IRC log of au on 2003-10-24
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 19:51:12 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #au
- 19:51:13 [wendy]
- hello
- 19:53:49 [DoyleB]
- DoyleB has joined #au
- 19:53:59 [DoyleB]
- Hi all
- 19:54:00 [rscano]
- hi DoyleB
- 19:54:05 [rscano]
- zakim, list conferences
- 19:54:05 [Zakim]
- I see no active conferences and none scheduled
- 19:54:09 [DoyleB]
- Hi roberto
- 19:54:35 [DoyleB]
- Early yet - right?
- 19:54:41 [rscano]
- 6 minutes :)
- 19:55:06 [rscano]
- i've put the call in number in the topic of the room
- 19:56:26 [DoyleB]
- Wonder how large a group we'll have today?
- 19:56:38 [rscano]
- today i'm half per group :D
- 19:56:50 [rscano]
- (i'm WCAG and ATAG - this one since today)
- 19:56:58 [DoyleB]
- Roberto what do you mean?
- 19:57:12 [DoyleB]
- got it
- 19:57:16 [rscano]
- i'm WCAG Working Group Member and ATAG Working Group member :)
- 19:58:00 [rellero]
- rellero has joined #au
- 19:58:07 [rscano]
- hi rob
- 19:58:17 [rellero]
- Hi :)
- 19:58:27 [mvittoria]
- mvittoria has joined #au
- 19:58:36 [DoyleB]
- is anyone on audio yet?
- 19:58:37 [rscano]
- hi maurizio!
- 19:58:45 [rscano]
- i call now
- 19:58:46 [mvittoria]
- Hi people!
- 19:59:44 [rscano]
- zakim, who is here?
- 19:59:44 [Zakim]
- sorry, rscano, I don't know what conference this is
- 19:59:45 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see mvittoria, rellero, DoyleB, RRSAgent, wendy, bengt, Zakim, rscano
- 19:59:47 [rellero]
- my line is only 26.000 bps :I
- 19:59:52 [rscano]
- zakim, list conferences
- 19:59:52 [Zakim]
- I see WAI_AUWG(wcag)4:00PM active and no others scheduled
- 19:59:59 [rscano]
- zakim, this is 01WAI_AUWG(wcag)
- 19:59:59 [Zakim]
- sorry, rscano, I do not see a conference named '01WAI_AUWG(wcag)' in progress or scheduled at this time
- 20:00:10 [rscano]
- zakim, this is WAI_AUWG(wcag)
- 20:00:10 [Zakim]
- ok, rscano
- 20:00:18 [rscano]
- zakim, who is on the phone?
- 20:00:18 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see +39.329.052.aaaa, Greg_Pisocky, Ray_Whitmer, Loretta_Guarino_Reid
- 20:00:37 [Zakim]
- -Greg_Pisocky
- 20:00:51 [Zakim]
- +Jan_Richards
- 20:01:08 [DoyleB]
- roberto Zakim did not find me on phone
- 20:01:15 [Zakim]
- +Greg_Pisocky
- 20:01:26 [rscano]
- i'm trying to call
- 20:01:35 [Zakim]
- +??P7
- 20:01:45 [Zakim]
- +Sailesh_Panchang
- 20:01:52 [Zakim]
- +??P8
- 20:01:58 [Zakim]
- +JasonWhite
- 20:02:04 [rscano]
- zakim, +??P8 is Roberto_Scano
- 20:02:04 [Zakim]
- sorry, rscano, I do not recognize a party named '+??P8'
- 20:02:16 [rscano]
- zakim, ?P8 is Roberto_Scano
- 20:02:16 [Zakim]
- sorry, rscano, I do not recognize a party named '?P8'
- 20:02:17 [Zakim]
- - +39.329.052.aaaa
- 20:02:22 [Zakim]
- +??P10
- 20:02:27 [Zakim]
- +??P5
- 20:02:28 [rscano]
- zakim, P8 is Roberto_Scano
- 20:02:28 [Zakim]
- sorry, rscano, I do not recognize a party named 'P8'
- 20:02:37 [rscano]
- zakim, +??P8 is Roberto_Scano
- 20:02:37 [Zakim]
- sorry, rscano, I do not recognize a party named '+??P8'
- 20:02:50 [Zakim]
- +Dave_MacDonald
- 20:02:57 [bengt]
- zakim, ??p5 is Bengt_Farre
- 20:02:57 [Zakim]
- +Bengt_Farre; got it
- 20:02:59 [rscano]
- zakim, ??P8 is Roberto_Scano
- 20:02:59 [Zakim]
- +Roberto_Scano; got it
- 20:03:07 [rscano]
- zakim, i am Roberto_Scano
- 20:03:07 [Zakim]
- ok, rscano, I now associate you with Roberto_Scano
- 20:03:14 [rscano]
- zakim, who is on the phone?
- 20:03:14 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Ray_Whitmer, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Jan_Richards, Greg_Pisocky, ??P7, Sailesh_Panchang, Roberto_Scano, JasonWhite, ??P10, Bengt_Farre, Dave_MacDonald
- 20:03:17 [Zakim]
- +John_Slatin
- 20:03:26 [bengt]
- zakim, I am Bengt_Farre
- 20:03:26 [Zakim]
- ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
- 20:03:27 [rscano]
- doyle, try to mute you by phone
- 20:03:33 [DoyleB]
- Roberto - am i showing up on audio conference?
- 20:03:47 [rscano]
- you could be P7 or P10
- 20:03:57 [bengt]
- doyle mute yourself so we can see
- 20:04:10 [bengt]
- zakim, who is on the phone
- 20:04:10 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'who is on the phone', bengt
- 20:04:13 [bengt]
- zakim, who is on the phone ?
- 20:04:13 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Ray_Whitmer, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Jan_Richards, Greg_Pisocky, ??P7, Sailesh_Panchang, Roberto_Scano, JasonWhite, ??P10, Bengt_Farre, Dave_MacDonald, John_Slatin
- 20:04:16 [DoyleB]
- how do i mute
- 20:04:16 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see mvittoria, rellero, DoyleB, RRSAgent, wendy, bengt, Zakim, rscano
- 20:04:28 [Zakim]
- +??P11
- 20:04:33 [bengt]
- wendy what is the code for mute ?
- 20:04:52 [Zakim]
- +[MIT342]
- 20:04:53 [wendy]
- mute: 61#
- 20:04:56 [Zakim]
- +Tim_Boland
- 20:05:07 [bengt]
- zakim, who is on the phone ?
- 20:05:07 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Ray_Whitmer, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Jan_Richards, Greg_Pisocky, ??P7, Sailesh_Panchang, Roberto_Scano, JasonWhite, ??P10, Bengt_Farre, Dave_MacDonald,
- 20:05:08 [wendy]
- zakim, MIT342 is Wendy-and-Matt
- 20:05:10 [Zakim]
- ... John_Slatin, ??P11, [MIT342], Tim_Boland
- 20:05:11 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see mvittoria, rellero, DoyleB, RRSAgent, wendy, bengt, Zakim, rscano
- 20:05:12 [Zakim]
- sorry, wendy, I do not recognize a party named 'MIT342'
- 20:05:13 [wendy]
- zakim, who's talking?
- 20:05:16 [bengt]
- zakim, who is on the phone ?
- 20:05:16 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Ray_Whitmer, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Jan_Richards, Greg_Pisocky, ??P7, Sailesh_Panchang, Roberto_Scano, JasonWhite, ??P10, Bengt_Farre, Dave_MacDonald,
- 20:05:19 [Zakim]
- ... John_Slatin, ??P11, [MIT342], Tim_Boland
- 20:05:20 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see mvittoria, rellero, DoyleB, RRSAgent, wendy, bengt, Zakim, rscano
- 20:05:21 [m3mMIT]
- m3mMIT has joined #au
- 20:05:26 [Zakim]
- wendy, listening for 13 seconds I heard sound from the following: Jan_Richards (34%), [MIT342] (19%)
- 20:05:37 [DoyleB]
- zakim, mute DoyleB
- 20:05:37 [Zakim]
- sorry, DoyleB, I do not see a party named 'DoyleB'
- 20:05:45 [m3mMIT]
- zakim, mute Jan_Richards temporarily
- 20:05:45 [Zakim]
- Jan_Richards should now be muted
- 20:05:45 [wendy]
- zakim, mute Jan
- 20:05:46 [Zakim]
- Jan_Richards should now be muted
- 20:05:50 [bengt]
- use 61# on your phone
- 20:05:50 [wendy]
- zakim, unmute Jan
- 20:05:50 [Zakim]
- Jan_Richards should no longer be muted
- 20:05:53 [Zakim]
- +??P14
- 20:05:53 [rscano]
- no doyle, u need to use 61# by phone
- 20:05:54 [Zakim]
- -Tim_Boland
- 20:06:00 [Zakim]
- Jan_Richards should now be unmuted again
- 20:06:02 [m3mMIT]
- zakim, who's making noise?
- 20:06:05 [bengt]
- zakim, who is on the phone ?
- 20:06:05 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Ray_Whitmer (muted), Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Jan_Richards, Greg_Pisocky, ??P7, Sailesh_Panchang, Roberto_Scano, JasonWhite, ??P10, Bengt_Farre, Dave_MacDonald,
- 20:06:08 [Zakim]
- ... John_Slatin, ??P11, [MIT342], ??P14
- 20:06:09 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see m3mMIT, mvittoria, rellero, DoyleB, RRSAgent, wendy, bengt, Zakim, rscano
- 20:06:13 [Zakim]
- m3mMIT, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ray_Whitmer (16%), Jan_Richards (38%), ??P7 (8%), Roberto_Scano (99%), ??P11 (50%)
- 20:06:19 [rscano]
- Doyle, hang up and reconnect
- 20:06:23 [wendy]
- zakim, mute ??P11
- 20:06:23 [Zakim]
- ??P11 should now be muted
- 20:06:24 [m3mMIT]
- zakim, mute Rober temporarily
- 20:06:24 [Zakim]
- Roberto_Scano should now be muted
- 20:06:27 [rscano]
- zakim, mute me
- 20:06:27 [Zakim]
- Roberto_Scano should now be muted
- 20:06:28 [Zakim]
- +Tim_Boland
- 20:06:38 [DoyleB]
- I will sign back onto conf
- 20:06:39 [Zakim]
- Roberto_Scano should now be unmuted again
- 20:06:42 [Zakim]
- -Ray_Whitmer
- 20:06:45 [wendy]
- zakim, who's here?
- 20:06:45 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Jan_Richards, Greg_Pisocky, ??P7, Sailesh_Panchang, Roberto_Scano, JasonWhite, ??P10, Bengt_Farre, Dave_MacDonald, John_Slatin, ??P11
- 20:06:48 [Zakim]
- ... (muted), [MIT342], ??P14, Tim_Boland
- 20:06:49 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see m3mMIT, mvittoria, rellero, DoyleB, RRSAgent, wendy, bengt, Zakim, rscano
- 20:07:12 [rscano]
- zakim, who is speaking?
- 20:07:26 [Zakim]
- rscano, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Jan_Richards (25%), Greg_Pisocky (4%), ??P7 (20%), [MIT342] (80%), ??P14 (49%)
- 20:07:36 [Zakim]
- +Doyle_Burnett
- 20:08:05 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P7 may be Jutta
- 20:08:05 [Zakim]
- +Jutta?; got it
- 20:08:14 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P10 may be Gregg
- 20:08:14 [Zakim]
- +Gregg?; got it
- 20:08:23 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P11 may be Kerstin
- 20:08:23 [Zakim]
- +Kerstin?; got it
- 20:08:26 [wendy]
- zakim, who's here?
- 20:08:26 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Jan_Richards, Greg_Pisocky, Jutta?, Sailesh_Panchang, Roberto_Scano, JasonWhite, Gregg?, Bengt_Farre, Dave_MacDonald, John_Slatin, Kerstin?
- 20:08:29 [Zakim]
- ... (muted), [MIT342], ??P14, Tim_Boland, Doyle_Burnett
- 20:08:30 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see m3mMIT, mvittoria, rellero, DoyleB, RRSAgent, wendy, bengt, Zakim, rscano
- 20:08:57 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P14 may be Karen_Mardahl
- 20:08:57 [Zakim]
- +Karen_Mardahl?; got it
- 20:09:03 [DoyleB]
- am I mutted?
- 20:09:06 [Zakim]
- + +39.329.052.aabb
- 20:09:40 [wendy]
- zakim, +39.329.052.aabb is Francesco
- 20:09:40 [Zakim]
- +Francesco; got it
- 20:10:30 [wendy]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003OctDec/0128.html
- 20:10:58 [wendy]
- many ATAG techniques have to reference WCAG.
- 20:11:03 [Zakim]
- +[IBM]
- 20:11:13 [wendy]
- ATAG has had to make changes as the WCAG (2.0) structure has changed.
- 20:11:33 [wendy]
- ATAG has relative structure. if p1 for WCAG 1.0, then p2 for ATAG.
- 20:11:50 [wendy]
- How should we link into WCAG if WCAG has only 2 priorities/conformance levels?
- 20:12:07 [wendy]
- We would like to encourage readers of WCAG to use ATAG-conformant authoring tools.
- 20:13:09 [DoyleB]
- zakim, unmute DoyleB
- 20:13:09 [Zakim]
- Doyle_Burnett was not muted, DoyleB
- 20:13:21 [wendy]
- in the very latest WCAG 2.0 draft, there is no longer core/extended there are 4 principles. each principle has guidelines. each guideline has success criteria that are labeled A, AA, or AAA
- 20:13:38 [wendy]
- s/a/level 1 s/aa/level 2 s/aaa/level3
- 20:13:55 [wendy]
- this structure is more like wcag 1.0.
- 20:15:40 [wendy]
- we aren't using the same terms as wcag 1.0 since p1 meant "important" and p2 meant "good to do" however we realized that some p2 items are important for access to some groups. thus in this latest reformulation we define the levels differently.
- 20:16:06 [wendy]
- auwg is working to structure atag in a way that is separate from wcag so that wcag can change freely.
- 20:16:13 [wendy]
- and atag won't have to change w/it.
- 20:16:37 [Zakim]
- +[IBM].a
- 20:16:38 [wendy]
- what is the rationale to assign priorities on a different way
- 20:17:02 [wendy]
- there are no longer checkpoints - only guidelines and success criteria
- 20:17:46 [wendy]
- all criteria need to be testable.
- 20:18:06 [wendy]
- testable - either machine-testable or HIRR (high inter-rater reliability)
- 20:18:47 [wendy]
- level 1 - something can do w/out telling the author what the default presentation has to look like.
- 20:18:59 [wendy]
- (i.e., if you have structure, you should have markup)
- 20:20:06 [wendy]
- and something that can be reasonably applied to all web sites.
- 20:20:28 [wendy]
- i.e. having an alternate version of a web page in 3 reading levels is not reasonable to do for all sites.
- 20:20:42 [wendy]
- levle 2 - those things that are not in level 1 but are reasonable to do to all sites.
- 20:21:02 [wendy]
- level 3 - not reasonable to do to all sites. extra effort to make sites very accessible.
- 20:21:03 [wendy]
- --
- 20:21:12 [wendy]
- what if you have something that is important but not testable?
- 20:21:29 [wendy]
- it would be a technique. we have a techniques gateway and a place for "other advice."
- 20:21:35 [wendy]
- we're trying to figure out testable versions of things.
- 20:22:52 [wendy]
- ---
- 20:22:57 [wendy]
- requirements about what makes something testable or not?
- 20:23:03 [wendy]
- machine-testable - no brainer.
- 20:23:40 [wendy]
- hirr - if it is the judgement of the wcag wg that it would have a hirr then it does.
- 20:24:21 [wendy]
- --
- 20:24:41 [wendy]
- test results can change based on changes in testing instructions.
- 20:25:04 [wendy]
- HIRR - well-informed readers.
- 20:25:16 [wendy]
- work with EOWG to train them to become well-informed readers
- 20:25:35 [wendy]
- zakim, Jutta is Kerstin
- 20:25:35 [Zakim]
- +Kerstin; got it
- 20:26:16 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 20:26:16 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Jan_Richards, Greg_Pisocky, Kerstin, Sailesh_Panchang, Roberto_Scano, JasonWhite, Gregg?, Bengt_Farre, Dave_MacDonald, John_Slatin,
- 20:26:19 [Zakim]
- ... Kerstin? (muted), [MIT342], Karen_Mardahl?, Tim_Boland, Doyle_Burnett, Francesco, [IBM], [IBM].a
- 20:26:31 [wendy]
- zakim, Kerstin? is Jutta
- 20:26:31 [Zakim]
- +Jutta; got it
- 20:26:36 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 20:26:36 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Jan_Richards, Greg_Pisocky, Kerstin, Sailesh_Panchang, Roberto_Scano, JasonWhite, Gregg?, Bengt_Farre, Dave_MacDonald, John_Slatin, Jutta
- 20:26:39 [Zakim]
- ... (muted), [MIT342], Karen_Mardahl?, Tim_Boland, Doyle_Burnett, Francesco, [IBM], [IBM].a
- 20:26:42 [wendy]
- zakim, who's talking?
- 20:26:53 [DoyleB]
- zakim, unmute Doyle_Burnett
- 20:26:53 [Zakim]
- Doyle_Burnett was not muted, DoyleB
- 20:27:00 [Zakim]
- wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Doyle_Burnett (3%), [MIT342] (47%), Karen_Mardahl? (24%)
- 20:27:38 [wendy]
- zakim, Karen_Mardahl? is Gregg
- 20:27:38 [Zakim]
- +Gregg; got it
- 20:27:44 [wendy]
- zakim, Gregg? is Karen_Mardahl
- 20:27:44 [Zakim]
- +Karen_Mardahl; got it
- 20:27:54 [wendy]
- zakim, [MIT342] is Wendy-and-Matt
- 20:27:54 [Zakim]
- +Wendy-and-Matt; got it
- 20:27:57 [wendy]
- ---
- 20:28:18 [wendy]
- andi, cynthia, kerstin, and wendy are going through recent draft looking for statements that are not testable.
- 20:28:27 [wendy]
- primarily, looking for subjective terms like "appropriate" and "important."
- 20:28:37 [Zakim]
- -Wendy-and-Matt
- 20:28:47 [m3mMIT]
- woops.
- 20:28:54 [Zakim]
- -Francesco
- 20:28:55 [m3mMIT]
- Technical difficulties. Please hold one moment.
- 20:28:59 [Zakim]
- +[MIT342]
- 20:29:16 [wendy]
- zakim, [MIT342] is matt-and-wendy
- 20:29:16 [Zakim]
- +matt-and-wendy; got it
- 20:29:21 [GVAN]
- GVAN has joined #au
- 20:29:27 [DoyleB]
- Wendy, I am not showing up on phone - is that right?
- 20:29:27 [wendy]
- ack jutta
- 20:29:32 [wendy]
- ack ibm
- 20:29:35 [wendy]
- ack [IBM]
- 20:29:41 [JR]
- JR has joined #au
- 20:29:50 [wendy]
- testability is good news for authoring tool developers.
- 20:30:11 [wendy]
- examples and test suites are also interesting.
- 20:30:24 [wendy]
- wcag wg is creating technology-specific checklists.
- 20:30:28 [JR]
- Jan's hand up
- 20:30:37 [wendy]
- auwg needs real, coded examples.
- 20:30:48 [wendy]
- q+ to say "real examples are part of test suite"
- 20:30:51 [Zakim]
- +Francesco
- 20:31:46 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 20:31:46 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say "real examples are part of test suite"
- 20:31:53 [wendy]
- also, implementation testers
- 20:33:00 [wendy]
- q+ to say "that's the goal of chris and michael's test files"
- 20:33:45 [wendy]
- ack jan
- 20:33:52 [wendy]
- 3 levels gives us something easy to map to
- 20:34:46 [wendy]
- need to use the same terminology in test suite development in both groups.
- 20:35:38 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 20:35:38 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say "that's the goal of chris and michael's test files"
- 20:36:02 [rscano]
- ack wendy
- 20:37:11 [wendy]
- auwg is also using term "success criteria"
- 20:37:30 [wendy]
- auwg considering the option of having a module for a checkpoint that could be added to a usability test.
- 20:38:17 [wendy]
- how do you test if an authoring tool appropriately influences a user to "do the right thing."
- 20:38:36 [wendy]
- it sounds like both groups (auwg and wcagwg) are grappling with similar tihngs.
- 20:38:37 [Zakim]
- -Bengt_Farre
- 20:39:05 [wendy]
- the ranking of wcag criteria will likely influence atag 2. 0 devleopment, but that we can likely use exisitng strategies similar ot atag 1.0/wcag 1.0.
- 20:39:14 [Zakim]
- +??P5
- 20:39:25 [bengt]
- zakim, ??P5 is Bengt_Farre
- 20:39:25 [Zakim]
- +Bengt_Farre; got it
- 20:39:25 [wendy]
- clarification: testability is not a factor for determining which level a wcag 2.0 criteria is assigned to.
- 20:39:30 [wendy]
- all wcag 2.0 items are testable.
- 20:39:48 [wendy]
- level 2 are things that constrain how the author expresses him/herself
- 20:40:25 [wendy]
- diff between levels 2 and 3 is reasonableness for all sites.
- 20:41:50 [wendy]
- if you have levels in checkpoints and then in success criteria, you will end up with a 2-dimensional structure.
- 20:42:05 [wendy]
- wcag 2.0 used to have that, but got rid of it because it was too confusing.
- 20:42:36 [wendy]
- wcag 2.0 has some guidelines that only have level 2 or level 3 criteria.
- 20:42:39 [wendy]
- (in latest draft)
- 20:43:34 [wendy]
- ack [IBM]
- 20:43:54 [wendy]
- q+ IBM
- 20:44:18 [wendy]
- ack IBM
- 20:44:38 [wendy]
- determine in criteria for level 1, 2, 3 if clearly an author responsibility or tool responsibility.
- 20:44:46 [wendy]
- any output that could help us in atag.
- 20:44:58 [Zakim]
- -Tim_Boland
- 20:45:11 [wendy]
- that is level 1 and level 2
- 20:46:00 [Zakim]
- -Francesco
- 20:47:08 [wendy]
- level 1 are things that the authoring tool should do. level 2 are those things that should help with.
- 20:47:46 [wendy]
- however, there are things the tool has complete control over and there are things the tool gives choices to the author.
- 20:47:57 [wendy]
- ack loretta
- 20:48:16 [wendy]
- important that wcag not specify how the content be created but what needs to be created.
- 20:51:16 [wendy]
- whatever path that someone takes to add alt attribute, it doesn't matter. all that matters is that they have done it. i.e., wcag should not insist on how done. wcag shuld focus on outcome not process.
- 20:53:50 [wendy]
- encourage wcag wg to read atag
- 20:54:01 [wendy]
- atag covers evaluation and repair.
- 20:54:23 [wendy]
- don't tell developers how tool should conform, but have checkpoints that ask the tool to do the things that are needed.
- 20:54:51 [wendy]
- if you are using absolute rather than relative, the tool should say "use relative.
- 20:55:00 [wendy]
- then the tool has evaluation capabilities as well
- 20:55:06 [wendy]
- then tool can do whatever wants
- 20:55:28 [wendy]
- atag says: the accessible choice should be the easiest to do.
- 20:55:50 [wendy]
- anything that the tool does itself, the tool should do the accessible thing.
- 20:56:00 [wendy]
- if author given a choic,e give the autohr the accessible choice first. make it easy.
- 20:56:11 [wendy]
- if author still chooses to do the inaccessible thing, nothing we can do.
- 20:56:17 [wendy]
- it is the author's choice.
- 20:56:46 [wendy]
- auwg would like to request that wcag gives an atag profile in wcag.
- 20:57:09 [wendy]
- an authoring tool that is atag compliant will have a great effect on wcag proliferation.
- 20:57:26 [rscano]
- what about CMS (authoring tools embedded as object inside the page) ?
- 20:57:30 [wendy]
- thus, if wcag promotes atag, it will promote more accessible authoring tools which will promote a more accessible web.
- 20:57:51 [wendy]
- thus, good to mention w/in wcag atag conformance.
- 20:58:21 [wendy]
- (not asking for an atag profile, but raise the profile of atag in wcag)
- 20:58:26 [wendy]
- q?
- 20:58:28 [wendy]
- ack sailesh
- 20:59:50 [wendy]
- joint techniques document between AUWG and WCAG WG that is "web applications that generate content" i..e, the authoring tool is web content itself.
- 21:00:44 [rscano]
- CMS techniques for WCAG?
- 21:01:17 [wendy]
- ack John
- 21:01:36 [wendy]
- agreement that a techniques document would be useful.
- 21:01:51 [wendy]
- ===
- 21:01:57 [wendy]
- suitability of using w3c recommendations
- 21:07:53 [wendy]
- summary: wcag will produce techniques docs for w3c technologies.
- 21:08:01 [JR]
- q+ JR
- 21:10:04 [wendy]
- ideally, point to xag, but not a rec. thus, use technologies that have accessibility features and use the accessibility features.
- 21:10:18 [wendy]
- summarize basic points of xag and point to as informaitve reference.
- 21:10:29 [wendy]
- however, only addresses xml apps. not general technologies.
- 21:11:11 [wendy]
- JR - can you record the resolution that you just stated?
- 21:11:15 [wendy]
- (record it here, please)
- 21:12:26 [wendy]
- jan - can you record the resolution that you just stated?
- 21:12:40 [JR]
- ok...
- 21:12:42 [wendy]
- thx
- 21:13:27 [wendy]
- in earlier part of discussion, time spent talking about testing and verification.
- 21:13:32 [wendy]
- thus, testing part of adherence to guidelines.
- 21:13:44 [wendy]
- in subjective criteria, assemble panel of experts.
- 21:14:07 [wendy]
- if adobe and macromedia publish something, wouldn't they also have to provide ability to verify through testing that an accessible result was achieved?
- 21:14:17 [JR]
- A tool could claim ATAG conformance if for the format(s) it produces, it also publishes in public a WCAG Techniques document for that format.
- 21:16:13 [Zakim]
- -[IBM].a
- 21:18:23 [wendy]
- wcag doesn't plan to have a test suite/techniques for every technology. wcag wg will only create technology-specific documentation for w3c technologies that are most widely used.
- 21:18:33 [wendy]
- it is up to other entities to create techniques for their technologies.
- 21:18:50 [wendy]
- however, idea of a "xag" test suite seems to be hinted at. i.e., how do you determine that a format is accessible?
- 21:19:05 [wendy]
- ack JR
- 21:19:08 [wendy]
- ack Loretta
- 21:19:15 [wendy]
- ack [IBM]
- 21:19:43 [wendy]
- WCAG needs to publish the criteria for a company to follow if they plan to publish a checklist
- 21:19:50 [wendy]
- q+ to say criteria for techniques
- 21:19:56 [wendy]
- they have to say that it is testable
- 21:20:13 [wendy]
- thus, wcag is following an agreed to process to say these criteria have to be testable to be success criteria.
- 21:22:06 [wendy]
- dtd is necessary but not sufficient. are techniques verifiable?
- 21:22:25 [wendy]
- like a requirments document for tech-specific checklists?
- 21:23:26 [wendy]
- add to our issues list.
- 21:23:31 [wendy]
- will help atag. a
- 21:23:39 [wendy]
- also help in standards harmonization.
- 21:25:30 [wendy]
- action: wendy follow-up with auwg about documentation for "if you want to create a techniques document..."
- 21:25:33 [wendy]
- q-
- 21:25:45 [wendy]
- ===
- 21:25:51 [wendy]
- develop and reuse of test suites
- 21:27:21 [wendy]
- to talk about test suites: have another joint call between wcag techinques task force, auwg, uawg and qawg?
- 21:27:29 [wendy]
- create a x-group workgroup
- 21:27:30 [wendy]
- ?
- 21:27:37 [Zakim]
- -Sailesh_Panchang
- 21:27:41 [wendy]
- take this to CG?
- 21:28:25 [wendy]
- yes, CG could create a task force of participants from multiple groups.
- 21:28:37 [wendy]
- action: JW, GV, JT take idea of x-group task force to CG
- 21:30:58 [Zakim]
- -Kerstin
- 21:31:03 [Zakim]
- -Greg_Pisocky
- 21:31:04 [Zakim]
- -matt-and-wendy
- 21:31:04 [Zakim]
- -Loretta_Guarino_Reid
- 21:31:05 [Zakim]
- -John_Slatin
- 21:31:06 [Zakim]
- -Doyle_Burnett
- 21:31:07 [Zakim]
- -Dave_MacDonald
- 21:31:07 [Zakim]
- -Gregg
- 21:31:08 [Zakim]
- -[IBM]
- 21:31:10 [Zakim]
- -Jutta
- 21:31:12 [Zakim]
- -Roberto_Scano
- 21:31:14 [Zakim]
- -Bengt_Farre
- 21:31:17 [Zakim]
- -Karen_Mardahl
- 21:31:17 [rellero]
- bye
- 21:31:21 [bengt]
- bye
- 21:31:23 [Zakim]
- -Jan_Richards
- 21:31:25 [bengt]
- bengt has left #au
- 21:31:31 [rscano]
- bye!
- 21:31:40 [rscano]
- rscano has left #au
- 21:32:17 [mvittoria]
- bye
- 21:32:27 [mvittoria]
- mvittoria has left #au
- 21:33:16 [Zakim]
- -JasonWhite
- 21:33:17 [Zakim]
- WAI_AUWG(wcag)4:00PM has ended
- 22:02:09 [GVAN]
- GVAN has left #au