IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-08-26
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 19:50:40 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:50:44 [wendy]
- RRSAgent, make log world
- 19:50:49 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- I liked looking into the excavation they undertook and got to talk with the archaeologists
- 19:50:58 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- The whole convent was dug up
- 19:51:08 [wendy]
- Meeting: 26 August 2004 WCAG WG telecon
- 19:51:26 [wendy]
- agenda+ TTF update
- 19:52:04 [wendy]
- agenda+ AUWG proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0389.html
- 19:52:21 [wendy]
- agenda+ action item assignments http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/condensedreports/actionitems.php
- 19:52:54 [wendy]
- agenda+ javascript and alternatives http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=895
- 19:53:21 [wendy]
- yvette - cool.
- 19:53:36 [wendy]
- Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0456.html
- 19:57:52 [Michael]
- Michael has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:58:10 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- Hi Michael
- 19:58:51 [Michael]
- Hi all
- 19:59:28 [wendy]
- Regrets: Gregg, Ben, Roberto Castaldo, Roberto Ellero, Doyle
- 20:00:05 [ChrisR]
- ChrisR has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:00:59 [nabe]
- nabe has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:01:17 [wendy]
- zakim, this is WCAG
- 20:01:17 [Zakim]
- ok, wendy; that matches WAI_WCAG()4:00PM
- 20:01:22 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 20:01:22 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see [Microsoft], Chris_Ridpath, John_Slatin, Wendy
- 20:01:26 [Zakim]
- +Loretta_Guarino_Reid
- 20:01:49 [Zakim]
- +[IBM]
- 20:02:03 [Zakim]
- +Michael_Cooper
- 20:02:07 [Michael]
- zakim, I am Michael_Cooper
- 20:02:07 [Zakim]
- ok, Michael, I now associate you with Michael_Cooper
- 20:02:12 [wendy]
- zakim, +[IBM] is Andi
- 20:02:12 [Zakim]
- sorry, wendy, I do not recognize a party named '+[IBM]'
- 20:02:13 [Zakim]
- +Matt
- 20:02:14 [Zakim]
- +Alex_Li
- 20:02:17 [Becky]
- Becky has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:02:29 [wendy]
- zakim, +[Microsoft] is Jenae
- 20:02:29 [Zakim]
- sorry, wendy, I do not recognize a party named '+[Microsoft]'
- 20:02:32 [Zakim]
- +??P8
- 20:02:45 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P8 is Yvette
- 20:02:45 [Zakim]
- +Yvette; got it
- 20:02:53 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, I am Yvette
- 20:02:53 [Zakim]
- ok, Yvette_Hoitink, I now associate you with Yvette
- 20:03:12 [Zakim]
- +??P7
- 20:03:16 [Zakim]
- +Becky_Gibson
- 20:03:22 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P7 is Takayuki
- 20:03:22 [Zakim]
- +Takayuki; got it
- 20:03:37 [wendy]
- zakim, [Microsoft] is Jenae
- 20:03:37 [Zakim]
- +Jenae; got it
- 20:03:42 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 20:03:42 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Jenae, Chris_Ridpath, John_Slatin, Wendy, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, [IBM], Michael_Cooper, Alex_Li, Matt, Yvette, Takayuki, Becky_Gibson
- 20:03:50 [wendy]
- zakim, [IBM] is Andi
- 20:03:50 [Zakim]
- +Andi; got it
- 20:04:08 [Zakim]
- +JasonWhite
- 20:04:16 [nabe]
- zakim, I am Takayuki
- 20:04:16 [Zakim]
- ok, nabe, I now associate you with Takayuki
- 20:04:25 [Zakim]
- +James_Craig
- 20:04:43 [wendy]
- zakim, take up item 1
- 20:04:43 [Zakim]
- agendum 1. "TTF update" taken up [from wendy]
- 20:04:46 [james]
- zakim, I am James_Craig
- 20:04:46 [Zakim]
- ok, james, I now associate you with James_Craig
- 20:04:57 [wendy]
- mc there are 3 things the TTF has been working on
- 20:05:03 [wendy]
- 1. end-to-end anlyses
- 20:05:08 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, unmute me
- 20:05:08 [Zakim]
- Yvette was not muted, Yvette_Hoitink
- 20:05:11 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:05:11 [Zakim]
- Yvette should now be muted
- 20:05:14 [Zakim]
- +Bengt_Farre
- 20:05:55 [wendy]
- noticed that examples in gateway/techniques are not the same as guidelines. decided to to complete end-to-end analysis of each to ensure saying the same thing throughout all documents
- 20:06:06 [wendy]
- that process has grown into one of our quality assurance processes
- 20:06:23 [Andi]
- Andi has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:06:42 [Andi]
- Wendy, I can scribe now
- 20:06:43 [wendy]
- it forces us to follow the chain (from principle to technique) need to have the mapping. have discovered we don't always have a mapping or one that we weren't sure we agreed with.
- 20:06:47 [wendy]
- andi - thank you!
- 20:07:01 [wendy]
- Scribe: Andi
- 20:07:29 [Zakim]
- +Mike_Barta
- 20:07:29 [Andi]
- Process - take guideline, look at all relevant documents, identify issues between the documents
- 20:07:57 [Andi]
- do we have guidelines without techniques, techniques without guidelines, enough detail, too much detail?
- 20:08:24 [Zakim]
- -Takayuki
- 20:08:25 [wendy]
- http://www.eramp.com/david/end_to_end/index.htm
- 20:08:46 [Andi]
- invite review and feedback from the group - nothing specific to discuss today
- 20:09:09 [Zakim]
- +??P7
- 20:09:09 [Andi]
- Wendy: action items may be related to this end to end analysis
- 20:09:22 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P7 is Takayuki
- 20:09:22 [Zakim]
- +Takayuki; got it
- 20:09:25 [Andi]
- Michael: next topic is test process and file
- 20:09:48 [Zakim]
- +Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 20:09:51 [Andi]
- test process is one task of techniques task force
- 20:10:26 [Andi]
- demonstrate techniques, test benefit, determine if eval tool can use
- 20:11:07 [Andi]
- looking at W3C QA WG general test process
- 20:11:20 [wendy]
- W3C QA Activity: http://www.w3.org/QA/
- 20:11:39 [Andi]
- have WCAG specific detailed test process now
- 20:12:01 [Andi]
- coordinating with other WAI working groups - want to have WAI test suite
- 20:12:08 [Andi]
- HTML task force is the most active right now
- 20:12:30 [wendy]
- s/HTML task force/WCAG WG (Techniques Task Force)
- 20:12:47 [Andi]
- WCAG 2.0 test suite draft available for review
- 20:13:14 [wendy]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0455.html
- 20:13:32 [Andi]
- for every technique, there should be at least one test file demonstrating correct implementation and one demonstrating incorrect implementation
- 20:14:28 [Andi]
- test process and test files will probably generate issues that WCAG WG must deal with
- 20:14:40 [Andi]
- on to the Techniques documents
- 20:15:03 [Andi]
- expect proposals posted to mailing list
- 20:15:21 [wendy]
- zakim, who's making noise?
- 20:15:26 [Andi]
- receiving public comments on draft techniques documents
- 20:15:40 [Zakim]
- wendy, listening for 18 seconds I heard sound from the following: Michael_Cooper (71%), Takayuki (5%), JasonWhite (2%)
- 20:16:03 [Andi]
- plan a few more working drafts
- 20:16:07 [nabe]
- zakim, I am Takayuki
- 20:16:07 [Zakim]
- ok, nabe, I now associate you with Takayuki
- 20:16:09 [Andi]
- internal - 9/3
- 20:16:12 [wendy]
- zakim, mute takayuki
- 20:16:12 [Zakim]
- Takayuki should now be muted
- 20:16:13 [nabe]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:16:13 [Zakim]
- Takayuki was already muted, nabe
- 20:16:16 [wendy]
- :)
- 20:16:25 [Andi]
- public review draft period ends 9/10
- 20:16:27 [Zakim]
- -Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 20:16:34 [Zakim]
- +Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 20:17:03 [Andi]
- internal drafts September and October (didn't get the dates)
- 20:17:14 [Andi]
- Wendy - next public draft early November
- 20:17:19 [wendy]
- internal drafts: 3 sept and 8 oct. public on 3 november
- 20:17:39 [Andi]
- Michael - lot of changed content in upcoming drafts
- 20:18:27 [Andi]
- John - gateway techniques discussion
- 20:18:42 [Andi]
- request feedback on 7/30 draft
- 20:19:06 [Andi]
- different way of chunking GW techniques as individual pages
- 20:19:28 [Andi]
- navigation issues, placeholders, draft content for 1.1 level 1 success criteria
- 20:19:35 [Andi]
- currently working on content for 1.3
- 20:20:24 [Andi]
- need to know if fundamental concept of structure is sound before producing too much content
- 20:20:43 [Andi]
- also feedback on level of detail and abstractness
- 20:21:13 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-GATEWAY-20040730/
- 20:21:14 [Andi]
- 1.3 draft to the list by end of day 8/27
- 20:22:15 [wendy]
- ack jason
- 20:22:49 [MattSEA]
- MattSEA has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:23:04 [Andi]
- Jason: need to make sure that dependencies and relationships between guidelines are clear
- 20:24:08 [Andi]
- gateway is a good place for examples for things that pass and things that fail
- 20:25:22 [Andi]
- wendy: we need to be using the same examples throughout
- 20:25:45 [Andi]
- issues list - many of examples are very visual, need some that aren't
- 20:25:58 [Andi]
- John: and some that represent multiple technologies
- 20:26:56 [Zakim]
- -Jenae
- 20:26:59 [ChrisR]
- ChrisR has left #wai-wcag
- 20:27:11 [Zakim]
- -Chris_Ridpath
- 20:27:18 [Zakim]
- + +1.202.216.aaaa
- 20:27:23 [Andi]
- next topic: ATAG proposed paragraph for introduction
- 20:27:39 [wendy]
- zakim, +1.202.216.aaaa is Katie
- 20:27:39 [Zakim]
- +Katie; got it
- 20:29:06 [Andi]
- wendy reads proposed paragraph
- 20:29:12 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+
- 20:29:13 [wendy]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0389.html
- 20:29:20 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, unmute me
- 20:29:20 [Zakim]
- Yvette should no longer be muted
- 20:29:42 [Andi]
- general agreement with idea - needs editing
- 20:30:07 [Andi]
- jason - might need to introduce UA as well - need wording for that
- 20:30:31 [Andi]
- katie - thought we were going to have wording discussion about how all 3 fit together
- 20:30:43 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q-
- 20:30:44 [Andi]
- wendy - might not be in our document - might be EO deliverable
- 20:31:17 [Andi]
- wendy - have overviews that should be where people begin
- 20:31:24 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, who's making noise?
- 20:31:36 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Kerstin_Goldsmith (65%), JasonWhite (5%)
- 20:31:43 [wendy]
- ack john
- 20:31:45 [Andi]
- many people haven't found techniques documents
- 20:31:53 [wendy]
- zakim, mute kerstin
- 20:31:53 [Zakim]
- Kerstin_Goldsmith should now be muted
- 20:32:55 [Andi]
- john - WCAG documents are part of a whole concept that includes ATAG and UAAG - brief paragraph and then refer people to EO information
- 20:33:21 [MattSEA]
- q+
- 20:34:54 [Andi]
- action: Matt and Yvette will work on editing the paragraph
- 20:35:20 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, unmute mike_barta
- 20:35:20 [Zakim]
- Mike_Barta should no longer be muted
- 20:35:27 [wendy]
- action 1 = m3m clean up auwg paragraph, include uaag, sentence or two about how 3 fit together and link to EOWG overviews
- 20:35:29 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:35:29 [Zakim]
- Yvette should now be muted
- 20:37:01 [Andi]
- mike - suggests that one of the examples be an aggregator example, not just simple flat HTML files
- 20:37:04 [wendy]
- action: yvette send comments/corrections to auwg proposal
- 20:37:08 [Zakim]
- -Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 20:37:09 [wendy]
- ack matt
- 20:37:12 [wendy]
- ack mike
- 20:37:42 [Zakim]
- +Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 20:37:42 [Andi]
- matt - with regard to text for UAAG, can include it but it is not as directly relevant as ATAG
- 20:37:57 [wendy]
- zakim, mute mike
- 20:37:57 [Zakim]
- Mike_Barta should now be muted
- 20:37:58 [Andi]
- people reading WCAG document are consumers of ATAG
- 20:38:20 [Andi]
- UAAG audience is more advocacy oriented
- 20:38:22 [Zakim]
- -Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 20:38:49 [Zakim]
- -Mike_Barta
- 20:39:06 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/condensedreports/actionitems.php
- 20:39:11 [Andi]
- wendy - next topic is action items
- 20:39:13 [Zakim]
- +[Microsoft]
- 20:39:15 [Zakim]
- +Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 20:39:16 [Michael]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:39:16 [Zakim]
- Michael_Cooper should now be muted
- 20:41:56 [Andi]
- need 14 volunteers - each one monitors all issues/work related to one guideline
- 20:41:57 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, unmute me
- 20:41:57 [Zakim]
- Yvette should no longer be muted
- 20:42:11 [Andi]
- need people to write proposals for issues
- 20:42:17 [Andi]
- editorial notes in the draft
- 20:42:33 [Andi]
- need people to run tests, create test files, write techniques
- 20:42:59 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "adopt guidelines"
- 20:43:14 [Andi]
- contact editor of any document about getting involved
- 20:43:46 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 20:43:46 [Zakim]
- Yvette, you wanted to say "adopt guidelines"
- 20:44:03 [Andi]
- yvette - some already did summaries for particular guidelines
- 20:44:25 [Andi]
- perhaps same people can be the monitors for the same guidelines
- 20:44:36 [wendy]
- yvette: 2.4, 4.1, and one other
- 20:44:41 [Andi]
- john: 3.1
- 20:45:22 [Andi]
- kerstin - doesn't remember which ones she did but will be happy to take them again
- 20:45:28 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- yvette: 1.3
- 20:45:47 [Andi]
- katie - one hour per week
- 20:46:41 [Zakim]
- -Katie
- 20:47:14 [Andi]
- issues raised on WCAG mailing list and interest group list
- 20:47:32 [Andi]
- need to get these into bugzilla
- 20:47:34 [Zakim]
- -Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 20:47:49 [Andi]
- wendy - need help closing issues too
- 20:47:56 [Zakim]
- +Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 20:48:10 [Andi]
- next topic - JavaScript
- 20:48:38 [Michael]
- ack Michael
- 20:48:54 [Andi]
- issues twofold
- 20:49:20 [Andi]
- is text alternative to non-text content required if the non-text content itself is accessible
- 20:49:29 [Zakim]
- -Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 20:49:39 [Zakim]
- +Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 20:50:16 [Andi]
- 2nd - how widely supported must the accessibility features of the non-text content be?
- 20:51:15 [Andi]
- other issues are cross platform and difference between public Web site and intranet sites
- 20:52:02 [wendy]
- summary of issues at: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=895
- 20:52:08 [Andi]
- yvette - WCAG 1.0 required site to be usable if scripts disabled
- 20:52:16 [Andi]
- not in WCAG 2.0 - was that deliberate?
- 20:52:17 [wendy]
- ack jason
- 20:52:31 [Andi]
- jason - series of confusions on this issue
- 20:53:02 [Andi]
- approach with regard to various technologies was to confine the issues to guideline 4
- 20:54:38 [Andi]
- guidelines have to deal with all the issues that are involved in making user interfaces accessible
- 20:54:53 [Michael]
- q+ to say even simple use of script in question
- 20:55:07 [Andi]
- scripts are not "non-text" content
- 20:55:31 [wendy]
- ack michael
- 20:55:31 [Zakim]
- Michael_Cooper, you wanted to say even simple use of script in question
- 20:55:37 [Andi]
- if it can't be made directly accessible, provide a text alternative - this may be missing from WCAG 2.0
- 20:56:43 [Andi]
- michael - simple example - document.write to put a link on a page - do you need a <noscript> tag for this?
- 20:57:27 [Andi]
- if concerned about it working without scripts, then need <noscript> tag but with regard to accessibility, don't need <noscript> tag
- 20:57:42 [JibberJim]
- NOSCRIPT should never be recommended, there is never a case where noscript is a solution, noscript is a mistake!
- 20:58:46 [Andi]
- wendy - do we need a success criteria that says the page has to be usable with scripts disabled
- 20:58:46 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "accessibility problems?"
- 20:58:51 [Andi]
- lots of disagreement
- 20:59:01 [JibberJim]
- [sorry for jumping in, and sorry for not making the call, I really did try]
- 20:59:06 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 20:59:06 [Zakim]
- Yvette, you wanted to say "accessibility problems?"
- 20:59:22 [Andi]
- yvette - what are the accessibility problems?
- 20:59:36 [Michael]
- q+ to say never-ending question of supporting old technology
- 20:59:45 [wendy]
- ack jason
- 21:00:49 [Andi]
- jason - need criteria under guideline 4 for determining if a technology can be accessible at various levels and then apply to scripts
- 21:01:54 [Andi]
- jason - position on scripts depends on how well the DOM work is going, how AT support is coming along, etc.
- 21:02:27 [Andi]
- if authors know that users will have technology that supports scripts, then it should be okay to use it
- 21:02:42 [wendy]
- ack michael
- 21:02:42 [Zakim]
- Michael_Cooper, you wanted to say never-ending question of supporting old technology
- 21:03:22 [Andi]
- michael - WCAG 1.0 had requirement for alternative to scripts because it was a relatively new technology at the time
- 21:03:48 [Andi]
- because ATs will be one or two generations behind
- 21:04:29 [Andi]
- it will always be the case that some new technology is not supported by ATs and some technologies that are now supported that were previously not supported
- 21:04:50 [Andi]
- issue a is support for new technologies
- 21:05:03 [Andi]
- issue b is does the technology present some accessibility issues
- 21:06:31 [wendy]
- q+ to say, "this why 4.1/4.2 reference UAAG - to describe direct accessibility. +previous idea of 'baseline'"
- 21:06:52 [wendy]
- ack alex
- 21:07:22 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 21:07:22 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say, "this why 4.1/4.2 reference UAAG - to describe direct accessibility. +previous idea of 'baseline'"
- 21:07:36 [Zakim]
- -Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 21:07:37 [Andi]
- alex - should not outlaw any particular technology
- 21:08:08 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+ to say "Javascript techniques"
- 21:08:23 [Andi]
- wendy - partly why guideline references UAAG - deals with direct accessibility if you are doing something that is not HTML
- 21:09:07 [Andi]
- previously talked about authors defining a baseline that is required to operate their site
- 21:09:27 [Andi]
- doesn't address issue of widely available technologies
- 21:09:36 [Andi]
- should be bring back the idea of a baseline
- 21:09:39 [wendy]
- ack john
- 21:10:37 [Andi]
- john - how do we provide guidance to someone who is providing content in the developing world
- 21:10:49 [Andi]
- where users are unlikely to have access to current generation screen readers
- 21:11:59 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 21:11:59 [Zakim]
- Yvette, you wanted to say "Javascript techniques"
- 21:12:40 [Andi]
- yvette - for end to end examples, can think of many JavaScript examples
- 21:13:04 [Andi]
- may find that we need some additional success criteria
- 21:13:05 [wendy]
- ack jason
- 21:13:23 [Andi]
- jason - suggest drawing a distinction between using something and relying on it
- 21:13:55 [Andi]
- some scripts, if disabled don't make the content, as a whole unusable, just eliminate some function
- 21:14:30 [wendy]
- ack alex
- 21:14:33 [Andi]
- agree that issues of baseline and wide support for technologies need to be addressed in guideline 4
- 21:15:10 [Andi]
- alex - technology is a resource that is not always available to everyone you want to give it to
- 21:15:20 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, mute me
- 21:15:20 [Zakim]
- Yvette should now be muted
- 21:15:29 [Andi]
- could be because of proprietary nature of it or because of cost
- 21:15:44 [Zakim]
- +??P1
- 21:16:04 [Andi]
- AOL may want to distribute proprietary software to all subscribers, it doesn't matter if it only works with Netscape and not IE
- 21:16:10 [wendy]
- ack john
- 21:16:42 [Michael]
- zakim, ??P1 is Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 21:16:42 [Zakim]
- +Kerstin_Goldsmith; got it
- 21:16:58 [Andi]
- john - scenario envisioning - globally, there are over 700 million people with disabilities who live under seriously disadvantaged economic conditions
- 21:17:08 [Andi]
- even in the US, 70% are unemployed
- 21:17:28 [Michael]
- q+ to say we're entering into multiple definitions of accessibility
- 21:17:52 [Andi]
- some need access in order to improve economic or health condition
- 21:18:58 [wendy]
- q+ to say, "public web site vs [adjective] web app?"
- 21:19:42 [wendy]
- ack michael
- 21:19:42 [Zakim]
- Michael_Cooper, you wanted to say we're entering into multiple definitions of accessibility
- 21:20:55 [Andi]
- michael - getting into different definitions of accessibility
- 21:21:00 [Andi]
- WAI's primary mission is to describe accessibility for people with disabilities all other things being equal
- 21:22:12 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 21:22:12 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say, "public web site vs [adjective] web app?"
- 21:23:01 [Andi]
- wendy - baseline didn't survive because it got into too many issues about what it means to support a technology
- 21:23:18 [Andi]
- q+
- 21:23:45 [Andi]
- need to really consider public Web site vs 'restricted access' web site
- 21:23:48 [Becky]
- q+ to say yahoo, hotmail, gmail?
- 21:23:55 [JibberJim]
- JibberJim has joined #wai-wcag
- 21:24:03 [wendy]
- ack andi
- 21:24:13 [wendy]
- wac perhaps conformance profiles?
- 21:25:02 [wendy]
- asw perhaps other: public sector (government, transportation, education, health) other public sites but are not public sector (don't depend on for life function) then there are non-public (some sort of restricted access)
- 21:25:20 [wendy]
- asw if we want the guidelines to be technology-agnostic, have to stay away from issue of "widely supported"
- 21:25:32 [wendy]
- ack becky
- 21:25:32 [Zakim]
- Becky, you wanted to say yahoo, hotmail, gmail?
- 21:25:45 [Andi]
- becky - what about things like hotmail, yahoo mail, etc?
- 21:25:59 [Andi]
- have to sign up for them but they are free
- 21:26:09 [Andi]
- another category of what we have to deal with as well
- 21:26:15 [Andi]
- they're not restricted sites
- 21:26:20 [wendy]
- ack jason
- 21:26:54 [Andi]
- jason - one proposed rule would be to identify the major types of assistive technologies that people with different disabilities use
- 21:27:34 [Andi]
- if there's at least on AT that supports a technology, then it should be capable of meeting at least level 1
- 21:27:40 [Andi]
- s/on/one
- 21:27:48 [wendy]
- q+ to say, "re: jason's point, would need a time element. what about platform? ala discussion on the list."
- 21:27:56 [wendy]
- ack john
- 21:28:29 [Michael]
- q+ to say we have possible situation in which UAAG says "follow WCAG" and WCAG says "there must be a UAAG compliant tool"
- 21:28:48 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 21:28:48 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say, "re: jason's point, would need a time element. what about platform? ala discussion on the list."
- 21:28:50 [Andi]
- john - some of these things are matters of government policy - want a way to provide guidance even if it is not part of the standard
- 21:29:17 [Andi]
- wendy - concerned that issues regarding platform and time are a factor
- 21:29:58 [Andi]
- hope we can find a way to address without creating a rule as jason suggests
- 21:30:12 [wendy]
- ack michael
- 21:30:12 [Zakim]
- Michael_Cooper, you wanted to say we have possible situation in which UAAG says "follow WCAG" and WCAG says "there must be a UAAG compliant tool"
- 21:31:13 [Andi]
- michael - UAAG says content should be rendered such that WCAG works. WCAG says there needs to be a UAAG conforming tool in order for WCAG to work
- 21:31:31 [Andi]
- matt - there are no plans for UAAG 2.0 and UAAG 1.0 points to WCAG 1.0
- 21:32:50 [wendy]
- action: jason think about expanding concept of rule (working on 4.2)
- 21:32:51 [Andi]
- jason - will think about minimum conditions that must be satisfied - 4.2
- 21:33:03 [Zakim]
- -Bengt_Farre
- 21:33:16 [Andi]
- wendy - exploring idea of conformance profiles might help us
- 21:33:51 [Andi]
- jason and alex will help. michael is interested.
- 21:34:36 [Andi]
- conformance profile - different sets of success criteria for different types of content
- 21:36:04 [Andi]
- becky can help
- 21:36:19 [Andi]
- andi would like to provide input and feedback
- 21:36:33 [Andi]
- wendy would like to have 1 1/2 hour brainstorming session
- 21:37:02 [Andi]
- action: wendy will schedule call
- 21:37:12 [Andi]
- kerstin would like to be involved
- 21:37:32 [JibberJim]
- JibberJim has joined #wai-wcag
- 21:37:33 [Zakim]
- -[Microsoft]
- 21:37:35 [Zakim]
- -Becky_Gibson
- 21:37:35 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, unmute me
- 21:37:36 [Zakim]
- Yvette should no longer be muted
- 21:37:37 [Zakim]
- -Michael_Cooper
- 21:37:38 [Zakim]
- -Matt
- 21:37:39 [nabe]
- bye
- 21:37:39 [Zakim]
- -Andi
- 21:37:40 [Zakim]
- -Alex_Li
- 21:37:41 [Zakim]
- -John_Slatin
- 21:37:42 [Zakim]
- -Loretta_Guarino_Reid
- 21:37:43 [Zakim]
- -Wendy
- 21:37:44 [Zakim]
- -James_Craig
- 21:37:46 [Zakim]
- -Yvette
- 21:37:48 [Zakim]
- -Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 21:37:51 [Zakim]
- -JasonWhite
- 21:37:52 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
- 21:37:54 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Chris_Ridpath, Wendy, John_Slatin, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Michael_Cooper, Matt, Alex_Li, Yvette, Becky_Gibson, Takayuki, Jenae, Andi, JasonWhite, James_Craig,
- 21:37:54 [wendy]
- andi - thank you for minuting
- 21:37:57 [Zakim]
- ... Bengt_Farre, Mike_Barta, Kerstin_Goldsmith, Katie, [Microsoft]
- 21:38:15 [bengt]
- bengt has left #wai-wcag
- 21:40:50 [nabe]
- nabe has left #wai-wcag
- 21:46:49 [MattSEA]
- MattSEA has left #wai-wcag
- 21:50:40 [wendy]
- zakim, bye
- 21:50:40 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #wai-wcag
- 21:50:45 [wendy]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 21:50:45 [RRSAgent]
- I see 4 open action items:
- 21:50:45 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: m3m clean up auwg paragraph, include uaag, sentence or two about how 3 fit together and link to EOWG overviews [1]
- 21:50:45 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/26-wai-wcag-irc#T20-34-54
- 21:50:45 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: yvette send comments/corrections to auwg proposal [2]
- 21:50:45 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/26-wai-wcag-irc#T20-37-04
- 21:50:45 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: jason think about expanding concept of rule (working on 4.2) [3]
- 21:50:45 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/26-wai-wcag-irc#T21-32-50
- 21:50:45 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: wendy will schedule call [4]
- 21:50:45 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/26-wai-wcag-irc#T21-37-02