IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-11-04
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 21:01:02 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
- 21:01:07 [Zakim]
- +Michael_Cooper
- 21:01:11 [bcaldwell]
- rrsagent, make log world
- 21:01:15 [Zakim]
- +John_Slatin
- 21:01:24 [bcaldwell]
- agenda?
- 21:01:34 [Zakim]
- +??P11
- 21:01:49 [Zakim]
- +Matt
- 21:01:59 [bcaldwell]
- zakim, ??P11 is Roberto_Castaldo
- 21:01:59 [Zakim]
- +Roberto_Castaldo; got it
- 21:02:51 [gregg]
- gregg has joined #wai-wcag
- 21:02:51 [Zakim]
- +??P12
- 21:03:00 [Zakim]
- +Loretta_Guarino_Reid
- 21:03:20 [Zakim]
- +[Microsoft]
- 21:03:50 [bcaldwell]
- zakim, ??P12 is Doyle
- 21:03:50 [Zakim]
- +Doyle; got it
- 21:03:55 [Zakim]
- +[IBM]
- 21:04:01 [bcaldwell]
- zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta
- 21:04:01 [Zakim]
- +Mike_Barta; got it
- 21:04:17 [bcaldwell]
- zakim, [IBM] is Andi
- 21:04:17 [Zakim]
- +Andi; got it
- 21:04:33 [tecks]
- tecks has joined #wai-wcag
- 21:04:37 [Andi]
- Andi has joined #wai-wcag
- 21:05:44 [ben]
- agenda + Techniques Task Force Summary (Michael - 10 min.)
- 21:06:10 [ben]
- agenda + Guideline 2.2 proposal and issue summary [1] (20 min.)
- 21:06:10 [ben]
- [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004OctDec/0219.html>
- 21:06:26 [David_MacDonald]
- David_MacDonald has joined #wai-wcag
- 21:06:39 [ben]
- agenda + Guideline 4.1 proposal and issue summary [2] (20 min.)
- 21:06:39 [ben]
- [2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004OctDec/0222.html>
- 21:07:01 [ben]
- agenda + Conformance issue summary and proposal [3] (20 min.)
- 21:07:01 [ben]
- [3] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004OctDec/0235.html>
- 21:07:48 [ben]
- agenda + Guideline 2.4 revisions from John [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004OctDec/0259.html] (20 min.)
- 21:08:00 [ben]
- next agendum
- 21:08:47 [ben]
- sorting techniques into WCAG 1.0 priorities
- 21:09:02 [ben]
- working on clarifications on techniques related to use of semantic elements
- 21:09:27 [ben]
- clear link text issue - working to define line between general and HTML techniques
- 21:10:03 [ben]
- conditional content concepts - some belongs in general, other in tech specifics
- 21:10:32 [ben]
- "don't do this" techniques - some techniques are confusing regarding labeling deprecated techniques - working to clarify
- 21:10:55 [ben]
- will be providing fallback techniques, need to find ways to handle "don't do this"
- 21:11:05 [ben]
- chris ridpath and ken kipnes working on test suites
- 21:11:25 [ben]
- f2f meeting made it clear that we need to focus on building up techniques at this point
- 21:11:45 [ben]
- has been a lot of top-down work and we need some bottom up to solidify guidelines
- 21:12:18 [ben]
- next agendum
- 21:13:13 [ben]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004OctDec/0219.html
- 21:13:46 [ben]
- most of the issues around parameters in the guidelines
- 21:14:12 [ben]
- values specified in current draft seem to be subjective
- 21:15:13 [ben]
- biggest issue from bugzilla is to decide whether we should maintain numerical parameters or if we should try simple and not subjective approach (ex. 3 seconds of blinking vs. not blinking at all)
- 21:15:35 [gregg]
- q+
- 21:16:31 [ben]
- numerical values can be good for some users, but not any user (ex. chatrooms can be considered live events in that users have difficulty going back through logs, but if only talking with one person, it is no longer a live event)
- 21:17:06 [ben]
- if we could agree to not set numerical values, most issues would be addressed
- 21:17:16 [ben]
- ack John
- 21:17:46 [ben]
- two things: 1) I don't think we can say "no moving content" because that would mean no site w/ video or animation could conform
- 21:18:29 [ben]
- 2) not sure chat room example works because there isn't necessarily a time limit in the chatroom - it's a funciton of how quickly participants type and whether the user agent allows users to scroll back
- 21:18:35 [ben]
- ack gregg
- 21:19:12 [ben]
- only 2 items that talk about timing is time for users to respond (10 seconds) and letting things blink for 3 seconds
- 21:19:36 [ben]
- chat room example doesn't apply to criteria with 10 second req.
- 21:20:02 [ben]
- applies to a single action
- 21:20:23 [ben]
- numbers are based on years of work with inidiv. who have physical disabilities
- 21:21:03 [ben]
- flip side is that if you set times too long, then you have someone at a banking site and when users stop interacting, sites need to sign you off if the user is no longer there
- 21:21:18 [ben]
- if we don't put down 10 seconds, people often choose times that are inadequate
- 21:21:27 [ben]
- other example (3 seconds of blink)
- 21:21:54 [ben]
- trying to outlaw any blinking to attract attention is a problem because it can be helpful for people with cognitive disabilities if you want to attract attention to it
- 21:22:14 [ben]
- 3 seconds was a compromise between attracting attention and being distracting for someone with attention deficit
- 21:22:40 [ben]
- ack Mike
- 21:22:47 [ben]
- gv covered most of my issues
- 21:23:02 [ben]
- should we make a distinction between timeouts and dynamic content
- 21:23:21 [ben]
- gv: instead of saying time limits, say time out?
- 21:23:47 [ben]
- stock tickers, news windows, etc. aren't timeouts and should be dealt with differnetly than a page timeout that kicks you off a site
- 21:24:02 [ben]
- gv: "time limit" overly vague?
- 21:24:53 [ben]
- gv: substitute "time out" for "time limit"?
- 21:25:29 [ben]
- mb: make a distinction between dynamic content that and time out
- 21:25:42 [ben]
- ack john
- 21:26:11 [ben]
- are you proposing that we create a separate guideline for dynamic content? also, is there a way that things like chatrooms might be covered under 1.1 or 1.2?
- 21:26:32 [ben]
- gv: already have a criteria that allows users to pause or stop content
- 21:27:38 [ben]
- mb: not entirely clear what the difference between dynamic content and moving content is
- 21:27:49 [ben]
- gv: concern may be with words "time limits"
- 21:28:21 [ben]
- gv: I think criterion were written to mean "time outs"
- 21:29:01 [ben]
- gv: 2 suggestions
- 21:29:13 [ben]
- 1) change "time limit" to "time out"
- 21:29:29 [ben]
- 2) add "dynamic" "pause and permanently stop moving, dynamic, or time based content"
- 21:29:48 [ben]
- ... dynamic (moving or time-based)
- 21:30:38 [ben]
- asw: would adding dynamic make this apply to DHTML?
- 21:30:57 [ben]
- gv: if there is change happening on screen, then you would want users to pause or permanently stop it
- 21:33:40 [ben]
- resolved: replace "time limit" with "time out" and change level 2, item to to read, "The user is allowed to pause and/or permanently stop dynamic (moving or time-based) content."
- 21:34:24 [ben]
- issue 627
- 21:34:41 [ben]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=627
- 21:35:20 [ben]
- should specify that we mean that time starts at the end of a message (in cases where a message takes more than 10 seconds to read)
- 21:35:35 [ben]
- ack john
- 21:36:32 [ben]
- time it takes to read dialog buttons is an issue
- 21:36:48 [ben]
- change 10 second time limit to 20 seconds?
- 21:37:41 [ben]
- action john: do some testing on time it takes to ineteract with dialog boxes
- 21:38:16 [ben]
- resolved: accept suggestion in issue 627 and change 10 second time limit to 20 seconds
- 21:38:40 [ben]
- issue 789 - http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=789
- 21:38:54 [ben]
- gv: no longer an issue - overcome by edits
- 21:39:10 [ben]
- issue 800 - http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=800
- 21:39:38 [ben]
- gv: I think server timeouts are not covered by this, only author-imposed time limits
- 21:40:06 [ben]
- gv: suggest adding a note about server-based time outs outside of the authors control?
- 21:41:09 [ben]
- content is designed... or at least one of the following is true for each time out that is a function of the content
- 21:41:27 [ben]
- resolved: add "that is a function of the content" to the end of SC 1
- 21:42:11 [ben]
- issue 801 - http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=801
- 21:42:33 [ben]
- gv: guideline itself has the phrase "real-time events" - suggestion is to take it out of the guideline and just have it in the SC
- 21:43:52 [ben]
- sugg: change guideline 2.2 to read, " Guideline 2.2 Allow users to control time limits on their reading or interaction."
- 21:44:21 [ben]
- resolved: adjust guideline wording as suggested
- 21:44:50 [ben]
- gv: skip 802 and 803 since they are informative
- 21:45:24 [ben]
- issue 843 - http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=843
- 21:46:07 [ben]
- gv: turning off blinking completely a user agent issue?
- 21:48:03 [ben]
- is there data about why 3 seconds is not an issue?
- 21:48:46 [ben]
- gv: for some (ex. attn. deficit disorder) users can't stop looking at it
- 21:49:07 [ben]
- asw: loophole - what if an author makes it blinks for 3 seconds, stops it and then lets it blink for 3 more seconds
- 21:49:23 [ben]
- gv: .. blinks for more than 3 seconds before stopping and not restarting?
- 21:51:49 [ben]
- gv: if it starts up again, then it's more than 3 seconds
- 21:53:20 [ben]
- blinking content stops permanently after 3 second or the user is allowed to permanently stop content that blinks for more than 3 seconds?
- 21:54:02 [ben]
- leave criterion as is and explain in techniques that content that starts blinking again is blinking for more than 3 seconds
- 21:54:18 [ben]
- resolved: change "turn off" to "stop"
- 21:54:45 [ben]
- level 2 criterion 1 would then read, "The user is allowed to stop content that blinks for more than 3 seconds."
- 21:55:10 [ben]
- issue 856 - http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=856
- 21:57:10 [ben]
- resolved: change level 2 criterion 1 to, "a method is provide to turn off content that blinks for more than 3 seconds"
- 21:57:21 [Zakim]
- -Roberto_Castaldo
- 21:57:27 [rcastaldo]
- ooopsss...
- 21:57:42 [rcastaldo]
- dialpad's gone... trying to reconnect
- 21:57:47 [ben]
- resolved: change level 2 criterion 2 to, "A method is provided to pause and/or permanently stop moving or time-based content."
- 21:58:14 [ben]
- issue 857 - http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=857
- 21:58:43 [ben]
- is this a user agent issue?
- 21:59:57 [rcastaldo]
- i cannot manage and connect with dialpad... trying again
- 21:59:59 [ben]
- gv: both the author and user agent are involved - this is why we are looking at user agent baselines
- 22:00:27 [ben]
- authors responsibility is to make it possible for a user agent to do these things
- 22:00:46 [ben]
- (issue resolved)
- 22:01:04 [ben]
- issue 879 - http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=879
- 22:01:37 [ben]
- gv: in this application, a default does exist - it would be what auser experiences when they first visit the page if there are no preferences applied
- 22:01:51 [ben]
- gv: suggest we close this bug
- 22:02:09 [ben]
- issue 880 - http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=880
- 22:03:13 [ben]
- gv: level 2, item 2 does seem to imply that a live broadcast should be able to be frozen
- 22:03:14 [Zakim]
- +Avi
- 22:03:48 [rcastaldo]
- my dialpad is not working at this moment... i'll keep following the meeting on irc
- 22:04:02 [gregg]
- q+
- 22:04:06 [gregg]
- ack g
- 22:04:10 [gregg]
- q?
- 22:04:38 [ben]
- asw: to freeze a live broadcast would be a player issue (ex. tivo)
- 22:05:10 [ben]
- criteria says you can either pause or stop or both
- 22:07:14 [ben]
- mm: this is a player function
- 22:07:28 [ben]
- but issue is specific to live content
- 22:07:36 [ben]
- UAAG doesn't make a distinction about whether content is live
- 22:08:01 [ben]
- ... and doesn't require time-shifting
- 22:08:17 [ben]
- pause and restart is different from pause and resume
- 22:08:51 [ben]
- gv: second half of this issue should be closed because we don't say "until user agents"
- 22:09:25 [ben]
- question that is left is do we really want to require freezing live content
- 22:11:14 [ben]
- resolved: This issue shoud already be covered by UAAG. Pending baseline decisions, move success criterion 2 to repair strategies.
- 22:11:54 [ben]
- issue 929 - http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=929
- 22:12:15 [ben]
- gv: this is a real-time event (already excepted)
- 22:14:04 [ben]
- issue 1092 - http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1092
- 22:14:26 [ben]
- suggestion to simply allow users to ask for more time and remove other bullets
- 22:14:43 [ben]
- gv: not practical - different choices apply to different types of time limits
- 22:15:00 [ben]
- issue 1093 - http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1093
- 22:15:29 [ben]
- gv: overcome by events
- 22:16:29 [ben]
- lgr: level 3 item 1 - what are the "exceptions" being referred to?
- 22:17:10 [ben]
- gv: refers to last item (where timing is essential) in level 1 criterion 1
- 22:18:52 [ben]
- sugg: delete the editorial note and say, "The content has been designed in a way that any time limits in the content would pass level 1, success criteria 1 for this guideline and timing is not designed to be an essential part of the activity."
- 22:21:17 [ben]
- gv: time remaining - concerns or comments with the issues related to 4.1 and conformance?
- 22:21:27 [ben]
- next agendum
- 22:22:37 [ben]
- issue 888 - http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=888
- 22:26:15 [doyle]
- Ben - Just a quick note about the page we're discussing - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004OctDec/0222.html has many of the longer lines of text run way off the right hand side of the page. I am using Internet Explore
- 22:26:15 [doyle]
- possibly it's a browser issue. Just to let you know.
- 22:27:53 [gregg]
- q?
- 22:31:01 [David_MacDonald]
- Its also runs off page in Mozilla
- 22:31:37 [ben]
- thanks doyle - looks like a bug in how the lists are handling plain text emails
- 22:34:36 [ben]
- lgr: contradication in strengthening the use-spec guideline and advocating repair strategies (that would then violate the reqs. to follow spec)
- 22:35:33 [ben]
- next agendum
- 22:36:14 [ben]
- gv: there are a number of issues that can't be closed because they are advice or things to remember as we go
- 22:37:09 [ben]
- sugg: combining issues into a single bug that summarizes these issues and would be reviewed at a later date
- 22:37:45 [ben]
- gv: suggest creating a "working group notes" document that explains why things are the way they are in the guidelines
- 22:39:42 [ben]
- lgr: concerned about proliferation of documents - who would do it?
- 22:39:53 [ben]
- gv: responsibility of editors to populate
- 22:40:41 [ben]
- above comments relate to issue 326
- 22:40:55 [ben]
- issue 368 - http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=368
- 22:41:11 [ben]
- resolved: move to combined issue of things to consider as we go
- 22:41:27 [ben]
- issue 396 - http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=396
- 22:41:31 [ben]
- gv: leave open
- 22:41:51 [ben]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=397
- 22:44:12 [ben]
- resolved: accept proposed resolution
- 22:44:21 [ben]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=452
- 22:44:52 [ben]
- resolved: collapse this issue into #396 and close
- 22:45:02 [ben]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=476
- 22:45:08 [rcastaldo]
- I've got to leave the call... bye everybody, hear you next week
- 22:45:25 [rcastaldo]
- rcastaldo has left #wai-wcag
- 22:46:15 [Zakim]
- -Michael_Cooper
- 22:47:55 [ben]
- resolved: accept proposed resolutions
- 22:48:39 [ben]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=548
- 22:50:05 [ben]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=837
- 22:50:07 [ben]
- gv: keep open
- 22:52:54 [Zakim]
- -Mike_Barta
- 22:52:55 [Zakim]
- -Loretta_Guarino_Reid
- 22:52:55 [Zakim]
- -John_Slatin
- 22:52:56 [Zakim]
- -Matt
- 22:52:56 [Zakim]
- -Gregg_and_Ben
- 22:52:57 [Zakim]
- -Andi
- 22:52:57 [Zakim]
- -Doyle
- 22:53:06 [Zakim]
- -Bengt_Farre
- 22:53:07 [ben]
- rrsagent, bye
- 22:53:07 [RRSAgent]
- I see 1 open action item:
- 22:53:07 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: john to do some testing on time it takes to ineteract with dialog boxes [1]
- 22:53:07 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/11/04-wai-wcag-irc#T21-37-41