IRC log of wai-wcag on 2005-05-11
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 13:57:39 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
- 13:57:39 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/05/11-wai-wcag-irc
- 13:57:46 [ben]
- RRSAgent, make log world
- 13:58:08 [ben]
- agenda+ Review requirements
- 13:58:17 [ben]
- agenda+ Begin planning FtF, possibly breaking up to work on issues
- 13:58:25 [Christophe_Strobb]
- Christophe_Strobb has joined #wai-wcag
- 13:58:41 [ben]
- agenda+ Continue review of 1.1, 2.4, 4.2
- 13:58:51 [ben]
- agenda+ Script techniques proposals
- 13:59:23 [ben]
- Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0457.html
- 13:59:30 [ben]
- Chair: Michael_Cooper
- 13:59:32 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has now started
- 13:59:39 [Zakim]
- +Dave_MacDonald
- 13:59:48 [Christophe_Strobb]
- Christophe_Strobb has joined #wai-wcag
- 14:00:06 [Becky_Gibson]
- Becky_Gibson has joined #wai-wcag
- 14:00:23 [Zakim]
- +Becky_Gibson
- 14:00:37 [Zakim]
- +??P2
- 14:00:41 [ben]
- zakim, ??P2 is Ben
- 14:00:41 [Zakim]
- +Ben; got it
- 14:00:45 [Christophe_Strobb]
- zakim, Christophe_Strobb is Christophe_Strobbe
- 14:00:45 [Zakim]
- sorry, Christophe_Strobb, I do not recognize a party named 'Christophe_Strobb'
- 14:01:50 [David]
- David has joined #wai-wcag
- 14:01:53 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 14:01:58 [Zakim]
- +Tim_Boland
- 14:02:05 [David]
- +test
- 14:02:23 [Zakim]
- +Christophe_Strobbe
- 14:02:27 [Zakim]
- +Michael_Cooper
- 14:02:29 [ben]
- zakim, [IPcaller] is Chris_Ridpath
- 14:02:29 [Zakim]
- +Chris_Ridpath; got it
- 14:04:12 [ben]
- zakim, who's here?
- 14:04:12 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Dave_MacDonald, Becky_Gibson, Ben, Chris_Ridpath, Tim_Boland, Christophe_Strobbe, Michael_Cooper
- 14:04:14 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see David, Becky_Gibson, Christophe_Strobb, RRSAgent, ChrisR, Michael, Zakim, ben
- 14:04:31 [ben]
- Present: Dave_MacDonald, Becky_Gibson, Ben, Chris_Ridpath, Tim_Boland, Christophe_Strobbe, Michael_Cooper
- 14:04:58 [ben]
- zakim, I am Ben
- 14:04:58 [Zakim]
- ok, ben, I now associate you with Ben
- 14:06:13 [ben]
- scribe: Ben
- 14:06:17 [ben]
- agenda?
- 14:06:44 [ben]
- zakim, next agendum
- 14:06:44 [Zakim]
- agendum 1. "Review requirements" taken up [from ben]
- 14:06:47 [ben]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-wcag2-tech-req-20050503.html
- 14:07:03 [ben]
- mc: talked about this a couple weeks ago and made a few changes - not all the way there, but getting closer
- 14:07:22 [ben]
- mc: may need to make this a F2F topic
- 14:07:50 [ben]
- tb: intro talks about technology and techniques, but neither term is defined. should we provide a definition of what a technique is?
- 14:08:30 [ben]
- tb: technique maps to a SC. "maps" isn't a very strong word, may not be clear that a tech satisfies a SC
- 14:08:44 [ben]
- tb: so definition of technique in that context might be important
- 14:08:56 [ben]
- mc: also relates to added definitions for sufficient, optional and not recommended
- 14:09:36 [ben]
- bc: a tech doesn't always satisfy a SC, may be multiple techniques
- 14:09:55 [ben]
- michael reads definition of sufficient
- 14:10:21 [ben]
- tb: may also need definition for technologies
- 14:10:56 [ben]
- tb: is there a template for a technique?
- 14:11:14 [ben]
- mc: yes, techniques DTD and the other is a web form people can use to submit proposed techniques
- 14:11:32 [ben]
- tb: is a "task" a testable statement?
- 14:12:27 [ben]
- mc: we defined testable statement for test cases, but not for techniques/tasks - maybe we should
- 14:13:08 [ben]
- mc: in this draft, added definitions of sufficient, optional, not recommended, positive/negative test cases
- 14:13:09 [Tim]
- Tim has joined #wai-wcag
- 14:13:13 [ben]
- mc: added a little bit about baseline
- 14:13:20 [ben]
- but still need to expand on that
- 14:14:21 [ben]
- bc: guide doc? does that fit in WCAG 2 requirements or here - seems to be some overlap
- 14:14:50 [ben]
- mc: do we know if guide doc and general techniques will be seperate?
- 14:15:03 [ben]
- bc: no decision, but drafts we did when combined were very long
- 14:15:11 [ben]
- dm: seem like two different issues
- 14:16:09 [ben]
- mc: so you're saying we need to create reqs for guide doc and figure out where to put them?
- 14:16:11 [ben]
- bc: yes
- 14:16:35 [ben]
- mc: think it makes sense to put them in requirements for those in WCAG 2 reqs
- 14:17:22 [ben]
- mc: one thing we have to be careful of is if we consider guide doc optional, we wouldn't have it in requirements, if essential, it would. my understanding is that the guide doc is currently considered to be essential
- 14:18:35 [ben]
- tb: ... in authoring tools, have been some questions about who reviews and approves techniques
- 14:18:58 [ben]
- mc: haven't said anything about who authorizes techniques or what our process for reviewing them is yet
- 14:20:00 [ben]
- dm: I think what we're saying is that we've tested the techs we've written and if you want to do something else, that's fine, but w3c published techs should be higher quality
- 14:20:14 [ben]
- mc: in principle, any technique to conform to WCAG is a WCAG technique
- 14:20:43 [ben]
- mc: I think though, that we suggest that other people developing techniques work to a similar set of reqs, but we have no authority to do anything beyond suggest that
- 14:21:50 [ben]
- mc: sounds like we've got some other issues on our plate, does that answer the question?
- 14:22:29 [ben]
- mc: issues I captured were added def for technique and technology, clarification on relationship of techs to SC, a question about testable statements for techniques, impact of baseline and reqs. for guide doc
- 14:22:39 [ben]
- were there other issues?
- 14:23:32 [ben]
- bc: checklists section needs rework based on simplification of checklists we're heading toward
- 14:24:33 [ben]
- tb: contradictions around technique for each success criterion and checklists that address each SC?
- 14:25:42 [ben]
- mc: do people agree we should add a definition for technique and technology?
- 14:26:16 [ben]
- action: tim to work on proposals for these definitions
- 14:27:36 [ben]
- dm: have we resolved the issue around mapping techs to SC vs. more general guidelines?
- 14:27:49 [ben]
- mc: have been operating under the assumption that they should map to SC
- 14:27:52 [ben]
- bg: agree
- 14:28:03 [ben]
- dm: sometimes difficult to map
- 14:28:52 [ben]
- mc: so far, when we've had issues mapping, there hasn't been a priliferation of SC in the guidelines. think mapping is a useful tool to encourage WG to solidify SC.
- 14:29:06 [ben]
- dm: does highlight how some of our techs are disengaged from the guidelines
- 14:29:33 [ben]
- mc: relates to whole end to end thing we did a year ago - are you wanting us to leave this as an open issue?
- 14:30:09 [ben]
- dm: not entirely sure we'll be able to map each technique to a SC successfully, but would like it to
- 14:30:37 [ben]
- action: michael - include an ednote about whether techs can map to more general guidelines and principles
- 14:31:12 [ben]
- mc: about relationship to meeting SC, I did add some info about AND and OR under the "relation to WCAG 2.0" section
- 14:32:11 [ben]
- reads bullets 2 and 3 at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-wcag2-tech-req-20050503.html#relations-to-gl
- 14:32:17 [ben]
- bg: haven't been doing this yet
- 14:32:43 [ben]
- mc: does that address the issue Tim raised?
- 14:33:13 [ben]
- tb: my issue was that the technique convey info about how the employment of a tech would satisfy the SC -- that could be made clearer
- 14:33:23 [ben]
- mc: maybe something about "meet the reqs of a SC"
- 14:33:47 [ben]
- tb: for example, how does use of a technique accomplish programmatic relationships in content?
- 14:34:00 [ben]
- mc: propose that tim and I work on a proposal to address
- 14:34:40 [ben]
- action: tim and michael to work on a proposal to makke it clearer how a technique satisfies a SC
- 14:34:52 [ben]
- s/makke/make
- 14:35:03 [ben]
- mc: testable statements for techniques - thoughts?
- 14:35:29 [ben]
- mc: my own view is that techniques should be testable, but test files are more amenable to testable statements
- 14:36:17 [ben]
- mc: not sure how to make a testable statement for technques that isn't the union of our existing techniques and test cases
- 14:37:02 [ben]
- bc: at one point, we talked about techniques titles/tasks as true false statements, does that address this?
- 14:37:43 [ben]
- cr: didn't we decide to leave the testable statements to tests?
- 14:39:25 [ben]
- bg: if you add testable statements to techs, you have to do lots of "if you do this" and "if you have that" kind of stuff - difficult to word
- 14:40:58 [ben]
- mc: not sure, leaning toward leaving testable statements to tests, but you're right that there are issues
- 14:41:09 [ben]
- tb: have to have some way to identify that a technique has been completed
- 14:41:44 [ben]
- mc: now, we've got tests, which make techniques testable, which make the guidelines testable
- 14:42:12 [ben]
- mc: testable doesn't have to mean testable on code inspection - think outcome testing can be valid and in script techs, that may be more appropriate than in others
- 14:43:09 [ben]
- dm: reason a task was there in the first place was to make it testable - is that right?
- 14:43:23 [ben]
- tb: I think that's the correct sense
- 14:43:34 [ben]
- scribe: David
- 14:44:24 [David]
- dm: task has been an annoying thing because it is redundant. We could fix the title and dump the task
- 14:44:33 [David]
- test
- 14:45:12 [David]
- bc: said the above, let's strike the task and fix the title
- 14:45:53 [David]
- cr: so the title would be the technique???
- 14:46:00 [Michael]
- action: editors remove <short-name> from technique and make technique title what is now <task>, remove that element altogether
- 14:46:13 [David]
- cr:fix above so the title would be the task???
- 14:46:38 [David]
- bc: ie using orderedl list in HTML, the techniques ould describe that
- 14:46:56 [David]
- mc: good idea but we need to deal with the tesable statement issue
- 14:47:21 [David]
- mc: do we want to declare a testable statement?
- 14:48:06 [David]
- cr: I'm wondering could we combine the techniques test cases, and map,, like a big data base, put them all together in one document??
- 14:48:40 [David]
- mc: othing preventing us to do that, xml allows that possibility, and our id's allow that
- 14:49:01 [David]
- cr: output format, not input
- 14:49:23 [David]
- mc: should not be a requirement but we can easily do that, ugly but beautiful
- 14:49:57 [David]
- mc: baseline, propose we put it off to the face to face
- 14:50:56 [David]
- bc: baseline is a good tart and we can cross reference it
- 14:51:31 [David]
- mc: propose yes we need requiremtns and they belong a WCAG level so let's propose to working group
- 14:51:42 [David]
- bc: wording implies we would find it there
- 14:52:04 [David]
- mc: can ben post a short email to group on that
- 14:52:07 [David]
- bc: sure
- 14:52:19 [Michael]
- action: ben talk with editors about req for guide doc in WCAG req
- 14:52:47 [David]
- mc: checklist, neet to rework checklist, how to go about it????
- 14:53:10 [David]
- bc: maybe not too much work, because checklist are SC. we would just describe that
- 14:53:20 [David]
- bc: I can take a stab at that
- 14:53:24 [Michael]
- action: ben propose updated checklists section of requirements
- 14:54:32 [David]
- mc: Checklists must meet all SC, but Techniques only meet SC possible in tech ? need to harmonize
- 14:55:04 [Michael]
- action: michael clarify techniques for some sc but checklists must meet all sc
- 14:55:26 [ben]
- zakim, close this item
- 14:55:26 [Zakim]
- agendum 1 closed
- 14:55:27 [Zakim]
- I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
- 14:55:28 [Zakim]
- 2. Begin planning FtF, possibly breaking up to work on issues [from ben]
- 14:55:48 [ben]
- zakim, take up next agendum
- 14:55:48 [Zakim]
- agendum 2. "Begin planning FtF, possibly breaking up to work on issues" taken up [from ben]
- 14:56:14 [David]
- mc: f2f planning. meeting in brussels, week of june 13-16
- 14:57:18 [David]
- mc: who can make it? Becky, Ben in, David and Chris out
- 14:58:29 [David]
- Christophe_Strobb will be there, john, Yvette (perhaps) Wendy
- 14:58:37 [Christophe_Strobb]
- Christophe Strobbe
- 14:59:57 [David]
- mc: need to nail down requirements in f2f, baseline impact, tie it all together at f2f, issue summarries for any guidelines not covered
- 15:00:31 [David]
- mc: want good draft of html, css and script,
- 15:01:36 [David]
- dm: does css, html go together.
- 15:01:42 [David]
- mc: woll put it on agenda
- 15:01:47 [David]
- wool=will
- 15:01:57 [David]
- woll=will
- 15:03:32 [Zakim]
- -Tim_Boland
- 15:03:33 [Tim]
- Have to go - another meeting - have a good day
- 15:03:34 [David]
- tim: I ave to go,
- 15:03:36 [Tim]
- Tim has left #wai-wcag
- 15:03:55 [David]
- s/ave/have
- 15:04:01 [David]
- :-)
- 15:05:30 [David]
- mc: what are we going to do to make the f2f task focues
- 15:06:34 [David]
- dm: gt lots of homework beforehand
- 15:07:23 [David]
- mc: yup, need to get a lot of homework done
- 15:07:37 [David]
- mc: people at home should have hwk done too
- 15:08:08 [David]
- mc: people at home do clear homework
- 15:08:48 [David]
- mc: does breakup subgroups of 2 make sense?
- 15:08:57 [David]
- dm: yup
- 15:09:48 [David]
- mc: task groups should cross fertilize not do stuff that can be done by email or phone
- 15:10:58 [David]
- bg: andi will probably be there
- 15:11:06 [David]
- mc: might see Takayuki?
- 15:12:28 [ben]
- zakim, close this item
- 15:12:28 [Zakim]
- agendum 2 closed
- 15:12:33 [Zakim]
- I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
- 15:12:34 [Zakim]
- 3. Continue review of 1.1, 2.4, 4.2 [from ben]
- 15:14:38 [ben]
- zakim, take up next agendum
- 15:14:38 [Zakim]
- agendum 3. "Continue review of 1.1, 2.4, 4.2 " taken up [from ben]
- 15:14:53 [Zakim]
- -Dave_MacDonald
- 15:17:49 [Zakim]
- +Dave_MacDonald
- 15:21:50 [David]
- mc: let's dive into 1.3, the agenda say 1.1 that's a typo
- 15:22:13 [ben]
- scribe: Becky_Gibson
- 15:22:35 [ben]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0360.html
- 15:23:26 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: 4.2 issues summary - GL is state of flux; additional meetings ongoing with other WG members
- 15:23:34 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: not many open issues
- 15:24:02 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: looked at techniques mapping
- 15:24:21 [Becky_Gibson]
- bc: mapping doc just pulls info from the techs themselves
- 15:24:59 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: doesn't think 12.10 is mapped correctly
- 15:26:09 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: interpretted mapping incorrectly - David read as 12.1 but it really is 12.10 - so mapping IS correct
- 15:26:33 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: 12.5 frame sources - doesn't think that applies to 4.2 since doesn't think of frames as programmatic objects
- 15:26:52 [Becky_Gibson]
- bm: reason for map was probably due to using technologies access features
- 15:27:19 [Becky_Gibson]
- bc: (prev. comment by bc also) has to do with putting just an image in a frame
- 15:27:48 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: if link frame directly to image there is no way to provide alt text -
- 15:28:14 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: can see why progammatic object is confusing - really interested in objects without access. features
- 15:28:50 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: didn't make that distinction - was really thinking about programmatic object; think of 4.2 dealing with non HTML techs
- 15:29:14 [Becky_Gibson]
- bc: there is no UAAG compliant UA that deals with images only
- 15:29:52 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: wording of programmatic object implies one thing; frames seems like a broken part of HTML
- 15:30:19 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: images can be thought of as non HTML; but WCAG2.0 is trying to be non tech specific
- 15:31:09 [Becky_Gibson]
- bc: suggest map 14.5 to GL 1.1 rather than 4.2
- 15:31:51 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: back to 12.10 - this is really baseline related
- 15:32:59 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: will a web page be more accessible if we leave this tech. out? (not providing link to access. viewer)
- 15:33:29 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: with the link might be more likely to take advantage of access. I generally won't download something in order to view a document
- 15:34:20 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: so, do we need to dump tech 12.10 becuz of where we are going with our baseline - we are assuming the user has the techch
- 15:34:37 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: do other standards have this req. other than 508?
- 15:34:45 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: think it is picked up on inconsistently
- 15:35:20 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: for my website if people give me a pdf to post I will also add a link to download pdf viewer
- 15:35:41 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: seems like every Canadian govt. has that link to download pdf reader
- 15:36:04 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: propose removing tech. 12.10
- 15:36:18 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: thinks 12.2 maps to 4.2
- 15:36:30 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: as tech not supported tech it depends on baseline outcome
- 15:36:51 [ben]
- action: editors map HTML 14.5 to guideline 1.1
- 15:37:35 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: suggest remove the editiorial note from 12.2
- 15:38:04 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: baseline says that for set of techs in the baseline access features are already supported- thus don't need a fallback
- 15:38:18 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: for techs outside of the baseline need to provide fallbacks under GL 1.1
- 15:38:26 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: everything has to be avail in text
- 15:38:32 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: only if outside of baseline
- 15:38:53 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: but has to be text for everything?
- 15:39:23 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: think Wendy is addressing this issue - don't think we are forcing text only
- 15:39:49 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: ex: if flash is in baseline and you've made the flash access we don't req. text alternative
- 15:40:29 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: say java outside baseling and flash in baseline - have to have a fallback for the java object but the fallback could be flash since it IS in the baseline
- 15:40:47 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: still concerned about people creating an unreasonable baseline
- 15:41:08 [Becky_Gibson]
- bc: that is why we need to provide guidance on reasonable baseline and assume policy makers will enforce
- 15:41:46 [Becky_Gibson]
- bc: think 12.2 could go away entirely but might need new techniques to cover for specific baselines
- 15:42:09 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: can agree to remove the technique
- 15:42:29 [Becky_Gibson]
- bg: rec. is to remove 12.2??
- 15:42:51 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: 1.1 plus baseline seems to clarify 12.2 so perhaps it can go
- 15:43:07 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: have to think of interplay of what people will actually do and what we think they will do
- 15:43:50 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: propose remapping 12.2 to 1.1 to force us to address this during 1.1 disussion
- 15:44:09 [ben]
- action: editors map HTML 12.2 to guideline 1.1
- 15:44:20 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: 12.3 alt content for programmatic content - suggest deleting it since covered by tech 12.4
- 15:44:45 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: seems it has already been remapped to 1.1 in Feb. 11 draft
- 15:45:05 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: so probably need to update the mapping
- 15:45:30 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: have issues with these techs beyond where they belong
- 15:45:57 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: thought the whole section 12 should be mapped to 4.2
- 15:46:22 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: fail to see distinction between 12.3 and 12.4
- 15:46:49 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: I think bc analyzed how 12.4 was supposed to work and that text in object element is not a valid tech
- 15:47:00 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: so maybe 12.4 needs to be removed and 12.3 reworked
- 15:47:36 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: suggest dlink tech as repair tech for 12.4
- 15:48:04 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: but dlink usage has sort of flopped - people don't understand what it is
- 15:49:43 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: take dm comments about 12.4 and apply to 12.3 and remove 12.4
- 15:50:14 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: someone posted to list about object content being a fallback when object tech. not support - not as an alternative
- 15:50:37 [Becky_Gibson]
- bc: somewhat ambiguous in HTML spec - issues with alternatives
- 15:51:01 [Becky_Gibson]
- bc: AT's should be smart enough to query for alternative info regardless of techs installed
- 15:52:03 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: problem is that IE doesn't preserve that text for an object in the DOM - most ATs are built to support IE
- 15:52:11 [Becky_Gibson]
- bc: aren't AT's looking at the source code?
- 15:52:32 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: no, IE based ATs are looking at the DOM and text for object isn't in the DOM
- 15:54:00 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: may have media player present even if you can't perceive it - need to be able to deal with the object as if player is not available
- 15:54:53 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: very frustrating to have to still rely on dlinks or other older techs
- 15:55:12 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: maybe we should say "until user agents..." <giggle>
- 15:55:25 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: perhaps address through baseline
- 15:55:50 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: best tech is text desciption outside of <object> tag but in same HTML doc
- 15:56:20 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: I don't care if it is in another doc - just don't like the title "dlink" - people don't know that that means
- 15:56:56 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: if I see a dlink I know site is "accessibility nerd" site
- 15:57:14 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: no one really knows what dlink is (except WCAG WG people)
- 15:57:45 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: dm to turn this dicussion into proposal
- 15:58:14 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: suggest deprecate 12.5 and 12.6
- 15:58:22 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: that is baseline dependent
- 15:58:28 [ben]
- action: david to turn discussions on 4.2 techs issues into proposals
- 15:58:56 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: 12.7-12.9 are all embed techniques so will leave them in
- 15:59:10 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: will be not recommended in "future" baseline
- 15:59:29 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: don't see any css techs for 4.2
- 16:00:26 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: css techs 5.5, 1.1, 1.2 and 5.2 are currently mapped to 4.2 but don't think they should be
- 16:01:00 [Becky_Gibson]
- bg, bc, mc: don't see these as a good mapping either
- 16:01:19 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: perhaps wc used 4.2 as default mapping
- 16:01:49 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: where would we map these CSS techs?
- 16:01:52 [ben]
- action: editors remove mappings from CSS techniques that map to guideline 4.2
- 16:02:31 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: do we want to continue to suggest relative font sizes?
- 16:02:43 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: yes although it shouldn't be req. in future baseline
- 16:03:14 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: javascript 2.1 - this is an anti tech
- 16:03:27 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: suggest keep in "graphical" baseline
- 16:03:42 [Becky_Gibson]
- dm: 2.2 dynamic content generation
- 16:06:00 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: 2.1 is Javascript URIs - 2.2 is docuemnt.write and innerHTML
- 16:06:27 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: thinks there is a way to do this in the present day baseline - so need a tech for that
- 16:07:22 [Becky_Gibson]
- bg: but can't use document.write in XHTML
- 16:07:46 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: so should separate document.write from innerHTML
- 16:07:59 [Becky_Gibson]
- bg: is innerHTML a DOM API or IE only?
- 16:08:09 [Becky_Gibson]
- mc: thinks it is a JS type implementation
- 16:08:48 [ben]
- Meeting: WCAG Techniques Task Force Weekly Telecon
- 16:08:55 [Becky_Gibson]
- bg: correction to minutes- JS tech 2.1 applies to "base" baseline not "graphical" baseline as prev. recorded
- 16:09:03 [Zakim]
- -Michael_Cooper
- 16:09:07 [ben]
- RRSAgent, generate minutes
- 16:09:07 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/05/11-wai-wcag-minutes.html ben
- 16:09:19 [Zakim]
- -Chris_Ridpath
- 16:09:19 [ChrisR]
- ChrisR has left #wai-wcag
- 16:09:19 [Zakim]
- -Dave_MacDonald
- 16:09:19 [Zakim]
- -Becky_Gibson
- 16:09:19 [Zakim]
- -Ben
- 16:09:21 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has ended
- 16:09:23 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Dave_MacDonald, Becky_Gibson, Ben, Tim_Boland, Christophe_Strobbe, Michael_Cooper, Chris_Ridpath
- 16:10:01 [ben]
- RRSAgent, make minutes world
- 16:10:06 [RRSAgent]
- I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes world', ben. Try /msg RRSAgent help
- 16:10:16 [ben]
- RRSAgent, make log world
- 16:10:53 [Christophe_Strobb]
- Christophe_Strobb has left #wai-wcag
- 16:11:36 [ben]
- RRSAgent, generate minutes
- 16:11:36 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/05/11-wai-wcag-minutes.html ben
- 16:15:16 [ben]
- RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
- 16:15:45 [ben]
- RRSAgent, generate minutes
- 16:15:45 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/05/11-wai-wcag-minutes.html ben
- 16:17:17 [ben]
- RRSagent, bookmark?
- 16:17:17 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2005/05/11-wai-wcag-irc#T16-17-17
- 16:17:45 [ben]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 16:17:45 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/05/11-wai-wcag-minutes.html ben
- 16:18:13 [ben]
- Zakim, bye
- 16:18:13 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #wai-wcag
- 16:18:44 [ben]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
- I see 11 open action items:
- 16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: tim to work on proposals for these definitions [1]
- 16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/11-wai-wcag-irc#T14-26-16
- 16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: michael - include an ednote about whether techs can map to more general guidelines and principles [2]
- 16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/11-wai-wcag-irc#T14-30-37
- 16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: tim and michael to work on a proposal to makke it clearer how a technique satisfies a SC [3]
- 16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/11-wai-wcag-irc#T14-34-40
- 16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: editors remove <short-name> from technique and make technique title what is now <task>, remove that element altogether [4]
- 16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/11-wai-wcag-irc#T14-46-00
- 16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: ben talk with editors about req for guide doc in WCAG req [5]
- 16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/11-wai-wcag-irc#T14-52-19
- 16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: ben propose updated checklists section of requirements [6]
- 16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/11-wai-wcag-irc#T14-53-24
- 16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: michael clarify techniques for some sc but checklists must meet all sc [7]
- 16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/11-wai-wcag-irc#T14-55-04
- 16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: editors map HTML 14.5 to guideline 1.1 [8]
- 16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/11-wai-wcag-irc#T15-36-51
- 16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: editors map HTML 12.2 to guideline 1.1 [9]
- 16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/11-wai-wcag-irc#T15-44-09
- 16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: david to turn discussions on 4.2 techs issues into proposals [10]
- 16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/11-wai-wcag-irc#T15-58-28
- 16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: editors remove mappings from CSS techniques that map to guideline 4.2 [11]
- 16:18:44 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/11-wai-wcag-irc#T16-01-52