WCAG WG Team B teleconference

 

 

review of guideline 3.1 and known issues

<wendy> 11 of 26 issues relate to examples/benefits - therefore covered by work on guide document. not many issues with SC, most should be addressed by clarifications in guide docs.

<wendy> other issues with SC? loose ends?

<wendy> still concerns about addressing needs of people with autism (raised by lisa and gian)

<wendy> guide docs need some clean-up

<wendy> vocalization marks?

<wendy> diacritics - appropriate here?

<wendy> makoto and wendy have action item from brussels f2f to discuss/propose languag extension mechanism. not sure if attached to particular guideline orconformance or ?? don't want to lose lisa's work on diacritic success criterion, but action item is to create a mechanism to create language extensions.

<wendy> ACTION: makoto, wendy, lisa discuss language extension [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/08-wcag-teamb-irc]

work plan - http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2005/09/08-meaning-plan.html

wc: created a plan for team b

wc: contains links to known issues, todo's and table listing progress with links
... suggest going thru SC by SC and prioritize what it is we need to to and who
... need someone to perform issue summary and make proposals
... need to sep. gen techs from guide doc
... currently have at least one gen tech for each SC
... need to determine techs to develop and test for each

js: Ben has mocked up something for GL 1.1 that follows the template - people can look at this to get a feel for how things are laid out

wc: it is in the team a public list

ls: what is our schedule?

wc: need to publish next WD by Sept 30
... need to have initial proposals into WG by next week
... need "blessing" of WG to proposals by Sept. 22 in order to publish by Sept 30 and meet W3C heartbeat req.
... let's go thru each SC and prioritize - then once have priorities figure out who is doing what
... GL 3.1 L1 SC1 - have guide doc and have 2 gen. techs; have 1 HTML tech; have 2 tests
... have 1 css tech but no css tests; no scripting techs or tests
... what our our priorities for this SC?
... do we need a tech specific tech for each SC or is a general tech. enough?

js: good to have at least one technology specific one although it may not be HTML

yh: most imp. thing to help dev. is how to mark the language attribute - there are different ways and HTML tech needs to specify what we think is the proper way

lgr: some SC are not tech specific
... so don't think we need to req. technology specific techs for every SC

wc: so probably don't need to generate much more for this SC;
... will mark the suggestion of a tech about templating as low - group agrees
... use of meta tag was also suggested - should this be high priority

yh: think that clearing up confusion of how to best specify lang in HTML is high

js: think the guide doc does talk about which tags to use when

yh: why is that in the guide doc when is tech specific

js: didn't have format for guide doc at time it was written

yh: guide doc is technology agnostic?

js: yes
... look at templates for the Guide doc that GV sent out about 10 days ago - helps to give a sense of what goes in which documents

wc: if going to keep CSS tech for specifying the direction of text need to confirm that this is the correct mapping
... if keep it then need a test for it - can probably find a test in CSS test suite

ls: isn't is also an HTML technique?

<bengt> 15. XHTML Bi-directional Text Attribute Module

wc: need to investigate if CSS is only way or what info we need for HTML

<Yvette> dir attribute for text directionality isn't deprecated: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/dirlang.html#h-8.2

wc: text directionality is a high priority for this SC
... we can look at W3C's internationalization WG for info

ls: text dir is also an issue for focus and text input

GL 3.1 L2 SC1 - natual lang can be programmatically determined

ls: open issue: people found this difficult for mixed language sites

<bengt> will the empty lang attribute be allowed ? used to specify no language ?

wc: think that is why this is at level 2

ls: proposed that not an issue if are going between different character sets becuz then should be handled by user agent
... but is an issue if in same character set

yh: think this is only true if character set is only used for one language

lgr: ask lisa to write up a tech. about this

js: seems that techs for this one should mirror the techs for the previous SC (with exception of one just discussed)

wc: do we need to inherit the techs for text direction as well?

yh: hard to test - only way to notice language change is if they are marked up

js: not machine testable but is human testable

wc: same priorities for this SC and previous one; also need to develop some human test

GL 3.1 L3 SC1

ls: had proposed some rdf techs
... what about concept coding framework?

wc: how well developed is this?

lgr: concerned that we are adding more technologies at this point

js: want to capture ideas at least so we can some back to them but don't have to write them now

wc: create general tech about concept coding and then link to the relevant research

ls: do you want to do the same with RDF

wc: things that are not HTML, CSS or Scripting we can link to other info from within the Guide Doc
... also will be labelling techs. as sufficient or optional and some of these sound like optional

<bengt> CCF is an extension of RDF to add metadata(concepts) about words in xml based documents primarily to disambiguate or distinctly specify the meaning

wc: think we need to focus on sufficient techs for now

js: we could use the other resources section of guide doc for this

wc: for this SC need tests; check accuracy; provide links to external ifno

GL 3.1 L3 SC2 - identify defs of unusual words

wc: harvest suggests to include internal linking -what does that mean/

yh: that is what we do currently - the link is to a def at the bottom of the page

wc: need examples for HTML techniques

yh: could use glossary tech as well

js: there is an HTML definition (def) tag isn't there?

yh: yes and others dl, dd

wc: was a scripting tech during harvest

bg: yes - could highlight or identify words or popup definition

wc: probably low priority, though

yh: propose link to a def list tech and link/rel glossary tech

js: def list tech needs to be written

<scribe> ACTION: yvette will write definition list technique [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/08-wcag-teamb-irc]

topic GL 3.1 L3 SC 3 - mech. for finding expanded form of acronyms and abbrev.

wc: at a min need to expand existing gen tech; create test for existing HTML techs.

yh: think second idea (expanded form only provide the first time of use) is not good - never know where user will enter the content
... don't think we should advocate

bg: but then must expand on every use

js: but if have a glossary or search (or another way to find the info) you don't have to mark it up every time

lgr: wondering if on a page the first one is marked since can search within a page
... then there is a mechanism via search

ls: although this doesn't really help the category of users we are trying to help
... have to copy it correctly into search box which may be difficult
... then if do search - you lose your place in the page and getting back can be difficult for some users

js: keep in mind the diff. between good practice techs and sufficient and optional

wc: seems like this on is a low priority
... other resources - can link to RDF techs
... expand gen. tech - probably break into 3; create tests for HTML; check accuracy; link to RDF

GL 3.1 L3 SC4 - section titles are descriptive

wc: proposed gen tech - how to mark up section titles sounds like HTML
... need to collect existing HTML techs; only test assoc. with this are related to frame titles

bg: do frame titles even belong here?

lgr: probably only place that frames seemed to belong

js: are sections of a perceivable unit

wc: collect other HTML techs - determine whichs ones are appropriate
... gen. techs need some development - how to write descriptive titles
... can't think of any CSS or scripting techs for this

yh: SC doesn't require sections titles only that if you use them they must be descriptitve
... so have to be careful when writing techs to make that distinction

GL 3.1 L3 SC 5 - readability

wc: no HTML, CSS, or scripting techs

js: HTML gives us a mech for associating text to a graphic but not the other way around

wc: other resources section should like to RDF or meta data techs

ls: can use style sheet to generate symbols and provide that alternative stylesheet

js: becky and I have talked about scripting to hide/show one section at a time

ls: XHTML role taxonomy has roles for this

wc: css tech was proposed

js: but highlighting sections is probably not sufficient to satisfy

wc: cleaning up finishing gen. techs is high priority for this SC
... developing technology specific techs is med to low priority
... high priority to provide links to RDF techs

yh: create HTML tech. on how to provide a spoken version (how to embed the multimedia version)

wc: maybe can link to the existing HTML embed/object technique
... what do people want to work on?
... can divide up by SC or CSS or scripting?
... corrections; can divide up by SC or technology

yh: on holiday starting 9/13 for 3 weeks - probably best for me to work on HTML techs

js: need to work on L3 SC5 because there are big questions in the issues list and it also needs cleaning up
... most interested in guide doc and general techniques

lgr: general techs or guide docs
... probably most interested in section titles but no strong preference

js: saw good paper recently on writing descriptive titles - by Jeannie Redish? - (JS has reference)

bf: most interested in language and languate related stuff
... probably general techs

js: need help with readability in other languages