IRC log of wai-wcag on 2003-09-25
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 20:08:24 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:08:33 [Zakim]
- +??P13
- 20:08:36 [rellero]
- zakim, ??P13 is Roberto_Ellero
- 20:08:36 [Zakim]
- +Roberto_Ellero; got it
- 20:08:40 [rscano]
- zakim, who is here?
- 20:08:40 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Roberto_Scano (muted), Yvette_Hoitink.a, Doyle, Andi, Lee_Roberts, Matt, Ben-and-Gregg, Dave_MacDonald, mike-barta, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Wendy, Paul_Bohman,
- 20:08:43 [Zakim]
- ... Bengt_Farre, Lisa_Seeman, Shailesh_Panchang, JasonWhite, Avi_Arditti, Roberto_Ellero
- 20:08:44 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see RRSAgent, GVAN, bcaldwell, silvia, doyle, wendy, rellero, bengt, Yvette, Zakim, rscano
- 20:09:00 [rellero]
- I'm sorry, my adsl creates problems
- 20:09:01 [Yvette]
- zakim, Yvette_Hoitink.a is Yvette_Hoitink
- 20:09:01 [Zakim]
- +Yvette_Hoitink; got it
- 20:09:03 [rscano]
- zakim, who is speaking?
- 20:09:08 [Yvette]
- zakim, I am Yvette_Hoitink
- 20:09:08 [Zakim]
- ok, Yvette, I now associate you with Yvette_Hoitink
- 20:09:14 [Zakim]
- rscano, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Andi (4%), Ben-and-Gregg (40%), mike-barta (17%), Roberto_Ellero (30%), Shailesh_Panchang (4%), Wendy (56%)
- 20:09:16 [rellero]
- zakim, mute Roberto_Ellero
- 20:09:17 [Zakim]
- Roberto_Ellero should now be muted
- 20:10:08 [Zakim]
- +??P16
- 20:10:16 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P16 is Katie
- 20:10:16 [Zakim]
- +Katie; got it
- 20:10:39 [Zakim]
- -Roberto_Ellero
- 20:11:18 [wendy]
- discussing reorg #4: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/09/reorg4/reorg4.html
- 20:11:38 [mikba]
- mikba has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:11:48 [Yvette]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:11:48 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
- 20:12:08 [wendy]
- zakim, who's talking?
- 20:12:20 [Zakim]
- wendy, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Katie (26%)
- 20:12:24 [wendy]
- weird
- 20:12:29 [rellero]
- Unfortunately this evening dialpad or the adsl do not allow me to follow with the phone
- 20:12:37 [wendy]
- zakim, who's talking?
- 20:12:53 [Zakim]
- wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Katie (4%)
- 20:12:59 [wendy]
- ??
- 20:13:02 [rscano]
- ??
- 20:13:10 [Zakim]
- +??P13
- 20:13:14 [doyle]
- that is strange
- 20:13:16 [wendy]
- zakim must be losing his hearing
- 20:13:18 [rellero]
- I'll try later
- 20:13:38 [wendy]
- (his or her :)
- 20:14:00 [doyle]
- well all know gregg is talking - not katie
- 20:14:17 [Zakim]
- +John_Slatin
- 20:14:18 [wendy]
- yes, but i wanted to test that i had mapped appropriate line to gv and ben
- 20:14:31 [rscano]
- try to mute him
- 20:14:37 [bengt]
- nute and see ??
- 20:14:56 [wendy]
- bad test. :)
- 20:15:02 [rscano]
- ;)
- 20:15:21 [Yvette]
- mute katie then and see
- 20:16:08 [rellero]
- I try again to connect with dialpad
- 20:16:52 [rscano]
- 01[22:16] <Zakim> rscano, listening for 11 seconds I 01heard sound from the following: Ben-and-Gregg 01(56%), ??P13 (8%)
- 20:17:12 [wendy]
- zakim's hearing improved
- 20:19:26 [rellero]
- I cannot connect because the conference is full
- 20:19:57 [wendy]
- full? i'll have to increase the number of ports from here on out.
- 20:20:05 [wendy]
- sorry roberto
- 20:20:08 [rellero]
- thanks
- 20:20:14 [bengt]
- or are you already connected ?? P13 is connected
- 20:20:24 [rellero]
- not connected now
- 20:20:41 [rscano]
- and who is P13 :-I
- 20:20:42 [Yvette]
- q+ to say "group checkpoints by importance for accessibility, not just by how testable they are"
- 20:21:41 [bengt]
- zakim, who is talking ?
- 20:21:55 [Zakim]
- bengt, listening for 13 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ben-and-Gregg (66%), mike-barta (3%), ??P13 (15%)
- 20:26:10 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P13 is Cynthia
- 20:26:10 [Zakim]
- +Cynthia; got it
- 20:26:22 [Yvette]
- zakim, unmute me
- 20:26:22 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
- 20:26:23 [rscano]
- ack Yvette
- 20:26:23 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "group checkpoints by importance for accessibility, not just by how testable they are"
- 20:27:33 [wendy]
- testability vs. what is needed for accessibility
- 20:31:41 [wendy]
- q+ to say "3.4 - key, predictable, consistent - subjective, 4.1 - avoid - ambiguous"
- 20:32:32 [bengt]
- q- bengt
- 20:33:17 [wendy]
- ack ??P13
- 20:35:04 [wendy]
- still not clear enough distinction between what is required vs what is optional
- 20:37:21 [wendy]
- if not required, not part of the standard
- 20:37:42 [wendy]
- should use "must, should, not" language
- 20:37:53 [Yvette]
- q+ to say "I am continuously getting confused about the difference between required and core"
- 20:38:46 [wendy]
- possibilities: pull additional notes into appendicies
- 20:38:49 [mikba]
- must/should/may are common to RFC but do cause confusion in implementation as different ppl consider may as must etc.
- 20:38:56 [wendy]
- ack Dave
- 20:39:53 [wendy]
- concern that best practice in separate document would not be found
- 20:41:31 [wendy]
- w3c documents must have a header of some sort: must check on process before can guarantee that we won't include in other views.
- 20:41:43 [wendy]
- context must be provided
- 20:42:57 [wendy]
- ack andi
- 20:43:38 [wendy]
- "required-only" view has extended checkpoints, thus needs to be called something else.
- 20:46:12 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 20:46:12 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say "3.4 - key, predictable, consistent - subjective, 4.1 - avoid - ambiguous"
- 20:48:54 [wendy]
- ack Yvette
- 20:48:54 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "I am continuously getting confused about the difference between required and core"
- 20:50:14 [wendy]
- labels that exist: core required, core informative, core best practice, extended best practice, extended informative, extended required
- 20:51:28 [wendy]
- "required success criteria" an attempt to separate success criteria from best practice.
- 20:52:00 [wendy]
- should we remove "required" from all success criteria?
- 20:52:31 [wendy]
- there is a deeper problem, removing "required" won't satisfy that.
- 20:52:35 [wendy]
- ack Shailesh
- 20:53:02 [Yvette]
- there are two dimensions: Core/Extended and Required/Best practice/Informative
- 20:53:18 [wendy]
- interpretation of best practice: perhaps good for one situation, but not for another.
- 20:53:26 [wendy]
- if not testable, does it have a place in the document?
- 20:53:41 [wendy]
- best practice: if keep, perhaps "additional criteria"
- 20:54:25 [Yvette]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:54:25 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
- 20:57:34 [wendy]
- ack Bengt
- 20:57:52 [wendy]
- (bengt is actually lisa)
- 20:58:10 [GVAN]
- +q
- 20:58:17 [GVAN]
- q+
- 20:59:12 [bengt]
- zakim, Lisa_Seeman is b2
- 20:59:12 [Zakim]
- +b2; got it
- 20:59:25 [bengt]
- zakim, Bengt_Farre is really Lisa_Seeman
- 20:59:25 [Zakim]
- +Lisa_Seeman; got it
- 20:59:37 [bengt]
- zakim, b2 is really Bengt_Farre
- 20:59:37 [Zakim]
- +Bengt_Farre; got it
- 20:59:44 [bengt]
- zakim, I am Bengt_Farre
- 20:59:44 [Zakim]
- ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
- 20:59:57 [wendy]
- important to include information that will make content accessibility. secondary mandate, keep everyone happy.
- 21:00:27 [wendy]
- thus, keep all info in the document that will help people, even if it is not testable.
- 21:00:29 [wendy]
- ack jason
- 21:01:06 [wendy]
- if best practices are not normative, don't need distinction between additional notes and best practices.
- 21:01:44 [wendy]
- how much of testable material in best practices can be moved to extended checkpoints?
- 21:03:19 [wendy]
- find some way to keep best practices distinct from success criteria, not necessarily in another document, but distinct.
- 21:03:42 [wendy]
- ack cynthia
- 21:04:26 [wendy]
- our requirements document seems to say that we are writing a normative document (that people can test against).
- 21:04:57 [wendy]
- but we need to decide, are we writing something that addresses all of the needs that people with disabilities have or something that is testable (which is the primary goal, which is the secondary)?
- 21:05:47 [wendy]
- what about a "going farther" document that is linked to often. additional ideas. clearly separate "what do I need to do" versus "what else can i do?"
- 21:07:22 [wendy]
- multi-dimensions confusing. if keep that much info, collapse into a single dimension w/levels (more like p1, p2, p3 from WCAG 1.0, but with different terms)
- 21:07:44 [wendy]
- i.e., replace matrix with linear
- 21:07:51 [wendy]
- ack gvan
- 21:09:12 [wendy]
- if we want legislative bodies to do the same thing (i.e., adopt what we recommend), even if we are not making policy if we don't do something effective, they will each do something different.
- 21:10:11 [wendy]
- proposal 2 moved best practice into extended checkpoints, but naming them (uniquely) was difficult.
- 21:11:20 [wendy]
- requirements don't say that we must only have normative information, if we pull some of the informative (additional notes and best practice) the normative becomes harder to understand (the additional notes and best practice help clarify minimum requirements)
- 21:12:02 [wendy]
- currently: guidelines are very general. perhaps current checkpoints are guidelines and current criteria are checkpoints.
- 21:13:30 [wendy]
- q+ to say, "guidelines are design principles and the only things that will truly stand test of time and apply to all techs. could have document just about that. concern about techniuques for mobile devices and current success criteria and checkpoints. i.e., think we should further consider gregg's comment about moving criteria to checkpoints"
- 21:13:35 [wendy]
- ack lisa
- 21:13:52 [Zakim]
- -Avi_Arditti
- 21:13:53 [wendy]
- if name is "WCAG" doesn't address all disabilities, it should be renamed.
- 21:14:07 [wendy]
- s/is "WCAG" and
- 21:14:14 [wendy]
- ack Matt
- 21:15:19 [wendy]
- audiences: people who want to make policy, people who care about accessibility (w/out legal mandate, i.e. highly motivated and interested in "doing more"), people who don't care (only do minimum)
- 21:16:08 [wendy]
- min set is what we assume cynic implementors will do.
- 21:16:29 [wendy]
- for those who want to do more, have "the book" that describes this in prose.
- 21:17:18 [wendy]
- UAWG has "common UA imp problems" we could have a similar doc. fit in with "how people w/disabilities do the web"
- 21:17:27 [wendy]
- "wcag for policymakers" introduction
- 21:17:33 [wendy]
- (or separate doc)
- 21:17:56 [wendy]
- q?
- 21:18:08 [wendy]
- ack John
- 21:18:45 [wendy]
- we need to be clear about the distinctions between what is optional and what is required.
- 21:18:55 [Yvette]
- I visualized my matrix picture: http://www.dutchgenealogy.nl/test/wcag_3d.gif
- 21:19:14 [wendy]
- we need to write "the book" - what is accessibility? what do you need to make the web accessible? (ala matt's comment)
- 21:19:51 [wendy]
- good viz, yvette
- 21:19:53 [wendy]
- ack cynthia
- 21:20:59 [wendy]
- ack andi
- 21:22:23 [wendy]
- would like to see thought put into criteria-> checkpoint, checkpoint-> guideline
- 21:22:26 [wendy]
- ack Shailesh
- 21:22:38 [Zakim]
- -Lisa_Seeman
- 21:22:47 [wendy]
- what is important for accessibility should guide us
- 21:22:48 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 21:22:48 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say, "guidelines are design principles and the only things that will truly stand test of time and apply to all techs. could have document just about that.
- 21:22:51 [Zakim]
- ... concern about techniuques for mobile devices and current success criteria and checkpoints. i.e., think we should further consider gregg's comment about moving criteria to
- 21:22:53 [Zakim]
- ... checkpoints"
- 21:24:03 [Zakim]
- +??P12
- 21:27:09 [Zakim]
- -Shailesh_Panchang
- 21:28:01 [Zakim]
- +Shailesh_Panchang
- 21:28:35 [wendy]
- propose: move additional notes to techniques gateway
- 21:28:59 [wendy]
- explore: principles, guidelines, checkpoints (instead of guidelines, checkpoints, s. criteria)
- 21:29:53 [wendy]
- however, keep success criteria to differentiate checkpoints from checklists (technology-specific checklists)
- 21:30:35 [wendy]
- however, in some cases there is only one criterion per checkpoint.
- 21:31:03 [wendy]
- call best practice "additional measures that go beyond conformance"
- 21:31:08 [rscano]
- and use core, primary and secondary like ISO does in the ISO 0616071-TS01?
- 21:31:53 [wendy]
- restructure so that most important stuff stands out most
- 21:32:23 [wendy]
- focus groups for nomenclature: to determine which terminology will work best
- 21:34:30 [doyle]
- I'd love to be a part of such a vocabulary/terminolgy group
- 21:34:47 [Yvette]
- include a non-native speaker of English as well
- 21:34:54 [rscano]
- me too (for internationalization of the word)
- 21:34:56 [wendy]
- q+ wendy to say, "challenge: use plain language lexicon (1500 words) with additions for technology-specific jargon"
- 21:34:59 [rscano]
- *echo*
- 21:35:08 [Yvette]
- :-)
- 21:36:19 [wendy]
- we talked about this at the tech telecon yesterday re: use cases and personae
- 21:36:33 [rscano]
- yep i've got an action item with Tom
- 21:36:38 [Zakim]
- -Shailesh_Panchang
- 21:37:51 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 21:37:51 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say, "challenge: use plain language lexicon (1500 words) with additions for technology-specific jargon"
- 21:37:58 [wendy]
- ack katie
- 21:40:36 [Zakim]
- -Katie
- 21:41:36 [wendy]
- action: john, katie, others who are interested, work on list of terms to use for wcag 2.0.
- 21:41:46 [Zakim]
- -Paul_Bohman
- 21:41:47 [Zakim]
- -Cynthia
- 21:41:49 [Zakim]
- -Loretta_Guarino_Reid
- 21:41:50 [Zakim]
- -John_Slatin
- 21:41:51 [Zakim]
- -Lee_Roberts
- 21:41:51 [Zakim]
- -Ben-and-Gregg
- 21:41:52 [Zakim]
- -Matt
- 21:41:53 [Zakim]
- -Dave_MacDonald
- 21:41:54 [Zakim]
- -Andi
- 21:41:55 [Zakim]
- -Doyle
- 21:41:57 [Zakim]
- -??P12
- 21:41:59 [Zakim]
- -Roberto_Scano
- 21:42:01 [Zakim]
- -Wendy
- 21:42:03 [Zakim]
- -mike-barta
- 21:42:05 [Zakim]
- -Yvette_Hoitink
- 21:42:07 [Zakim]
- -Bengt_Farre
- 21:42:07 [wendy]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 21:42:07 [RRSAgent]
- I see 1 open action item:
- 21:42:07 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: john, katie, others who are interested, work on list of terms to use for wcag 2.0. [1]
- 21:42:07 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/25-wai-wcag-irc#T21-41-36
- 21:42:10 [wendy]
- zakim, bye
- 21:42:10 [Zakim]
- -JasonWhite