IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-10-21
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 00:46:24 [bengt_]
- bengt_ has joined #wai-wcag
- 08:06:37 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
- 08:06:47 [bcaldwell]
- rrsagent, make log world
- 08:16:25 [wendy]
- wendy has joined #wai-wcag
- 08:16:34 [wendy]
- form at: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/testing3/
- 08:31:35 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG(f2f)4:00AM has now started
- 08:31:42 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG(f2f)4:00AM has ended
- 08:31:43 [Zakim]
- Attendees were
- 08:31:44 [Becky]
- Becky has joined #wai-wcag
- 08:31:58 [ben]
- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/testing3/
- 08:32:21 [MattDUB]
- MattDUB has joined #wai-wcag
- 08:32:27 [MattDUB]
- url?
- 08:33:12 [David_MacDonald]
- David_MacDonald has joined #wai-wcag
- 08:33:18 [ben]
- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/testing3/
- 08:33:46 [David_MacDonald]
- Hi folks could you dial in
- 08:33:55 [ben]
- Hi David, we're doing prioritization of HTML techniques again at the moment
- 08:34:08 [ben]
- each of us are working independently on filling out the form at the above URI
- 08:34:27 [David_MacDonald]
- ok I'll do it too
- 08:34:43 [ben]
- if you want to work on that (use your w3c sign in stuff) for a bit we'll hop online when we're done
- 08:35:08 [David_MacDonald]
- OK
- 08:39:32 [bengt]
- hmm, is that something that i can check ?
- 08:45:47 [ben]
- yes, you use your w3c login (the same one you would use for meeting registrations)
- 08:54:56 [David_MacDonald]
- Are you using the latest draft as the basis for numbering this form? http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20041008/Overview.html
- 08:57:06 [bengt]
- they use 20040730
- 08:57:11 [David_MacDonald]
- I guess its December draft that we are using as the # system
- 08:57:35 [David_MacDonald]
- Hey Bengt where is that?
- 08:58:09 [David_MacDonald]
- I got it
- 09:08:09 [ben]
- links in the form refer to the latest public draft (October)
- 09:11:00 [bengt]
- nope it points to july version
- 09:11:28 [bengt]
- the same that is linked at wai/gl
- 09:18:23 [ben]
- oops, sorry you're right
- 09:18:36 [ben]
- we're going to discuss - do you guys want us to dial in
- 09:18:56 [David_MacDonald]
- yup
- 09:19:34 [David_MacDonald]
- I'm on phone
- 09:22:12 [wendy]
- zakim, this is wcag
- 09:22:12 [Zakim]
- ok, wendy; that matches WAI_WCAG(f2f)4:00AM
- 09:22:17 [wendy]
- zakim, call wendy-617
- 09:22:17 [Zakim]
- ok, wendy; the call is being made
- 09:22:19 [Zakim]
- +Wendy
- 09:22:33 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 09:22:33 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see ??P0, Wendy
- 09:23:09 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P0 is David_MadDonald
- 09:23:09 [Zakim]
- +David_MadDonald; got it
- 09:25:55 [Zakim]
- + +98765aaaa
- 09:26:08 [ben]
- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/testing3/results
- 09:26:10 [David_MacDonald]
- I just submitted didn't answer the last few
- 09:26:35 [David_MacDonald]
- hit refresh Michael
- 09:44:22 [wendy]
- 16.4 Auto submit combo boxes - a usability issue or accessibility issue?
- 09:44:43 [wendy]
- you can make it work with the keyboard, but in testing, expert users did not know how to use.
- 09:44:47 [wendy]
- or a user agent issue?
- 09:45:32 [wendy]
- if you use the widget inconsistently, then users will get confused.
- 09:45:47 [wendy]
- this is more debatable than the poll shows
- 09:47:03 [David_MacDonald]
- I really like this voting machine. I would like to get the design :-)
- 09:47:29 [bengt]
- coffee break ?
- 09:47:41 [ben]
- yep, taking a 15 minute break now
- 09:48:14 [David_MacDonald]
- wendy I noticed Zakim thinks I'm David MadDonald
- 09:48:41 [Zakim]
- - +98765aaaa
- 09:48:41 [wendy]
- yes, it was a typo, but i thought it was funny and kept it. ;)
- 09:48:58 [David_MacDonald]
- yup its so true
- 09:49:01 [wendy]
- we're hanging up the phone to take a break.
- 09:49:04 [Zakim]
- -Wendy
- 09:49:11 [Zakim]
- -David_MadDonald
- 09:49:12 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG(f2f)4:00AM has ended
- 09:49:13 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Wendy, David_MadDonald, +98765aaaa
- 09:49:15 [wendy]
- it's great you are getting up this early
- 09:49:37 [David_MacDonald]
- yup Great time of day
- 10:01:56 [Michael]
- Michael has joined #wai-wcag
- 10:05:08 [wendy]
- hello, we're starting again
- 10:05:13 [wendy]
- zakim, this is WCAG
- 10:05:13 [Zakim]
- wendy, I see WAI_WCAG(f2f)4:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be WCAG".
- 10:05:21 [wendy]
- zakim, this will be wcag
- 10:05:21 [Zakim]
- ok, wendy; I see WAI_WCAG(f2f)4:00AM scheduled to start 125 minutes ago
- 10:05:27 [wendy]
- zakim, call wendy-617
- 10:05:27 [Zakim]
- ok, wendy; the call is being made
- 10:05:28 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG(f2f)4:00AM has now started
- 10:05:29 [Zakim]
- +Wendy
- 10:06:23 [Zakim]
- +??P0
- 10:06:24 [Zakim]
- -??P0
- 10:06:25 [Zakim]
- +??P0
- 10:06:31 [wendy]
- is that you david?
- 10:06:38 [David_MacDonald]
- yup
- 10:06:44 [wendy]
- alistair is presenting. can you hear him?
- 10:06:52 [David_MacDonald]
- no
- 10:07:09 [wendy]
- the mic was covered by paper.
- 10:07:21 [wendy]
- better?
- 10:07:26 [David_MacDonald]
- yup
- 10:08:00 [David_MacDonald]
- zakim, ??P0 is David_MacDonald
- 10:08:00 [Zakim]
- +David_MacDonald; got it
- 10:08:17 [Zakim]
- + +98765aaaa
- 10:08:23 [wendy]
- is that bengt?
- 10:08:31 [bengt]
- zakim, 98765aaaa is bengt
- 10:08:31 [Zakim]
- sorry, bengt, I do not recognize a party named '98765aaaa'
- 10:08:35 [bengt]
- yeah
- 10:09:06 [bengt]
- zakim, +98765aaaa is bengt
- 10:09:06 [Zakim]
- +bengt; got it
- 10:09:19 [Zakim]
- +John_Slatin
- 10:09:41 [David_MacDonald]
- HI John Alistair is presenting
- 10:09:47 [mikba]
- mikba has joined #wai-wcag
- 10:10:19 [David_MacDonald]
- can the mike go closer to ALister.
- 10:10:47 [wendy]
- hello, mike. we're back.
- 10:11:11 [Zakim]
- +Mike_Barta
- 10:11:20 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 10:11:20 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Wendy, David_MacDonald, bengt, John_Slatin, Mike_Barta
- 10:11:28 [David_MacDonald]
- oops i meant can the microphone go closert alister
- 10:11:29 [mikba]
- mikba is on phone :)
- 10:12:31 [wendy]
- alistair showed us a document he is working on wrt evaluating wcag 1.0. he has mapped wcag 1.0 techniques to 2.0 techniques and looked at other resources to get the clearest interpretation possible.
- 10:12:44 [wendy]
- yh how it is rendered depends on the user
- 10:12:47 [wendy]
- ag and user agent
- 10:12:54 [wendy]
- yh user may enlarge or make smaller. not just user agent.
- 10:13:18 [wendy]
- ag the idea is to make sure that some understanding is put into techs in combining technologies to make sure there are no large blunders.
- 10:14:01 [wendy]
- in the room: Matt May, Tom Croucher, Andi Snow-Weaver, Becky Gibson, Alistair Garrison, Gez Lemon, Wendy Chisholm, Makoto Ueki, Takayuki Watanabe, Yvette Hoitink, Michael Cooper, Ben Caldwell
- 10:14:58 [wendy]
- tc authored units that are discreetly accessible when combined won't be accessible? not sure.
- 10:15:29 [wendy]
- tc will stuff that works on its own create problems when combined?
- 10:15:34 [wendy]
- tc can't think of any examples.
- 10:15:55 [wendy]
- yh could have multiple images that when combined could cover more than 50% of page and cause the threshold to be combined.
- 10:24:10 [wendy]
- discussion about general techniques - what direction makes sense. concern about how much content we have (over 200 pages in total) and some of the confusion with general techniques.
- 10:24:51 [MattDUB]
- MM: We need to talk to O'Reilly about writing the web accessibility
- 10:24:51 [MattDUB]
- O'Reilly book. The techniques are going to be in a relatively
- 10:24:51 [MattDUB]
- disjointed flow. We need to present things in a way that shows
- 10:24:51 [MattDUB]
- techniques interacting with one another. When you are writing a
- 10:24:51 [MattDUB]
- standard on how to do things, there is an accompanying book that says
- 10:24:52 [MattDUB]
- what it means
- 10:25:09 [MattDUB]
- (from meeting minutes, 7 June 2001)
- 10:25:10 [MattDUB]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2001AprJun/0652.html
- 10:29:35 [wendy]
- ag where to put the responsibility and uaag requirements.
- 10:29:57 [wendy]
- tc questions of what people want from wcag.
- 10:31:02 [wendy]
- tc do we take a hard line and say, "this is what is accessible." and refuse to provide techniques for anything else (that doesn't conform to uaag).
- 10:35:23 [David_MacDonald]
- test
- 10:37:55 [David_MacDonald]
- Is the irc going funny?
- 10:44:25 [wendy]
- wendy has joined #wai-wcag
- 10:45:55 [wendy]
- m3m there have been techs for using object and not embed (and valid) for over a year. it's just that embed what people do.
- 10:46:43 [wendy]
- js what we ought to be doing in techs is doing our best to research and develop techs that are already out there that do work and only when we can't find anything should we consider including techs that we'd have to consider hacks or work arounds.
- 10:48:41 [Zakim]
- -Mike_Barta
- 10:54:14 [Zakim]
- +Mike_Barta
- 10:58:09 [wendy]
- moving off into work groups
- 10:58:16 [wendy]
- calling back in 1.5 hours
- 10:58:18 [Zakim]
- -John_Slatin
- 10:58:22 [Zakim]
- -Mike_Barta
- 10:58:23 [Zakim]
- -David_MacDonald
- 10:58:23 [Zakim]
- -bengt
- 10:58:26 [Zakim]
- -Wendy
- 10:58:27 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG(f2f)4:00AM has ended
- 10:58:28 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Wendy, David_MacDonald, bengt, John_Slatin, Mike_Barta
- 10:59:34 [MattDUB]
- MattDUB has joined #wai-wcag
- 11:12:17 [nabe]
- nabe has joined #wai-wcag
- 11:12:27 [wendy]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/att-0546/labels.html
- 11:13:20 [wendy]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/att-0546/00-part
- 11:17:06 [wendy]
- Gez's write-up plus comments: http://www.juicystudio.com/invisible-form-prompts.asp
- 11:30:04 [Michael]
- Michael has joined #wai-wcag
- 12:24:53 [wendy]
- wendy has joined #wai-wcag
- 12:27:05 [wendy]
- zakim, this is wcag
- 12:27:05 [Zakim]
- wendy, I see WAI_WCAG(f2f)4:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be wcag".
- 12:27:17 [wendy]
- zakim, this will be wcag
- 12:27:17 [Zakim]
- ok, wendy; I see WAI_WCAG(f2f)4:00AM scheduled to start 267 minutes ago
- 12:29:06 [Becky]
- Becky has joined #wai-wcag
- 12:29:50 [wendy]
- wendy has joined #wai-wcag
- 12:29:59 [wendy]
- zakim, call wendy-617
- 12:29:59 [Zakim]
- ok, wendy; the call is being made
- 12:30:00 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG(f2f)4:00AM has now started
- 12:30:01 [Zakim]
- +Wendy
- 12:30:09 [wendy]
- zakim, drop wendy
- 12:30:09 [Zakim]
- Wendy is being disconnected
- 12:30:10 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG(f2f)4:00AM has ended
- 12:30:11 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Wendy
- 12:30:31 [wendy]
- zakim, call wendy-617
- 12:30:31 [Zakim]
- sorry, wendy, I don't know what conference this is
- 12:30:36 [wendy]
- zakim, this will be wcag
- 12:30:36 [Zakim]
- ok, wendy; I see WAI_WCAG(f2f)4:00AM scheduled to start 270 minutes ago
- 12:30:39 [wendy]
- zakim, call wendy-617
- 12:30:39 [Zakim]
- ok, wendy; the call is being made
- 12:30:40 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG(f2f)4:00AM has now started
- 12:30:41 [Zakim]
- +Wendy
- 12:30:58 [nabe]
- nabe has left #wai-wcag
- 12:31:04 [wendy]
- david? bengt? we're back
- 12:31:49 [Michael]
- Michael has joined #wai-wcag
- 12:32:13 [wendy]
- present: Ben Caldwell, Gregg Vanderheiden, Yvette Hoitink, Takayuki Watanabe, Makoto Ueki,
- 12:32:42 [wendy]
- Wendy Chisholm, Gez Lemon, Alistair Garrison, Michael Cooper, Kerstin Goldsmith, Becky Gibson, Andi Snow-Weaver, Tom Croucher, Matt May
- 12:32:52 [wendy]
- michael summarizes issues discussed yesterday:
- 12:33:07 [wendy]
- 1. features that are not universally supported in all user agents
- 12:33:14 [wendy]
- 2. traditionally wcag requires alternatives to be provided
- 12:33:53 [wendy]
- 3. chicken and egg problem
- 12:34:01 [wendy]
- why implement it if it won't be required?
- 12:34:35 [wendy]
- we don't want to ban a technology, it will hurt innovation
- 12:34:48 [wendy]
- people will innovate anyway, if we ban accessibiltiy will get left behind.
- 12:35:09 [wendy]
- we don't want to require mandatory alternatives if the tech is widely available
- 12:36:02 [wendy]
- no alternatives for techs widely supported by user agents
- 12:36:08 [wendy]
- javascript and flash are the common examplse
- 12:36:33 [wendy]
- tc didn't think it fair to ban techs b/c not supported rather than banning b/c not accessible
- 12:37:03 [wendy]
- mc responsibility: content author responsibility or user agent responsibility?
- 12:37:11 [nabe]
- nabe has joined #wai-wcag
- 12:37:12 [wendy]
- don't want techniqeus to supercede guidelines requirements
- 12:38:18 [wendy]
- upside down stools
- 12:38:50 [Zakim]
- +John_Slatin
- 12:39:19 [Zakim]
- +bengt
- 12:40:21 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/components.html
- 12:41:05 [wendy]
- gv however hard it is to effect the user agents, it is harder to affect the authors
- 12:41:22 [wendy]
- mc we had a baseline "task force" which didn't get as far as we had hoped, but we have a proposal for today.
- 12:41:42 [wendy]
- yh one leg of stool is the user - that they have to update their user agent
- 12:41:58 [wendy]
- ben? can you display this image on the screen:
- 12:42:03 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/specs.png
- 12:43:21 [wendy]
- gv if some people must live in the lynx environment then let's look at how to get them the functionality
- 12:43:28 [Michael]
- Reasonable Baselines: The concept of baselines necessarily means that not all user agents meet the requirements expected by the baseline. With most baselines, there will be some user agents used by people with disabilities that cannot render the site effectively. Although authors may choose to use any set of technologies that match the baseline criteria, they should choose technologies for which user agent support is widespread in their target audience.
- 12:43:51 [sh1m]
- sh1m has joined #wai-wcag
- 12:43:57 [gregg]
- gregg has joined #wai-wcag
- 12:44:01 [Andi]
- Andi has joined #wai-wcag
- 12:44:16 [wendy]
- Reasonable Baselines: The concept of baselines necessarily means that not all user agents meet the requirements expected by the baseline. With most baselines, there will be some user agents used by people with disabilities that cannot render the site effectively. Although authors may choose to use any set of technologies that match the baseline criteria, they should choose technologies for which user agent support is widespread in their target audience.
- 12:44:31 [wendy]
- (repasting for those who joined after michael pasted in)
- 12:45:00 [Michael]
- Fallbacks: To maximize accessibility, site implementation should take into account non-support for baseline technologies and provide fallback features when practical. Although not required for WCAG 2.0 conformance, this practice will increase the reach of the site.
- 12:46:13 [Michael]
- Baseline criteria: A technology or document format must be capable of being rendered by available user agents in a manner consistent with WCAG 2.0.
- 12:46:14 [wendy]
- gv a baseline or baselines?
- 12:46:23 [Michael]
- Baseline: A set of technologies that meet the baseline criteria and are required for users to access the features of a site. Technologies that do not meet the baseline criteria are not part of the baseline and are subject to the WCAG 2.0 requirement to provide equivalent alternatives.
- 12:46:51 [wendy]
- tc in a controlled environment (such as internal site) may have different baseline for internal vs higher for external.
- 12:47:03 [wendy]
- ack john
- 12:47:10 [wendy]
- js is baseline equivalent to system requirements?
- 12:47:45 [scribe]
- scribe has joined #wai-wcag
- 12:49:04 [Michael]
- q+
- 12:49:07 [wendy]
- gv we need to document our assumptions. e.g., we're assuming any player can play captions. those assumptions will change over time as technologies change. e.g., today alt-text for images of text is required b/c screen readers can't process.
- 12:49:52 [wendy]
- tc our assumptions are different from assumptions of people in developing countries. banning scripting is too restrictive in some places and not in others.
- 12:51:02 [Kerstin]
- There are always screenreaders like Gnopernicus that are free, opensource, run on Solaris and Linux, and will eventually be made to run on Windows, as well....
- 12:51:11 [wendy]
- gv everyone could make different assumptions, at some point we will need a baseline for what we write.
- 12:51:20 [Michael]
- q+ yvette
- 12:51:49 [wendy]
- tc we have techniques that have a low baseline. we can supply a baseline and supply info for all.
- 12:52:09 [wendy]
- ack michael
- 12:52:35 [wendy]
- mc in additional to concept of baseline, an org can choose a baseline and can do so according to a recipe that we can develop.
- 12:52:50 [wendy]
- tom? becky? can someone minute? i'm going to ask about the temperature.
- 12:52:54 [sh1m]
- ok
- 12:52:57 [wendy]
- thx
- 12:53:04 [sh1m]
- reccomended baseline for most orgs
- 12:53:07 [gregg]
- Q+
- 12:53:57 [wendy]
- thx tom, got it
- 12:54:07 [sh1m]
- update the baseline in the future as things change
- 12:54:31 [Michael]
- Suggested baseline: The W3C recommends the following baseline for most organizations:
- 12:54:32 [Michael]
- ·Plain text
- 12:54:34 [Michael]
- ·HTML 4.0 or XHTML 1.0
- 12:54:35 [Michael]
- ·CSS 2.0
- 12:54:37 [Michael]
- ·ECMAScript (version?)
- 12:54:38 [Michael]
- ·SMIL (?)
- 12:54:46 [Michael]
- The following technologies are known to provide accessibility features but are not sufficiently supported by user agents and should be excluded from the baseline. In the future these technologies may become part of the recommended baseline. Provide equivalent alternatives when using these technologies:
- 12:54:47 [Michael]
- ·Flash (support is limited to the Windows platform) [QUESTION: CAN THE W3C RECOMMENDED BASELINE INCLUDE PROPRIETARY TECHNOLOGIES?]
- 12:54:49 [Michael]
- ·PDF (? - support is limited to the Windows platform?)
- 12:54:50 [Michael]
- ·SVG (support is not widespread)
- 12:54:52 [Michael]
- ·MPEG/Quicktime/Real/AVI (accessibility features exist but are not sufficiently standardized or universally supported [note SMIL is one method of providing alternatives, so these formats can be used in combination with SMIL])
- 12:54:53 [Michael]
- ·Java (accessibility features exist, but VM?s capable of using them are not sufficiently widely distributed)
- 12:54:56 [Michael]
- The following technologies do not provide accessibility features and are not capable of being meaningfully transformed by user agents:
- 12:54:57 [Michael]
- ·Images (gif/jpeg/png/etc.)
- 12:54:59 [Michael]
- ·Audio-only formats (.au, .aiff, etc.)
- 12:55:01 [Michael]
- ·Director / Shockwave
- 12:55:11 [wendy]
- gv i had been assuming that you can't write the guidelines w/out knowing the baseline. now that we have the checklist outside of the guidelines are you thinking that you could have different checklists and you would change the baseline w/out effecting the guideliens?
- 12:55:40 [Michael]
- q+ alistair
- 12:55:43 [sh1m]
- ack john
- 12:56:33 [sh1m]
- already making baseline assumptions on guidelines and techniques
- 12:56:38 [wendy]
- js when we write guidelines/techs we're already basing those on assumptions. we should first tease those out - what we already assume - and then determine if we should or not.
- 12:56:42 [Kerstin]
- John: when we are writing guidelines and techniques, there is already an assumption about baseline ..
- 12:57:47 [Zakim]
- +??P18
- 12:58:01 [sh1m]
- ??P18, is David
- 12:58:03 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P18 is David_MacDonald
- 12:58:03 [Zakim]
- +David_MacDonald; got it
- 12:58:24 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 12:58:51 [sh1m]
- q+
- 12:58:55 [wendy]
- yh this has parallels to the scoping discussion. we said at the last f2f, it is not up to us to decide where the guidelines should apply. i think the same applies here.
- 12:58:58 [sh1m]
- Zakim, I am Tom
- 12:58:58 [Zakim]
- sorry, sh1m, I do not see a party named 'Tom'
- 12:59:08 [wendy]
- yh it is not up to us to decide what a company should select as a baseline.
- 12:59:32 [sh1m]
- q+ Tom
- 12:59:42 [sh1m]
- q- sh1m
- 12:59:44 [wendy]
- yh if you use a tech, this is when you use it accessibly
- 13:00:24 [wendy]
- yh could recommend that you don't need this type of content to conform at level 1.
- 13:00:34 [wendy]
- gv want to differentiate between public internet and private intranet
- 13:00:50 [wendy]
- gv our guidelines will be used to assess if something is good enough.
- 13:02:10 [jslatin]
- jslatin has joined #wai-wcag
- 13:04:14 [jslatin]
- Title of the Section 508 Web standards: § 1194.22 Web-based intranet and internet information and applications.
- 13:05:29 [Michael]
- q+ yvette
- 13:05:58 [Michael]
- ack gregg
- 13:06:02 [Michael]
- ack alistair
- 13:06:07 [wendy]
- ag baseline has to have some correlation to UAAG
- 13:06:28 [Kerstin]
- Kerstin has joined #wai-wcag
- 13:06:34 [gregg]
- q+
- 13:07:28 [wendy]
- ag based on an updated UAAG
- 13:07:37 [wendy]
- m3m it is not on the table for discussion
- 13:08:27 [wendy]
- wac what needs updating are the user agents
- 13:08:41 [Kerstin]
- q+
- 13:08:47 [wendy]
- ack tom
- 13:08:52 [Kerstin]
- q-
- 13:09:36 [jslatin]
- A baseline assumption we make: that WCAG, ATAG, & USAG are interdependent.
- 13:09:47 [wendy]
- tc we can have some flexibility w/out endless flexibility.
- 13:09:57 [Michael]
- q- yvette
- 13:11:11 [wendy]
- ag if you look at a country like china, with many different industrial zones, they may have a variety of policies within one country.
- 13:11:20 [wendy]
- tc different places have different needs.
- 13:11:38 [Kerstin]
- q+ to say that half an hour has gone by, can we summarize where we are right now, possibly list issues, see where to go next?
- 13:11:55 [wendy]
- q+ to say, "perhaps we should document our baseline first...perhaps a poll? and then discuss if we can create a recipe from that."
- 13:12:04 [sh1m]
- ack gregg
- 13:12:21 [wendy]
- gv the guidelines will have to make some assumption of baseline and then others can always be more restrictive.
- 13:12:22 [Kerstin]
- q-
- 13:13:58 [wendy]
- gv then countries with less support could make the baseline more restrictive (a lower baseline)
- 13:14:17 [wendy]
- tc a specific exception for closed environments (intranets)
- 13:14:22 [wendy]
- gv yes, you can make different assumptions.
- 13:14:29 [wendy]
- gv but, we are working on the general internet
- 13:14:58 [wendy]
- tc but the title is "web content..." guidelines
- 13:15:07 [wendy]
- gv can't make assumptions about a closed environment
- 13:15:46 [ben]
- q+
- 13:16:04 [wendy]
- gv they could have their own user agent
- 13:16:06 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 13:16:06 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say, "perhaps we should document our baseline first...perhaps a poll? and then discuss if we can create a recipe from that."
- 13:18:09 [wendy]
- ack ben
- 13:18:54 [wendy]
- bc allowing countries to lower the bar creates a problem for authors. e.g., if one country says "scripts are ok" and another says "scripts not ok" then the author has 2 baselines to hit.
- 13:19:18 [wendy]
- bc can we create a way for authors to state what their baseline is and then provide guidance about a reasonable baseline.
- 13:20:04 [wendy]
- bc if i make a baseline that requires only browsers in the last year and screen readers that cost $1000, then that baseline won't hold water. they can make a claim for their intranet that might be really high...
- 13:20:11 [wendy]
- mc seems to solve the testability problem.
- 13:20:19 [gregg]
- q+
- 13:20:25 [wendy]
- bc authors have implied baseline when making content. they know if they want to support netscape 4 or not.
- 13:20:35 [wendy]
- bc we can solve objectc/embed problem for everyone but netscape 4.
- 13:20:55 [Michael]
- q+ alistair
- 13:21:03 [wendy]
- bc if i want a certain type of backward compatibility...we need to leave room for that possibility in the baseline
- 13:21:06 [wendy]
- ack gregg
- 13:21:15 [sh1m]
- q+ Tom
- 13:21:27 [wendy]
- gv the last example is an example of WCAG having a baseline and an author wanting a lower baseline.
- 13:22:00 [wendy]
- gv the wcag baseline would be max/min others could be more restrictive
- 13:22:18 [wendy]
- gv either wcag or author decides, we are deciding who will take up the slack.
- 13:22:26 [wendy]
- gv if leave it up to the author, the user has to get new equipment.
- 13:23:32 [Andi]
- q+
- 13:24:16 [wendy]
- gv thought the formula was not for authors, but so that over time whatever the universal baseline would crawl up. don't want the same baseline for wcag 2.0 for the next 5 years.
- 13:24:17 [wendy]
- ack alistair
- 13:24:46 [Michael]
- q+ to say a universal baseline that increments is better than nothing, but brings up commitment to maintain (techniques)
- 13:24:55 [gregg]
- q+
- 13:25:35 [sh1m]
- ack John
- 13:27:18 [wendy]
- js there was a provision in 4.1 to allow for documented departures from specifications to allow backward compatibility.
- 13:28:20 [Kerstin]
- wouldn't it be great to get major UA creators, Assistive Technology creators, WCAG WG, and AT creators into a long working session together -- find out WHY people are not meeting UAAG, what is hard/impossible about ATAG .... and therefore make changes to the TRIAD (UAAG, WCAG, ATAG) to satisfy all -- and also maybe even create an API that Asst. Technologies could write to to support their piece of UAAG, as well ..... utopia?
- 13:29:22 [wendy]
- kerstin - that seems to be the goal of the PFWG and the roadmap.
- 13:29:28 [David_MacDonald]
- Hal says,
- 13:29:53 [sh1m]
- ack Tom
- 13:30:09 [Kerstin]
- if that's the goal of the PFWG, how does WCAG fit into it?
- 13:30:24 [jslatin]
- Tom's breaking up now..
- 13:30:38 [David_MacDonald]
- you guys need to talk normal speed because the limiter shuts off in the spaces. Only us on the phone should talk slow
- 13:30:40 [sh1m]
- sorry
- 13:30:46 [jslatin]
- They say that breaking up is hard to do. They're wrong.
- 13:30:50 [Kerstin]
- really?
- 13:31:12 [bengt]
- get closer to mic
- 13:31:15 [David_MacDonald]
- just talk normal an loud over there in Ireland
- 13:31:17 [nabe]
- nabe has left #wai-wcag
- 13:31:58 [jslatin]
- OK I'll hang up
- 13:32:04 [sh1m]
- we are going to call you back
- 13:32:06 [sh1m]
- just us
- 13:32:08 [wendy]
- you don't need to hang up
- 13:32:10 [sh1m]
- we are going to dial back in
- 13:32:12 [jslatin]
- i'll stay!
- 13:32:13 [wendy]
- just we'll call back
- 13:32:24 [Zakim]
- -Wendy
- 13:32:46 [wendy]
- we aren't getting a dialtone.
- 13:32:47 [wendy]
- one moment.
- 13:33:12 [jslatin]
- I love it when JAWS reads MIRC saying "ping?" and slomthing answers "pong"
- 13:33:14 [David_MacDonald]
- May day Maday we have lost contact :-)
- 13:33:54 [jslatin]
- "Houston, we have a problem..."
- 13:34:01 [sh1m]
- almost there
- 13:34:14 [sh1m]
- here we go
- 13:34:22 [Zakim]
- +??P5
- 13:34:23 [sh1m]
- shazam!
- 13:34:34 [sh1m]
- zakim, ??p5 is F2F
- 13:34:34 [Zakim]
- +F2F; got it
- 13:34:42 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 13:34:42 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see John_Slatin, bengt, David_MacDonald, F2F
- 13:34:44 [sh1m]
- zakim, who's making noise?
- 13:34:54 [Zakim]
- sh1m, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: F2F (60%), David_MacDonald (65%)
- 13:35:30 [David_MacDonald]
- zakim, who's making noise?
- 13:35:39 [wendy]
- tc in the case of javascript, you can use it to make accessible applications.
- 13:35:41 [Zakim]
- David_MacDonald, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: F2F (94%), David_MacDonald (62%)
- 13:35:47 [wendy]
- tc if people want to choose it, we should let them.
- 13:36:33 [sh1m]
- ack andi
- 13:36:33 [ben]
- q?
- 13:37:04 [wendy]
- asw if we create a baseline, aren't we banning technologies that aren't on that list?
- 13:37:14 [wendy]
- gv if we base it on uaag, then no.
- 13:37:45 [wendy]
- q+ to say, "uaag is very desktop/html/multimedia specific"
- 13:38:59 [wendy]
- gv if you say you can use any technology that meets uaag, however, how many technologies meet uaag?
- 13:39:23 [wendy]
- yh there is no screen reader in dutch, they use braille.
- 13:39:46 [wendy]
- correction: there is not a *good* screen reader in dutch
- 13:40:25 [Michael]
- ack michael
- 13:40:25 [Zakim]
- Michael, you wanted to say a universal baseline that increments is better than nothing, but brings up commitment to maintain (techniques)
- 13:40:47 [Zakim]
- +??P7
- 13:41:26 [ken]
- ken has joined #wai-wcag
- 13:41:45 [jslatin]
- Even the analog is breaking up
- 13:41:55 [David_MacDonald]
- but much better
- 13:42:13 [Kerstin]
- q+ yvette
- 13:42:22 [wendy]
- 1.2 Target user agents
- 13:42:24 [wendy]
- This document was designed specifically to improve the accessibility of user agents with multimedia capabilities running in the following type of environment (typically that of a desktop computer):
- 13:42:26 [wendy]
- * The operating environment includes a keyboard (or keyboard equivalent)
- 13:42:28 [wendy]
- * Assistive technologies may be used in the operating environment and may communicate with the conforming user agent
- 13:42:39 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG/intro.html#target
- 13:42:54 [wendy]
- ack gregg
- 13:42:55 [sh1m]
- ack gregg
- 13:43:10 [David_MacDonald]
- q+ David
- 13:43:52 [wendy]
- gv industry would be much happier w/us defining a baseline rather than courtrooms decide what it is. as much as industry wants it to be easy to meet, the worst thing is to have a baseline that is different in different countries.
- 13:44:04 [David_MacDonald]
- q- david
- 13:45:37 [Kerstin]
- do we want to do uaag before we do straw poll vote on baseline issues?
- 13:46:02 [wendy]
- yh provide a document for policy makers - what the baseline would be.
- 13:46:03 [jslatin]
- cant hear yvette
- 13:46:46 [Kerstin]
- what about a document that just addresses current combinations of ua, at, and wc -- didn't janae put together something like this?
- 13:46:56 [wendy]
- gv how would a company do business in that country?
- 13:47:16 [wendy]
- gv if you want to do business in a developing country,then have to go with their baseline
- 13:48:48 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG/intro.html#target
- 13:50:10 [jslatin]
- so different baselines for desktop and wireless devices?
- 13:50:10 [Becky]
- Becky has joined #wai-wcag
- 13:50:31 [ben]
- q?
- 13:50:34 [ben]
- ack wendy
- 13:50:34 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say, "uaag is very desktop/html/multimedia specific"
- 13:50:37 [ben]
- ack yvette
- 13:51:39 [sh1m]
- q+
- 13:52:01 [sh1m]
- q+ Yvette
- 13:52:09 [sh1m]
- ack sh1m
- 13:52:17 [gregg]
- q+
- 13:52:31 [wendy]
- m3m limiting factor are test cases.
- 13:52:54 [sh1m]
- ack Yvette
- 13:53:19 [sh1m]
- yh For which techs are their UAAG compliant UAs?
- 13:53:21 [wendy]
- yh conformance to uaag?
- 13:53:31 [wendy]
- m3m major browsers are 90%+ the way there.
- 13:53:39 [wendy]
- m3m that 10% is different for each browser
- 13:54:13 [wendy]
- also note that UAAG 1.0 relies on WCAG 1.0
- 13:54:21 [sh1m]
- ie, opera, mozilla are substantially compatable with UAAG. It's either they are mostly complete, or are missing sections
- 13:54:36 [wendy]
- we could get a conflict if we require something different in WCAG 2.0, e.g., "Ensure that users have access to all content, notably conditional content that may have been provided to meet the requirements of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]."
- 13:54:36 [sh1m]
- All of them are aware of UAAG and are intergrating in successive version.
- 13:54:59 [sh1m]
- There is still not a browser that are HTML 4.01, the browsers don't do things in lots of little ways.
- 13:55:30 [sh1m]
- The specifications are conform or not, they don't have A, AA, AAA.
- 13:55:45 [Kerstin]
- nobody claims conformance to anything else that W3C does -- Matt.
- 13:55:51 [sh1m]
- gvh: UAAG is more a regulartory standard
- 13:56:18 [sh1m]
- gvh: Tech supported, talk about the three browsers
- 13:56:35 [sh1m]
- bc: 90% of lvl A or 90% of all lvls?
- 13:57:03 [sh1m]
- mc: We have tested this on around 8 browsers. We have a matrix of conformance
- 13:57:29 [MattDUB]
- http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/wai-eval/reports.php?report_id=4
- 13:57:31 [sh1m]
- gvh: Wendy's two points. Firstly the intro, the second part seems more a problem
- 13:57:49 [sh1m]
- "It was designed to work with user agents of multimedia capabilities"
- 13:58:03 [sh1m]
- gvh: Would think that with no multimedia capability it would still work
- 13:58:12 [sh1m]
- gvh: Our guidelines work without multimedia
- 13:58:38 [sh1m]
- gvh: We don't always require alt for multimedia sometmes just that it is accessible
- 13:58:45 [sh1m]
- "Should work with a keyboard"
- 13:59:00 [sh1m]
- gvh: we require kb usable pages
- 13:59:20 [sh1m]
- "Target is one designed for the general public, for use in general operating conditions"
- 13:59:31 [sh1m]
- gvh: Well that seems ok, just worry about multimedia
- 13:59:55 [sh1m]
- gvh: Wendy cited MathML do user agents support that?
- 14:00:16 [sh1m]
- gvh: If you put MathML on your page it could be like ascii art
- 14:00:19 [sh1m]
- ack John
- 14:00:52 [sh1m]
- js: About the MathML support, Moz has partial support, Opera too. Plugin called "Math player" which works with JAws and window eyes.
- 14:01:13 [sh1m]
- js: Right now you have to have the math player plugin to use MathML in Jaws.
- 14:01:23 [sh1m]
- js: Plugin for IE
- 14:01:38 [sh1m]
- gvh: What does jaws do when it runs into MathML?
- 14:01:46 [wendy]
- mathml implementation report: http://www.w3.org/Math/iandi/
- 14:02:00 [wendy]
- mathml software: http://w3.org/Math/implementations.html
- 14:03:22 [jslatin]
- NCAM educational guidelines have refereences for speaking math- reading order, chunking expressions, etc.
- 14:03:26 [sh1m]
- yh: Houw would you do it with a braille reader?
- 14:03:42 [sh1m]
- gvh: If it could be spoken you can do it with words
- 14:03:50 [sh1m]
- js: You can use math braille
- 14:04:52 [Kerstin]
- q- Jo
- 14:04:58 [Kerstin]
- q- John_Slatin
- 14:05:12 [jslatin]
- Mozillaa supports SVG (most of it, not all)
- 14:05:32 [jslatin]
- No widely available screen reader support for SVG, some experiments
- 14:05:44 [sh1m]
- gvh: What about something, say SVG. That is an image?
- 14:06:18 [jslatin]
- no screen reader support for current SVG viewers (Adobe, etc.)
- 14:06:28 [sh1m]
- mcm: No SVG encapsulates text and other information as a format, you can include alternates inside
- 14:06:47 [sh1m]
- wc: My concern was that SVG wouldn't be supported by UAAG
- 14:07:56 [jslatin]
- mozilla svg project: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/svg/
- 14:09:42 [sh1m]
- gvh: So I see that no browser has full text support
- 14:10:04 [sh1m]
- mcm: Right Mozilla for example doesn't support keyboard access to the tool bards
- 14:10:20 [sh1m]
- toolbars
- 14:12:06 [sh1m]
- mcm: on 1.1 we have nothing that says complete, that one checkpoint has 22 different tests. Ie for example does all but too
- 14:12:33 [sh1m]
- mcm: The only ones are access key can't actuate a label and checkboxes was only partially implemented to our standard
- 14:13:24 [jslatin]
- Hmmm. Can't get the URL, Tom.
- 14:13:55 [sh1m]
- still sending
- 14:13:57 [sh1m]
- http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/wai-eval/reports.php?report_id=4
- 14:14:03 [sh1m]
- did you get that?
- 14:15:50 [jslatin]
- Damn JAWS & MIRC! I can *hear* the URL going by but when I try to arrow to it all I get is the pane that lists who's on IRC!
- 14:16:28 [MattDUB]
- HPR review: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/impl-pr2/evaluations/eval_win_hpr302.html
- 14:17:12 [David_MacDonald]
- Bengt still there?
- 14:17:20 [bengt]
- yep
- 14:17:30 [David_MacDonald]
- cool
- 14:17:43 [bengt]
- how long break ???
- 14:17:50 [MattDUB]
- 15 min
- 14:17:56 [David_MacDonald]
- should we call back?
- 14:18:05 [wendy]
- we'll be back in 15
- 14:18:10 [bengt]
- ok
- 14:19:04 [bengt]
- ok
- 14:19:06 [Zakim]
- -F2F
- 14:19:07 [Zakim]
- -John_Slatin
- 14:19:08 [Zakim]
- -David_MacDonald
- 14:19:09 [Zakim]
- -bengt
- 14:19:10 [Zakim]
- -??P7
- 14:19:11 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG(f2f)4:00AM has ended
- 14:19:12 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Wendy, John_Slatin, bengt, David_MacDonald, F2F
- 14:32:39 [nabe]
- nabe has joined #wai-wcag
- 14:34:57 [sh1m]
- We are back again!
- 14:35:25 [sh1m]
- Zakim, who's on the phone?
- 14:35:25 [Zakim]
- I notice WAI_WCAG(f2f)4:00AM has restarted
- 14:35:26 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see ??P7, John_Slatin
- 14:35:42 [sh1m]
- Zakim, ??P7 is f2f
- 14:35:42 [Zakim]
- +f2f; got it
- 14:36:26 [Zakim]
- +??P18
- 14:36:54 [David_MacDonald]
- zakim, ??P18 is David_MacDonald
- 14:36:54 [Zakim]
- +David_MacDonald; got it
- 14:37:00 [Andi]
- starting to discuss Jason's recipe proposal
- 14:37:04 [wendy]
- jason's post: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004OctDec/0124.html
- 14:37:40 [Andi]
- recipe that varies by time, technology, etc.
- 14:38:27 [Zakim]
- +bengt
- 14:38:53 [bengt_]
- bengt_ has joined #wai-wcag
- 14:39:11 [Andi]
- gv> but don't we need a target baseline assumption in order to write the guidelines?
- 14:39:28 [Andi]
- techniques are heavily dependent on baselines
- 14:39:32 [Kerstin]
- Andi -- just let me know when you need/want a break from minuting ...
- 14:41:11 [Andi]
- gv> text is totally inaccessible to someone who is blind unless it is read to them by something.
- 14:41:27 [Andi]
- gv> assuming user agent can render it in a form that makes it accessible to users who are blind
- 14:42:09 [Andi]
- gv> because part of our population is blind and doesn't read Braille, we are assuming that some technology exists that can render it in audio
- 14:43:01 [Andi]
- gv> another assumption is that all multimedia players can display closed captions
- 14:43:18 [Andi]
- mc> debatable point - either require captioning or separate transcript
- 14:43:46 [Andi]
- gv> alternate transcript not required at Level 1, only at Level 2
- 14:44:56 [Andi]
- js> caught up in whether or not the baseline is something that developers target or whether they are built in assumptions in the guidelines
- 14:45:45 [Andi]
- mc> lot of discussion brought us to thinking about techniques in bottoms up approach and then see if it works with the guidelines.
- 14:45:59 [Andi]
- mc> if doesn't work, then determine if problem is with the technique or the guideline
- 14:47:26 [Andi]
- gv> additional things it's good to do but are not required by the guidelines - Level 4
- 14:47:50 [Andi]
- mc> we've gone top down with the guidelines, started with the techniques about halfway down
- 14:48:13 [Andi]
- mc> need to do bottoms up approach with the techniques
- 14:48:52 [Zakim]
- +??P3
- 14:50:40 [Kerstin]
- q+ kerstin to ask to repeat all three possibilities for what baseline is
- 14:50:50 [jslatin]
- suggest different vocabulary: "working-group assumptions" vs "system requirements"
- 14:51:32 [Andi]
- mc> need a proposal to help frame further discussion
- 14:52:28 [Kerstin]
- baseline could be one of three things:
- 14:52:29 [Kerstin]
- 1)what we use to write the guidelines
- 14:52:29 [Kerstin]
- 2)what a developer uses to build accessible content
- 14:52:29 [Kerstin]
- 3)what would be used to guide the evolution of the checklists
- 14:52:38 [Andi]
- thanks Kerstin
- 14:52:44 [Kerstin]
- sure
- 14:53:10 [Kerstin]
- q- kerstin
- 14:53:33 [Andi]
- mc> believes the baseline is for the author and the checklists.
- 14:53:59 [Andi]
- mc> The guidelines should be agnostic to a particular baseline but not to the concept of a baseline
- 14:54:34 [Andi]
- js> look at the voting on HTML techniques exercise - might be a way to get at the assumptions the WG is making
- 14:55:19 [Andi]
- js> might help us come up with a way of talking about baselines
- 14:55:50 [Andi]
- alli> whatever we come up with has to be simple
- 14:55:55 [Michael]
- q+ to mention evaluate vs benchmark
- 14:56:07 [Kerstin]
- q- J
- 14:57:06 [Andi]
- tc> have a number of recommendations that have flexibility - such as picking JavaScript or not picking JavaScript - would be sufficient for Tom
- 14:57:38 [Andi]
- tc> having a number of recommendations for a set of circumstances
- 14:58:13 [Andi]
- tc> don't think we can come up with formula that will be robust enough to last over time
- 14:58:39 [gregg]
- q+
- 14:59:02 [Andi]
- tc> need a scheme that is flexible enough to let you choose technologies but the technologies you choose have have accessibility capabilities
- 14:59:16 [Andi]
- have have = have to have
- 15:00:08 [Andi]
- mc> benchmarking is difficult if sites use different baselines
- 15:00:37 [Andi]
- gv> have to remember socio-economic status
- 15:00:41 [Michael]
- ack michael
- 15:00:41 [Zakim]
- Michael, you wanted to mention evaluate vs benchmark
- 15:00:43 [Michael]
- ack gregg
- 15:01:04 [Andi]
- gv> have to set the baseline at something that is reasonable to assume that a consumer will have
- 15:01:33 [Andi]
- gv> could assume users will have something that meets UAAG and go push vendors to support UAAG.
- 15:01:52 [Andi]
- gv> not reasonable to assume the latest version of XP and JAWS - sets the bar too high
- 15:01:56 [Kerstin]
- q+ yvette
- 15:02:23 [Andi]
- gv> could set the baseline at what is available in a user agent that is below a certain cost.
- 15:02:57 [sh1m]
- q+ Tom
- 15:03:11 [Michael]
- q+ to say gregg just mentioned things that would be in the recipe
- 15:03:26 [sh1m]
- ack yvette
- 15:04:04 [Andi]
- yh> confused - some people talk about the baseline in terms of technologies. others talk about it in terms of user agents.
- 15:04:18 [Andi]
- gv> baseline is what technologies user agents can handle
- 15:04:22 [ben]
- q+
- 15:04:49 [Andi]
- gv> question is what technologies do user agents support
- 15:04:57 [sh1m]
- ack David
- 15:05:00 [Andi]
- gv> what is it reasonable to assume that users can get
- 15:05:27 [Andi]
- dm> in Guatemala - using IE 5 and 6, have JAWS 3.7 in Spanish.
- 15:06:20 [Andi]
- dm> except for languages for which there is no assistive technology, everybody seems to be fairly current
- 15:06:41 [Andi]
- dm> consumers may not own individually but have access to AT centers
- 15:06:42 [sh1m]
- acl Tom
- 15:06:48 [MattDUB]
- ack tom
- 15:06:53 [wendy]
- proposal: pick a year(s) and geo region(s) for user agent and asst tech development (e.g., Americas, Europe, Japan, 1998+ = IE5,6, etc.) pick a list of specs to conform to (e.g., HTML 4.01, CSS Level 2, etc.), list exceptions to specs (e.g., yes - embed, no - accesskey), pick audience (e.g., all web, private intranet).
- 15:07:36 [wendy]
- (s)
- 15:07:38 [Andi]
- tc> is it reasonable for us to try to define a completely holistic world wide web baseline
- 15:07:55 [wendy]
- why does ( s ) show up as a bubble in ben's irc client
- 15:08:20 [wendy]
- q+ to say, "proposal"
- 15:09:03 [Andi]
- tc> if we set the baseline really low are we doing a disservice to people using AT because their AT won't step up to newer technologies
- 15:10:02 [Andi]
- gv> we will probably end up choosing a baseline which includes technologies that some will not be able to access
- 15:10:29 [sh1m]
- ack
- 15:10:29 [Michael]
- ack michael
- 15:10:29 [Zakim]
- Michael, you wanted to say gregg just mentioned things that would be in the recipe
- 15:11:05 [Andi]
- mc> Gregg listed some requirements that could go into the recipe for the baseline anyway
- 15:11:59 [sh1m]
- q+ Tom to ask can we define a 'technology' baseline in addition to an 'economic' baseline, and aim at one and use the other
- 15:12:18 [Kerstin]
- ack ben
- 15:12:21 [Andi]
- bc> as user agents are widely available that support a technology, checklist items that are restrictions can go away
- 15:12:24 [Kerstin]
- ack wendy
- 15:12:24 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say, "proposal"
- 15:12:36 [wendy]
- proposal: pick a year(s) and geo region(s) for user agent and asst tech development (e.g., Americas, Europe, Japan, 1998+ = IE5,6, etc.) pick a list of specs to conform to (e.g., HTML 4.01, CSS Level 2, etc.), list exceptions to specs (e.g., yes - embed, no - accesskey), pick audience (e.g., all web, private intranet).
- 15:12:48 [Michael]
- Tom's suggestion is embedded in Jason's proposal already
- 15:13:20 [Andi]
- wc> reads proposal above
- 15:14:02 [Andi]
- wc> need to figure out what we have for a baseline and then say how we're going to apply it
- 15:14:03 [Kerstin]
- q+ allistair
- 15:14:05 [Michael]
- q+ alistair
- 15:14:15 [Michael]
- q- allistair
- 15:14:38 [MattDUB]
- ack tom
- 15:14:38 [Zakim]
- Tom, you wanted to ask can we define a 'technology' baseline in addition to an 'economic' baseline, and aim at one and use the other
- 15:15:47 [Andi]
- tc> Level 1 should only be concerned with technical requirements, Level 2 can be concerned with economic requirements
- 15:16:12 [Michael]
- ack alistair
- 15:16:17 [Andi]
- alli> looking at Wendy's proposal - how does that help with techniques
- 15:17:47 [Andi]
- gv> checklists can change over time if it keeps getting easier for authors
- 15:18:14 [Michael]
- q+ yvette
- 15:18:53 [Andi]
- alli> don't understand how you could write techniques that are dependent on different baselines in different regions
- 15:20:01 [Andi]
- gv> companies will not create more stringent rules for themselves because then they have to follow them in order to be ISO 9000 compliant
- 15:20:05 [Michael]
- q+ to say if we don't have concept of different baselines, we'll only create a single set of techniques and techniques for other baselines won't exist (from us), therfore hurting overall adoption
- 15:21:37 [Andi]
- gv> will have to answer how the checklists can be non-normative and change over time but be the basis for determining compliance with the guidelines which are normative
- 15:22:26 [Andi]
- gv> break into two groups - 1. UAAG analysis and 2. formula recipe
- 15:22:31 [Michael]
- q-
- 15:22:36 [Michael]
- q- yvettee
- 15:22:40 [Michael]
- q- yvette
- 15:22:43 [Michael]
- ack john
- 15:23:44 [Zakim]
- -John_Slatin
- 15:23:56 [Zakim]
- -??P3
- 15:25:13 [ben]
- (B)
- 15:25:38 [wendy]
- (s)
- 15:25:49 [wendy]
- :-)
- 15:25:54 [wendy]
- ;-)
- 15:26:01 [wendy]
- (c)
- 15:27:44 [MattDUB]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/impl-pr2/evaluations/eval_win_hpr302.html
- 15:28:35 [David_MacDonald]
- The phone hung up
- 15:28:43 [David_MacDonald]
- I'm back
- 15:28:58 [Becky]
- sorry just a microphone "issue"
- 15:29:09 [David_MacDonald]
- Hey I ddon't want to become hearing impaired as well as paraplaegic
- 15:30:48 [David_MacDonald]
- are we just reading UAAG
- 15:33:09 [bengt_]
- ping
- 15:38:38 [sh1m]
- David yahoo has a drop down list box on their frontpage
- 15:43:41 [Makoto]
- Makoto has joined #wai-wcag
- 15:50:43 [David_MacDonald]
- are you reading http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/impl-pr2/evaluations/eval_win_hpr302.html
- 16:16:05 [bengt_]
- have to go its soon 6.30 for me
- 16:16:50 [Zakim]
- -bengt
- 16:19:09 [ben]
- http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/wai-eval/reports.php?report_id=4
- 16:47:13 [shawn]
- shawn has joined #wai-wcag
- 17:03:37 [Kerstin]
- Kerstin has joined #wai-wcag
- 17:03:50 [Kerstin]
- wendy, can I get the URI for the poll this morning?
- 17:04:10 [wendy]
- kerstin?
- 17:04:12 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/testing3/
- 17:14:51 [Zakim]
- -f2f
- 17:14:52 [Zakim]
- -David_MacDonald
- 17:14:53 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG(f2f)4:00AM has ended
- 17:14:54 [Zakim]
- Attendees were John_Slatin, f2f, David_MacDonald, bengt
- 17:16:34 [ben]
- ben has left #wai-wcag
- 17:50:00 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #wai-wcag
- 17:57:42 [shawn]
- shawn has left #wai-wcag
- 18:21:22 [bengt_]
- bengt_ has joined #wai-wcag
- 18:40:15 [nabe]
- nabe has joined #wai-wcag
- 18:45:25 [nabe]
- nabe has joined #wai-wcag
- 18:45:43 [nabe]
- nabe has left #wai-wcag
- 19:06:11 [Andi]
- Andi has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:09:49 [nabe]
- nabe has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:10:53 [wendy]
- wendy has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:12:10 [wendy]
- group 1: looked at uaag 1.0
- 19:12:16 [wendy]
- for homer page reader
- 19:12:30 [wendy]
- there were 2 items: 1.2 and 2.3 (?)
- 19:12:45 [wendy]
- you could use uaag- as a reference design
- 19:13:24 [Makoto]
- Makoto has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:13:34 [wendy]
- 1.2 activate event handlers - you can't activate mouseon in a couple browsers
- 19:14:06 [ben]
- ben has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:14:09 [wendy]
- there are techniques to use to meet that
- 19:14:35 [wendy]
- 2.3 render conditional content - there are strategies to get around
- 19:14:39 [wendy]
- but then we couldn't recommend object
- 19:15:13 [wendy]
- looked like a baseline browser that was close to uaag could
- 19:15:17 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:15:24 [wendy]
- zakim, this is will be wcag
- 19:15:24 [Zakim]
- sorry, wendy, I do not see a conference named 'will be wcag' in progress or scheduled at this time
- 19:15:25 [sh1m]
- Zakim, this is WAI_WCAG
- 19:15:26 [Zakim]
- sh1m, I see WAI_WCAG()4:00PM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be WAI_WCAG".
- 19:15:37 [sh1m]
- Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
- 19:15:37 [Zakim]
- ok, sh1m; I see WAI_WCAG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 45 minutes
- 19:16:21 [wendy]
- zakim, room for 3?
- 19:16:22 [Zakim]
- ok, wendy; conference Team_(wai-wcag)19:16Z scheduled with code 83261 (TEAM1) for 60 minutes until 2016Z
- 19:21:32 [wendy]
- 8.2 conform to w3c recs or non-w3c specs that enable creation of content to wcag 1.0...some adjust needed.
- 19:21:49 [wendy]
- not sure what to do about uaag if it will never be revised
- 19:22:33 [wendy]
- can publish as an edited rec
- 19:23:43 [wendy]
- group 2
- 19:24:02 [wendy]
- explored several pieces, main idea was that the baseline would be set on user's requirements (that's what drives the baseline)
- 19:24:28 [jslatin]
- jslatin has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:24:34 [jslatin]
- anybody home?
- 19:24:46 [wendy]
- hello john. we're here
- 19:24:48 [sh1m]
- hey john
- 19:24:52 [sh1m]
- new conference code
- 19:25:06 [sh1m]
- TEAM1
- 19:25:10 [jslatin]
- OK, I'll call in with the new passcode
- 19:25:23 [sh1m]
- We haven't got a phone at the moment
- 19:25:38 [sh1m]
- So please bear with us if we take a few minutes to join
- 19:25:42 [Zakim]
- Team_(wai-wcag)19:16Z has now started
- 19:25:49 [Zakim]
- +John_Slatin
- 19:26:01 [Kerstin]
- Kerstin has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:26:25 [jslatin]
- Sure/ You're going late tonight!
- 19:26:38 [sh1m]
- Actually this is early for me ;)
- 19:26:45 [Kerstin]
- time is money on a trip like this ....
- 19:26:48 [sh1m]
- The rest of them aren't used to it though
- 19:27:38 [Zakim]
- +??P9
- 19:27:44 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P9 is f2f
- 19:27:44 [Zakim]
- +f2f; got it
- 19:29:20 [wendy]
- the developers will want to know what tech pwd will be accessing the site with. if you are told to produce a site, you'll want to know what people are using.
- 19:29:41 [wendy]
- however, not possible to state what people will be using, except in some cases like sweden where they give out the asst. technologies.
- 19:30:19 [wendy]
- you could end up with content that works well for people in sweden but not for people with other asst tech. it forces you to come up with a generic browser specification to design to.
- 19:30:23 [wendy]
- which leads you clearly to uaag
- 19:30:54 [wendy]
- the other advantage is with a specification like that you can use it to corral the thinking on the technjiqeus and work within something.
- 19:31:02 [wendy]
- (in terms of bottom up approach)
- 19:31:47 [wendy]
- by framing your thinking, can provide better feedback to the guidelines.
- 19:32:31 [wendy]
- take the whole thing and work with it in the perfect world, by the time people are adopting wcag 2.0, that world is more likely to exist.
- 19:34:16 [wendy]
- by raising the bar, it encourages people to achieve that standard within the next period of time.
- 19:34:25 [Kerstin]
- john: difficult but possible is good
- 19:34:41 [Kerstin]
- q+ jez
- 19:35:21 [Kerstin]
- uaag has some history behind it -- it's not new at this point = TOM
- 19:35:42 [Kerstin]
- q+ kerstin
- 19:35:43 [wendy]
- gv we're not arguing with the user agent manufactures, we'll be arguing with authors
- 19:35:58 [wendy]
- gv if we create a gap, the users will fall into it.
- 19:36:11 [wendy]
- q+ to say "wcag 1.0 can help bridge the gap"
- 19:36:34 [wendy]
- q+ yvette
- 19:36:35 [Kerstin]
- q+ kerstin to say, we are never saying 'there is nothing that meets this' -- in reality we are already saying 'there are ua's that meet only 90% and we are working on getting them to meet that last 10%"
- 19:36:43 [wendy]
- ack jez
- 19:37:10 [wendy]
- gl not convinced about the need for baseline. why can't we aim for standards and go forward from there?
- 19:38:20 [wendy]
- tom? i'm going to play with the ac/heat again - can yo minute?
- 19:39:21 [Kerstin]
- jez is trying hard to understand why, since specs are written with interoperability in mind, we need to go beyond.
- 19:39:33 [ben]
- ack Kerstin
- 19:39:33 [Zakim]
- kerstin, you wanted to say, we are never saying 'there is nothing that meets this' -- in reality we are already saying 'there are ua's that meet only 90% and we are working on
- 19:39:36 [Zakim]
- ... getting them to meet that last 10%"
- 19:40:06 [sh1m]
- kg: we aren't saying to people wo have set these guidelines with this baseline, where UAAG is this guidelines but nothing exists. We are talking about a delta where a lot meet most of it.
- 19:40:31 [sh1m]
- kg: Take that energy and push people towards people finishing off the last little bit
- 19:40:39 [sh1m]
- asw: it's not black and white
- 19:41:32 [sh1m]
- gvh: if we focus a lot of that attension on the UA makers
- 19:42:17 [sh1m]
- yh: We don't allow people to say an A- minus for WCAG
- 19:42:25 [jslatin]
- mood is definitely different post-dinner...
- 19:42:36 [wendy]
- ha - it is
- 19:42:38 [Michael]
- Michael has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:42:54 [sh1m]
- kg: we are drawing lines of responsibility
- 19:42:59 [Michael]
- q+ alistair
- 19:43:04 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 19:43:04 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say "wcag 1.0 can help bridge the gap"
- 19:43:31 [sh1m]
- wc: talked about in our group, WCAG not being out til 1q next year, another cycle of development
- 19:43:51 [sh1m]
- wc: been talking about scripting uaag does a good job of talking about scripting
- 19:44:11 [Andi]
- q+
- 19:44:14 [sh1m]
- q+ Tom to say can we 'warn' the UA developers about this idea to give them warm up time
- 19:44:44 [sh1m]
- wc: dont forget 1.0 still exists and can help with the gap before wcag 2.0 comes in
- 19:45:14 [sh1m]
- gvh: aren't there some things in scripting we still dont even know how to make accessible
- 19:45:31 [sh1m]
- wc: there is a dhtml roadmap to get this fixed
- 19:46:02 [sh1m]
- asw: there aren't enough sematnics at the moment but Rich is working with PF and the HTML group to try and resolve this
- 19:46:12 [Kerstin]
- ack Y
- 19:46:16 [sh1m]
- ack yvette
- 19:46:27 [ben]
- q+ gregg
- 19:46:28 [wendy]
- 6.2 and 6.3 cover scripting appropriately wrt the roadmap: http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/guidelines.html#tech-dom-access-api
- 19:46:33 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/guidelines.html#tech-content-access-api
- 19:46:51 [sh1m]
- yh: gvh worried about a gap, but people will also be worried if we dont move forward
- 19:46:52 [gregg]
- gregg has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:47:00 [gregg]
- q?
- 19:47:05 [sh1m]
- yh: we cant lower our standards which will leave people in the cold as well
- 19:47:33 [wendy]
- yh rather have a gap in the next 2 years rather than lower our standards that might last past that
- 19:47:37 [wendy]
- tc future proofing
- 19:47:43 [sh1m]
- ack alistair
- 19:47:52 [wendy]
- gv a temporary bridge discourages a permanent bridge
- 19:47:55 [ben]
- q+
- 19:48:22 [sh1m]
- ag: concerned with using a standard and then taking a 'tiny bit' off to correct, because you end up with until user agents, again!
- 19:48:48 [sh1m]
- gvh: what if in three years those things still aren't done?
- 19:49:04 [Kerstin]
- if it's not there in 3 years, noone will be able to sell accessible solutions, and courtcases will abound.
- 19:49:16 [sh1m]
- gvh: first thing that will happen in review
- 19:49:19 [Kerstin]
- which will force solutions.
- 19:49:35 [wendy]
- q+ to say, "if wcag pushes wcag 2.0, and atag pushes atag 2.0, and uaag pushes uaag 1.0 and html wg pushes xhtml 2.0...they hold their breath with wcag 1.0, html 4.01/xhtml1.1...."
- 19:50:14 [sh1m]
- mcm: based on the latest test suites we don't have the level of coverage as the previous test suites
- 19:50:52 [sh1m]
- mcm: everything that is in uaag as of an early draft has two interoperable checkpoints
- 19:51:09 [wendy]
- s/checkpoints/implementations
- 19:51:35 [Kerstin]
- how big of an impact is the delta on ua's that don't meet 100%
- 19:51:36 [sh1m]
- gvh: we need to go back on a more thorough analysis and look at priorities of things not supports, and how substantial those issues are
- 19:51:56 [Kerstin]
- how big of any impact on the usability for disabled users ....
- 19:52:04 [sh1m]
- gvh: we do know the UAAG is pretty close to what we could assume, but we need to do more analysis on that
- 19:52:19 [sh1m]
- gvh: would be great to have UAAG as the target and have industry meet it.
- 19:52:25 [sh1m]
- ack adni
- 19:52:28 [sh1m]
- ack andi
- 19:53:02 [Kerstin]
- q+ kerstin to ask Matt, what is industry currently saying in roadmap discussions about either meeting uaag, or why they are not meeting/don't want to meet uaag.
- 19:53:07 [sh1m]
- asw: I was thinking earlier, re: scripts. We can have it as a lvl 1 requirement, that these are the things you can do at this time, and then have something harder that you must have an alternate
- 19:53:12 [sh1m]
- ack tom
- 19:53:12 [Zakim]
- Tom, you wanted to say can we 'warn' the UA developers about this idea to give them warm up time
- 19:54:02 [wendy]
- asap (our next public draft?) send specific request to the UAWG and AC reps of organizations who build browsers
- 19:54:10 [wendy]
- request for review
- 19:54:22 [Kerstin]
- good point, Wendy
- 19:54:59 [sh1m]
- q+ matt
- 19:55:14 [wendy]
- tc what if no one implements uaag in 1 year, we'll be in the same situation where people have stop gaps.
- 19:55:24 [Kerstin]
- tom: what happens if noone implements in 3 years? well, we will be in the same situation, where developers are getting around the problems -- we just don't want to have
- 19:55:40 [Kerstin]
- to constantly adapt to the whims of industry
- 19:56:03 [sh1m]
- ack gregg
- 19:57:11 [sh1m]
- gvh: the guidelines might be able to do UAAG but add the other strategise to help users
- 19:57:23 [sh1m]
- tc: this is the problem gez said
- 19:57:48 [sh1m]
- gvh: which takes us back to the problem with noone taking it seriously
- 19:58:13 [sh1m]
- kg: the baseline should be UAAG
- 19:58:23 [Makoto]
- Makoto has joined #wai-wcag
- 19:58:28 [Michael]
- ack wendy
- 19:58:28 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say, "if wcag pushes wcag 2.0, and atag pushes atag 2.0, and uaag pushes uaag 1.0 and html wg pushes xhtml 2.0...they hold their breath with wcag 1.0, html
- 19:58:31 [Zakim]
- ... 4.01/xhtml1.1...."
- 19:58:54 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started
- 19:59:01 [Zakim]
- +Loretta_Guarino_Reid
- 19:59:19 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 20:01:37 [Zakim]
- + +20622aaaa
- 20:01:42 [Zakim]
- - +20622aaaa
- 20:01:46 [Kerstin]
- suing is not an EU thing .... so we change the term to "enforcement", due to loss of business
- 20:02:12 [Zakim]
- +Wendy
- 20:02:28 [Zakim]
- +[Microsoft]
- 20:02:31 [Michael]
- ack ben
- 20:02:58 [sh1m]
- bc: UAAG is a good baseline, how much does that mean that authors need to know about AT and UA?
- 20:03:13 [sh1m]
- bc: how much knowledge on the part of the developers
- 20:03:24 [Zakim]
- -[Microsoft]
- 20:03:29 [Zakim]
- -Wendy
- 20:03:35 [Zakim]
- -Loretta_Guarino_Reid
- 20:03:36 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
- 20:03:37 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Wendy, [Microsoft]
- 20:03:51 [sh1m]
- q?
- 20:04:10 [Michael]
- q+ alistair
- 20:04:33 [sh1m]
- ack matt
- 20:05:10 [sh1m]
- kg: what is it that current UA makers are saying about meeting UAAG?
- 20:05:38 [sh1m]
- mcm: moz are working with UAWG on a week by week basis, and I am meeting MS in a couple of weeks
- 20:05:48 [sh1m]
- mcm: we have people comming to us to talk about UAAG
- 20:06:05 [sh1m]
- mcm: we don't have something that doesn't meet 100% of HTML 4.01 7 years later
- 20:06:36 [sh1m]
- mcm: if they don't meet some small point is that the end of the world for accessiblity? no
- 20:06:57 [sh1m]
- mcm: if we use UAAG as a baseline we have to be worried about holes.
- 20:07:12 [sh1m]
- mcm: there aren't any really gaping holes in any of the major browsers at the momemt
- 20:07:21 [sh1m]
- mcm: yes I approve
- 20:07:57 [sh1m]
- gvh: AT is also part of the UA picture
- 20:08:27 [sh1m]
- tc: you have talked about UAs but less AT
- 20:09:09 [sh1m]
- mcm: a bunch of the AT vendors have us on speed dial
- 20:09:45 [sh1m]
- mcm: aside from the screen reader side, apple are also working on browsers. they are comming a long way in safari and thats part of UAAG too
- 20:10:05 [sh1m]
- js: what about on screen keyboards?
- 20:10:32 [sh1m]
- gvh: as far as the software is concerned the onscreen keyboard is a keyboard
- 20:10:34 [sh1m]
- ack John
- 20:10:43 [sh1m]
- js: quick response to ben's commment
- 20:11:12 [sh1m]
- js: good point, having talked to hundred's of devs over the last couple of years, refering them to UAAG they would know a lot more about what aT could do than almost anyone now
- 20:13:17 [sh1m]
- ag: as a response to ben. you expect the author of a web page to read the WCAG techniques
- 20:13:25 [sh1m]
- ag: they realyl shouldn't need to read any more
- 20:13:41 [sh1m]
- bc: this is why I am asking, I want to make sure we aren't going to force developers to read UAAG
- 20:14:08 [jslatin]
- ask eo to publish an "AT Watch" like the old browserwatch site?
- 20:14:16 [sh1m]
- bc: good place philosphoically, but I worry that we are creating a gap
- 20:15:45 [jslatin]
- does anyone know what becomes of IE in Longhorn?
- 20:16:43 [wendy]
- q+ yvette
- 20:16:44 [Michael]
- ack alistair
- 20:16:50 [sh1m]
- gvh: worried about building a dridge, and stopping in the middle not keeping going until we meet
- 20:17:00 [sh1m]
- mcm: 14:1 on the rap vs 10:1 you are still going to loose people on that curve but you still got the line there, you are going to have these little quirks
- 20:17:10 [Michael]
- q- alistair
- 20:17:17 [sh1m]
- gvh: for a while the ramp my be a little steeper, we need to do some analysis
- 20:17:48 [sh1m]
- ack alistair
- 20:19:20 [sh1m]
- ack yvette
- 20:20:47 [Michael]
- gvh quoth alistair: authors shouldn't have to worry about UAAG - though _we_ will most certainly have to, to make sure everything fits together properly
- 20:22:07 [sh1m]
- yh: people without disabililties are coping with nonstandard complient browsers everyday
- 20:22:15 [sh1m]
- yh: I don't think it's a problem
- 20:22:29 [jslatin]
- a new motto: Making the World WOrse for Everyone!
- 20:23:09 [wendy]
- actions?
- 20:23:09 [RRSAgent]
- sees no action items
- 20:24:07 [wendy]
- action: ben and matt - do a gap analysis of uaag implementations as relates to wcag techniques
- 20:25:09 [wendy]
- action: matt, tom, andi, kerstin, michael, alistair, gez, wendy, makoto, takayuki, yvette, gregg, ben - drink at least one beer this evening
- 20:26:32 [wendy]
- action 2 = matt, tom, andi, kerstin, michael, alistair, gez, wendy, makoto, takayuki, john, gregg, ben - drink at least one beer this evening, yvette have one sip
- 20:26:41 [nabe]
- nabe has left #wai-wcag
- 20:27:33 [ben]
- ben has left #wai-wcag
- 20:27:39 [Zakim]
- -John_Slatin
- 20:27:52 [Zakim]
- -f2f
- 20:27:53 [Zakim]
- Team_(wai-wcag)19:16Z has ended
- 20:27:54 [Zakim]
- Attendees were John_Slatin, f2f, +20622aaaa
- 23:28:58 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #wai-wcag