not a validation problem, there are real issues. how to disentagle them...is a porblem + joeclark can we get an action item to find real-world examples of valid sites with lousy reading order, please? benack yvette Davidyh: sc at level one, major overloap with 3.2 link text... this should be at level 2, Davidyh: this could be a problem for content management systems. benack Jason Davidjw: back to problem of John, the cause is not solved by writing markup by writing to spec,jw: the problem is covered under 1.3 Davidjw: but introducing a linear order requirement should be level 3 in 2.4 at best....not agood way to go . oet's move examoles to 1.3 benack gregg Davidgv: 2 things, 1) right now sc 2 is too general, if we say the content or parts of content are arranged in a linear sequece to understand their secquense proerly then them should be probgramatically determined Davidgv: the comment was made thae sc 3 could not be done for some technology so it should go to L 2 , but you can't have something at level 2 that can't be done Davidbc: jason raised good point when he talks about an artifact of presentation, is that something that we really want. it the presentation is ajusted to present things in an audio form. benack ben benack andi Davidasw: if we take 3.2 wording it will be ok at level 2, Davidgv: I'm sorry I have a family emergency with my orphaned nephewsand I have to go, can someone jump in. + Yvette welcomes the reinforcements :-) Yvettescribe: Yvette benaction: john, yvette, joe, michael - revisit 2.4 wording and repropose + RRSAgent records action 1 TimTesting linearity seems easier than testing "making sense"? bennext agendum Yvettejc: rewritten 1.3 to explain about web standards (valid CSS, HTML and generic JS)jc: we even require valid code in WCAG 2jc: HTML will be majority of web content and will have structure, PDF might have structure but we will require structurejc: This is catching everyone up to standards and telling them how to do itjc: boils down to "write according to web standards"js: what's the def?jc: in all web pages you have 3 layers: structure, presentation, behaviorjc: structure - HTML/tags. Presentation - CSS, behavior - JSjc: other technologies might not have all three layers but there still might be presentation and behaviorjc: 'information' is redundant and circular. Information is purpose of website. We are Web CONTENT accessibility guidelines so no need to name information explicitelyjs: proposal before us. Some discussion on the list. Comments?gv: I've only found a proposal for the guideline text, not for success criteriajs: there was one but forgot to include in the agenda benhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0248.html Yvettejs: cudos to ben for being the archive wizard benack john Yvetteack john benack yvette benack jason benack tim + Michael thinks he hears Yvette's cat Yvettejc: ambiguity is part of math, don't think it's really a accessibility problem Michaelack michael benack Michael Yvettemc: MathML has some UA support but won't be part of every baseline.mc: it's baseline questionjc: My issue with that is that you suggest there is an alternative but there isn't. For real mathematical equations there isn't a real alternative benack gregg Yvettegv: Joe, you took 'relationships' out of SC 1. Did you mean that relationships are covered by structure?jc: I was one of the people who wondered about purpose of 'relationship' Yvettejc: that question was never really answered so I took it outjs: so you believe that all the relationships are covered by structure?jc: Yes, all the structures are already in HTMLgv: You keep referring to HTML but we must assume we don't know we're usinggv: If they want to use something else we have to wonder what they need to do in order to conform joeclarkThe post I forwarded from Jacques Distler on MathML's "alternatives":http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar /0066.html Yvettegv: saying all relationships are covered by HTML structure doesn't address that because that might not be true for other technologiesgv: does anyone disagree that relationships are a subset of structure? Yvetteasw: relationship between form element and label, would that be structure? Yvetteasw: web pages are not just documentsjc: I would be happy to change that into whatever the group wantsasw: what about 'content' that was in the original?jc: fine by megv: add note in guidedoc that we consider relationships as part of the structure Yvettegv: Let's define relationships to be included in structure and change document back to contentjs: modified proposal for SC 1 "structures within the content can be programatically determined" Yvettejs: anyone against adopting that new formulation? joeclarkq? Yvettejw: someone should write a definition of structure and make sure it includes all those relationshipsjc: if someone can come up with a definition or link to definition, I can pass it on to standardistas and ask their opinions benhttp://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#structuredef Yvettejw: I'll take a look at the definitinojw: current def is fine, so am happy with the proposaljs: any objections to unanimous consent? benresolved: accept Joe's proposal to revise 1.3 L1 SC1 to read: Structures within the content can be programmatically determined. rcastaldogood Yvettejs: next SCasw: did we have consensus on guideline?js: noasw: Had problem understand what was covered in SC 2 that wasn't in 1 benproposal for SC 2: 2. Structural markup or coding is used to encode semantics to the extent possible for the content. Yvettejc: 'the extent possible' is human testable just like correctness of alt-text Yvettejc: common misunderstanding that standards compliance isn't semantic (for example: page with just <div> and <span>) benack andi Yvettecorrection: common misunderstanding that standards compliance = semanticjc: semantic is step beyondasw: still don't think that's testableasw: don't understand why we need it. If structures can be determined, that's enoughasw: it might not be understood as well for other technologiesjc: it's possible in tagged PDF LucaMascarouse just <div> and <span> is a violation of the validity of the code therefore the DTD, because we not use the correctly elements benack yvette benack Jason Yvetteyh: forgot what I was going to sayjw: serious problems with this onejw: it's redundant with SC1 1.3 and requirement of writing according to spec and 'to the extent possible' is not testablejw: it is not testable in different technologies.jw: we need SC about that it has to be relative to the technologies that author is usergv: just to clarify: we have no requirement to write good alt text because that's not testablegv: we would like to go further but don't have any objective way. We just specify what we can in a testable way. Especially in level 1 and 2 we're very careful about that because people might be required to conformgv: is there a word missing in SC? "structural semantics"? Yvettejc: Mean semantics as normal in web standards field, using right element to mark up contentjc: I want two things to happen:jc: Not allowing people to use just <div> and <span> to mark up pagejc: I don't want standards-compliant people to be harassed if they use <b> and <i> Yvettejc: web standards should be the standards-s benq? benack gregg Yvettejs: what I would like is that we get another subgroup to work on 1.3js: take into account Joe's proposal, responses and 4.2 discussionCan someone take over scribing after this agenda item? + ben volunteers Yvettejs: Joe, could you focus on 1.3 more than on 2.4 + Yvette thanks ben Yvettejc: surejs: Joe, Gregg and Becky to work on 1.3 benaction: joe, gregg, becky to work on revised proposal for 1.3 + RRSAgent records action 2 Yvettejs: stay in touch with 2.4 to address the overlap + Michael notes that it's a turf war, 2.4 and 1.3 each own some pieces of a conceptYvette 2.4! 2.4!Michael :)Andi the concept being that semantic information is important to both perceivability and operability benscribe: ben + Michael yesYvette dito Andi benhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0364.html benlgr: looked at gregg's proposal to replace the word "baseline" - am liking the word less and lesslgr: UA assumptions is not the same as baselinegv: what I meant was assumptions you're making about user agentslgr: agree with sentiment, but am soliciting alternative phrasesgv: you said, you wanted to focus on techs, you're talking about UAs that use technologies?lgr: the technologies for which user agents exist benjs: think there was consensus that we should talk about technologies rather than user agentsgv: yes, but 2 types of techs. techs user has or techs authors uselgr: reads proposed def (assumes are supported)gv: supported and turned on?js: and enabled?lgr: avail. to user? bengv: if turned off, then it's availlgr: looking for a word that implies that tech is both "there" and "on"ack mike benjs: supported and active? or you could define supported as meaning tha tUA is actually using and processing itsecond point is that it wasn't clear from revised proposal for definition that this was the min. that can be assumedjs: not talking about larger set, but minimum assumptions - think that needs to be put in explicitlylgr: it is there, "minimum set of technologies"js: any preference about alternatives jason mentioned?gv: in this conversation, we've drifted between UA and usersgv: not sure which we want to use in definition bengv: any feature that can be turned on and off would have to be assumed to occasionally be turned on and off for whatever reason - would have to be not have to be turned off for accessibility reasonsack jason benjw: supported in UA and active in those UA is the sense that we want - that's the assumption from the author's perspectiveack andi benasw: seems we're nitpicking - if you assume it is supported, you have to assume it's turned on, otherwise, what's the point? bengv: may need to be turned off by users with disabilitiesmb: seems to be a distinction between supported and available - either say it's reasonable to assume something is available --or-- we know the user has it and is using itack Mike benmb: any consensus on which we mean or do we mean both?js: my sense was that wording jason mentioned might be nitpicky, but covers both of those possibilitiesmb: concern is that means that it is responsibility of person making claim to know whether user has something turned on and off, which author can't knowmb: that's very restrictiveasw: back to HTML only sitesmb: if you're saying that you're picking techs based on a reasonable belief that techs are available benack Loretta benlgr: remember, this is about trying to capture for WCAG the fact that someone will consider and make an informed decision about what is reasonable to assume - a lot of what we're churning on here is how someone makes a decisionack jason benjw: loretta's point captures it well, basically defining min. set of techs that author assumes are active in UA. reasonableness of that assumption is not part of the consideration here.ack gregg bengv: one of the things we keep saying is "that can be assumed" question is by who? authors? companies? I think we should say a min. set of techs that are assumed to be supported. by who depends upon who is setting the baselinegv: or an established set of techs that the author assumes can be supportedgv: so it would be "a standard set of technologies that the author can assume are supported by user agents" benack john benjs: don't think we can say "established" because there will be situations where nothing has been establishedjs: current discussions in the TTF, list, etc. have been talking about 3 baselines, so word minimum may be problematicgv: no, all 3 assume a different minimum set rcastaldoI've got to leave the call now rcastaldoBy everyone :-) bengv: dropping the word "minimum" might be a good idea benack Lor benlgr: think word "baseline" has wrong connotation. think "minimum" is criticalack Jason benjw: was going to make the same point, emphasizing the importance of "minimum" in this context - agree with gregg's earlier assumption to say "are assumed" + joeclark GTG benjs: propose we adopt this because it's better than what we've got nowgv: if we did, we might say "supported/on" as a footnote to remind us to fix itaction: loretta to wordsmith definition of baseline and post to list + RRSAgent records action 3