IRC log of wai-wcag on 2003-12-03
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:00:45 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
- 15:00:46 [sh1mmer]
- zakim, who's making noise
- 15:00:46 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'who's making noise', sh1mmer
- 15:00:47 [MichaelC]
- zakim, micheal is Michael
- 15:00:47 [Zakim]
- +Michael; got it
- 15:00:56 [MichaelC]
- zakim, I am Michael
- 15:00:56 [Zakim]
- ok, MichaelC, I now associate you with Michael
- 15:01:38 [sh1mmer]
- zakim, I am Tom
- 15:01:38 [Zakim]
- ok, sh1mmer, I now associate you with Tom
- 15:01:39 [Zakim]
- +Chris_Ridpath
- 15:02:29 [Zakim]
- +David_D
- 15:02:42 [ChrisR]
- ChrisR has joined #wai-wcag
- 15:03:13 [Zakim]
- +Wendy
- 15:03:29 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 15:03:29 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Michael, Tom, ??P8, Chris_Ridpath, David_D, Wendy
- 15:03:49 [sh1mmer]
- zakim, ??P8 is Janea
- 15:03:49 [Zakim]
- +Janea; got it
- 15:03:56 [Zakim]
- +??P24
- 15:04:09 [sh1mmer]
- zakim, Janea is Janae
- 15:04:09 [Zakim]
- +Janae; got it
- 15:04:12 [wendy]
- jenae
- 15:04:19 [sh1mmer]
- oh man
- 15:04:21 [sh1mmer]
- i cant spell
- 15:04:53 [sh1mmer]
- zakim, Janae is Jenae
- 15:04:53 [Zakim]
- +Jenae; got it
- 15:05:51 [ben]
- ben has joined #wai-wcag
- 15:06:02 [MichaelC]
- zakim, mute me
- 15:06:02 [Zakim]
- Michael should now be muted
- 15:06:19 [wendy]
- zakim, who's muted?
- 15:06:19 [Zakim]
- I see Michael muted
- 15:06:23 [sh1mmer]
- am i muted?
- 15:06:27 [sh1mmer]
- im talking
- 15:06:29 [MichaelC]
- yes
- 15:06:44 [sh1mmer]
- zakim, Michael is Tom
- 15:06:44 [Zakim]
- +Tom; got it
- 15:06:44 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 15:06:45 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Tom.a (muted), Tom, Jenae, Chris_Ridpath, David_D, Wendy, ??P24
- 15:06:58 [ben]
- zakim, ??P24 is Ben
- 15:06:58 [Zakim]
- +Ben; got it
- 15:07:04 [ben]
- zakim, I am Ben
- 15:07:04 [Zakim]
- ok, ben, I now associate you with Ben
- 15:07:18 [sh1mmer]
- zakim, Tom.a is Michael
- 15:07:18 [Zakim]
- +Michael; got it
- 15:07:28 [sh1mmer]
- zakim, I am Tom
- 15:07:28 [Zakim]
- ok, sh1mmer, I now associate you with Tom
- 15:07:30 [MichaelC]
- zakim, mute me
- 15:07:30 [Zakim]
- Michael was already muted, MichaelC
- 15:07:34 [sh1mmer]
- zakim, mute Michael
- 15:07:34 [Zakim]
- Michael was already muted, sh1mmer
- 15:07:42 [sh1mmer]
- talking
- 15:07:42 [MichaelC]
- zakim, unmute me
- 15:07:42 [Zakim]
- Michael should no longer be muted
- 15:07:52 [MichaelC]
- zakim, I am Michael
- 15:07:52 [Zakim]
- ok, MichaelC, I now associate you with Michael
- 15:07:57 [MichaelC]
- zakim, mute me
- 15:07:57 [Zakim]
- Michael should now be muted
- 15:08:07 [sh1mmer]
- zakim, who's on the phone
- 15:08:07 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'who's on the phone', sh1mmer
- 15:08:10 [MichaelC]
- zakim, unmute me
- 15:08:10 [Zakim]
- Michael should no longer be muted
- 15:09:23 [sh1mmer]
- zakim, mute Tom
- 15:09:23 [Zakim]
- Tom should now be muted
- 15:09:32 [MichaelC]
- ok
- 15:09:48 [MichaelC]
- I'll come back in 5 minutes, by IRC if not by phone
- 15:09:53 [Zakim]
- -Tom
- 15:09:53 [sh1mmer]
- ok
- 15:09:59 [sh1mmer]
- zakim, Michael is Tom
- 15:09:59 [Zakim]
- +Tom; got it
- 15:10:04 [sh1mmer]
- zakim, I am Tom
- 15:10:04 [Zakim]
- ok, sh1mmer, I now associate you with Tom
- 15:10:15 [wendy]
- the validator now runs several of the checks.
- 15:10:32 [wendy]
- chris has been looking at information about testing for color.
- 15:10:51 [wendy]
- jenae has been reviewing the QA documents.
- 15:11:17 [wendy]
- we're probably most interested in test guidelines.
- 15:11:37 [wendy]
- there are 7 documents. intro, operational guidelines, specification guidelines, test guidelines.
- 15:11:51 [wendy]
- depending on your role, (editing) may want to read spec guidelines.
- 15:11:54 [wendy]
- others may need to read all.
- 15:12:16 [wendy]
- overview of how test guidelines might apply to html techs?
- 15:12:28 [wendy]
- haven't read that one yet.
- 15:12:40 [wendy]
- also have a "qa process document template"
- 15:12:54 [wendy]
- for every doc or the working group?
- 15:15:33 [MichaelC]
- MichaelC has joined #wai-wcag
- 15:15:58 [MichaelC]
- *still not in a room but I'll sit on IRC until I get in one*
- 15:16:33 [wendy]
- wac gives summary of f2f meeting discussion w/karl and olivier (from qa wg and ig)
- 15:17:11 [wendy]
- tom still plans to write client use cases
- 15:17:31 [wendy]
- then can say "this checkpoint" or "this technique" is applicable to x, y, z use case
- 15:17:56 [wendy]
- several layers of testing: atomic test, people review
- 15:18:27 [Zakim]
- +??P9
- 15:18:34 [MichaelC]
- zakim, ??P9 is Michael
- 15:18:34 [Zakim]
- +Michael; got it
- 15:18:37 [MichaelC]
- zakim, I am Michael
- 15:18:37 [Zakim]
- ok, MichaelC, I now associate you with Michael
- 15:18:40 [MichaelC]
- zakim, mute me
- 15:18:40 [Zakim]
- Michael should now be muted
- 15:18:40 [wendy]
- use cases: to justify what we're doing. making sure that what we produce is helping clients.
- 15:18:55 [MichaelC]
- I'm still in the room but it's better to listen
- 15:18:57 [sh1mmer]
- same room?
- 15:19:02 [MichaelC]
- noisy room
- 15:19:54 [wendy]
- Tom attended 2 groups (at EuroAccessibility mtg).
- 15:19:57 [wendy]
- task force 2 and 3.
- 15:20:22 [wendy]
- task force 2: producing atomic tests (similar to what Chris is doing) - granular level, what constitutes compliance to wcag 1.0.
- 15:20:45 [wendy]
- task force 3: developing a methodology to compare tools to the list produced by tf2.
- 15:20:55 [wendy]
- which tools complete which tests.
- 15:21:43 [wendy]
- tf2: alistair garrison is the chair. would like to finish before the end of the year (at least for 1st round).
- 15:22:13 [wendy]
- spent a couple of days talking about the 1st 5 checkpoints and hammering out how to identify a text equivalent.
- 15:22:40 [MichaelC]
- I'm meeting with him tomorrow
- 15:23:06 [MichaelC]
- zakim, unmute me
- 15:23:06 [Zakim]
- Michael should no longer be muted
- 15:25:18 [MichaelC]
- zakim, mute me
- 15:25:18 [Zakim]
- Michael should now be muted
- 15:27:22 [wendy]
- starting from scratch on some of these. many members brought checks with them. took brief look at chris' work.
- 15:28:02 [MichaelC]
- I remember that we were going to create mapping in XML source
- 15:28:10 [wendy]
- looking at html techniques for 1.0, but outdated.
- 15:28:14 [MichaelC]
- to both WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0
- 15:28:29 [wendy]
- way to include 1.0 in 2.0 techniques to help people migrate and to keep them up to date/fresh.
- 15:28:43 [MichaelC]
- zakim, unmute me
- 15:28:43 [Zakim]
- Michael should no longer be muted
- 15:29:04 [wendy]
- we have a checkpoint mapping, add additional mapping to 1.0 checkpoints.
- 15:29:17 [wendy]
- a component but not complete part of migration support.
- 15:29:43 [wendy]
- even if we don't backport the documents, mention somehow that more up-to-date techniqeus are available.
- 15:29:57 [wendy]
- for people who aren't following inner-workings of WG, the documents they will use are 1.0 techniques.
- 15:30:12 [wendy]
- there are some things that have been deprecated, put note in 1.0 document or completely update them.
- 15:30:49 [wendy]
- agreement w/alistair's point about updating 1.0 documents.
- 15:31:16 [wendy]
- even if finish wcag 2.0 by end of summer, becoming part of policy will take a while
- 15:31:34 [wendy]
- swiss law references "the latest guidelines from w3c" - would be great if other countries would do similar.
- 15:31:50 [wendy]
- italians recently passed something, reference 1.0.
- 15:32:07 [wendy]
- many governments are not likely to do what swiss did, because of fears (economic?)
- 15:32:20 [wendy]
- doesn't solve the problem, the latest is a rec and not our working drafts.
- 15:33:19 [MichaelC]
- zakim, mute me
- 15:33:19 [Zakim]
- Michael should now be muted
- 15:34:05 [MichaelC]
- I had looked over the Process document and it is possible to release a "revised recommendation" and I think what we would propose to do falls within the guidelines for that
- 15:34:25 [MichaelC]
- The issue is that it would take some of our attention into that process, rather than WCAG 2.0 development
- 15:38:01 [MichaelC]
- From reading other process documents I think "ended" can mean either stable or just dropped
- 15:38:19 [wendy]
- clarification of use of "note" in new process document.
- 15:38:30 [MichaelC]
- Action item?
- 15:38:33 [wendy]
- describe qualified use of note
- 15:38:42 [MichaelC]
- yes, I think
- 15:39:06 [wendy]
- action: wendy find out if "work has ended" in 7.1.2 means "stabilized" or "discontinued" - and how that applies to our use of WG Notes to publish techniques docs.
- 15:39:19 [MichaelC]
- Euoraccessability concerns
- 15:40:13 [MichaelC]
- I propose for next week we talk about RDF and CSS Techniques
- 15:40:22 [MichaelC]
- Tim Boland and Lisa Seeman just cropped up as interested
- 15:40:59 [wendy]
- action: wendy follow-up on s. african contacts from tom
- 15:41:38 [MichaelC]
- Does that have the cleanups I sent to Ben (and he further cleaned)
- 15:42:35 [MichaelC]
- Just downloaded but haven't installed
- 15:43:00 [MichaelC]
- Is that if there is an embedded XSLT link or somethign?
- 15:44:27 [MichaelC]
- I may have missed while I was off - did we cover everything we wanted to on testing?
- 15:45:00 [MichaelC]
- e.g., QA process, Jenae's review of the HTML techniques, etc.
- 15:45:07 [sh1mmer]
- MichaelC Chris is looking for colour stuff, and Janae said she was reading the QA docs
- 15:45:14 [sh1mmer]
- more when she has read more and made some notes
- 15:45:20 [wendy]
- lisa - would like some help with rdf techniques.
- 15:46:02 [wendy]
- action: tom work with lisa on editing rdf techs.
- 15:46:13 [wendy]
- lisa looking for review, concerned about review of doc.
- 15:46:21 [wendy]
- get charles involved.
- 15:46:24 [MichaelC]
- She was going to post something, not necessarily based on our XML source, on her site this week
- 15:46:28 [MichaelC]
- I just sent her a reminder today
- 15:46:54 [wendy]
- http://www.ubaccess.com/rdf.html
- 15:47:37 [MichaelC]
- Tim joined a couple weeks ago saying he's been allocated time from NIST
- 15:47:44 [MichaelC]
- Just did a review of old CSS techniques
- 15:47:53 [MichaelC]
- I suggested we put that on the agenda for next week
- 15:48:06 [wendy]
- sounds good.
- 15:48:16 [MichaelC]
- Haven't heard confirmation from him that that works but I think it should
- 15:48:29 [wendy]
- ===
- 15:48:31 [wendy]
- gateway techniques
- 15:48:42 [wendy]
- tom has bunch of stuff to put into the doc.
- 15:49:58 [MichaelC]
- In my opinion there was a confusion of script accessibility and UA functionality
- 15:50:14 [MichaelC]
- Scripts used to emulate a UA feature
- 15:50:37 [MichaelC]
- I'm pretty sure they skip them altogether
- 15:50:43 [wendy]
- recent list discussion about scripts. is this scripts techs or gateway? svg? how do screen readers handle disabled forms?
- 15:51:25 [wendy]
- if svg or html require scripting to enable parts of the page, it is going to be inaccessible.
- 15:51:36 [MichaelC]
- This relates to the question of whether script being enabled is mandatory for accessibility
- 15:51:49 [MichaelC]
- WCAG 1 requires page function if script not supported, does/should WCAG 2?
- 15:52:08 [MichaelC]
- Devil's advocate question, but people send me heartfelt opinions on both side
- 15:53:41 [MichaelC]
- zakim, unmute me
- 15:53:41 [Zakim]
- Michael should no longer be muted
- 15:53:49 [wendy]
- what is gateway? need people to talk to to determine where it should go.
- 15:54:16 [wendy]
- css and scripting, always used w/other technologies, thus have self-standing techs docs or chapters w/in other techs?
- 15:54:22 [wendy]
- support of script an accessibility issue?
- 15:54:36 [wendy]
- how essential is the function?
- 15:54:51 [wendy]
- opinion: rollover don't need equivalent.
- 15:55:46 [wendy]
- determine easiest to say "all these things are inaccessible, rest fine." or "these are the only things can do, all else bad"
- 15:56:06 [wendy]
- tease out which get handled in script techs other in gateway.
- 15:57:05 [wendy]
- gateway: script supported by user agent, general info, e.g., "roll-over scripts tend to be ok, if you use disable attributes..."
- 15:57:23 [wendy]
- script techs: the script code that enables form controls, dynamic menus, and specific dos and don'ts
- 15:57:53 [wendy]
- script techs: ECMAScript
- 15:58:16 [MichaelC]
- zakim, mute me
- 15:58:16 [Zakim]
- Michael should now be muted
- 15:58:31 [wendy]
- proposal: if use script to enable parts of a page, make sure that is not disabled by default.
- 15:59:05 [wendy]
- e.g., print icon. sript generates it, only activated by script. if don't have script, don't get it.
- 15:59:20 [MichaelC]
- I think that's an elegant example of avoiding an inaccessibility problem of script
- 15:59:24 [wendy]
- only people who see it have javascript on, thus don't run into issue.
- 15:59:26 [MichaelC]
- since the script doesn't provide essential function
- 16:00:06 [wendy]
- what about web applications? if no script, can't use.
- 16:00:08 [MichaelC]
- those need to be rewritten in serverside javascript or something!
- 16:00:22 [MichaelC]
- shouldn't be all that hard
- 16:01:28 [wendy]
- e.g., unable to use scripts in opera when hard-coded to be ie or moz specific.
- 16:02:27 [MichaelC]
- zakim, unmute me
- 16:02:27 [Zakim]
- Michael should no longer be muted
- 16:03:29 [wendy]
- e.g., web app (windows app ported to html)
- 16:04:11 [wendy]
- if you need that rich function, you will need to find server-side solution.
- 16:04:32 [wendy]
- 2 levels: validation (server-side). interaction.
- 16:04:53 [MichaelC]
- zakim, mute me
- 16:04:54 [Zakim]
- Michael should now be muted
- 16:05:00 [wendy]
- e.g., applying for mortgage. lots of boxes that don't apply.
- 16:05:33 [MichaelC]
- There are going to be various levels of richness and functionality depending on the user's needs
- 16:05:59 [MichaelC]
- There should be the capability of falling back to less rich but still nominally accessible functionality
- 16:08:12 [MichaelC]
- Another approach to the tree control is that it's done as nested lists, using CSS to format as tree and Javascript to provide the functionality. The fallback is that there are regular links that do the annoying refresh or whatever, but it still works
- 16:09:12 [MichaelC]
- zakim, unmute me
- 16:09:12 [Zakim]
- Michael should no longer be muted
- 16:09:17 [wendy]
- concern about legacy systems and how difficult it can be to change.
- 16:10:03 [wendy]
- trade-offs: script failing to function or operation itself as inaccessible.
- 16:11:17 [wendy]
- still examples of browsers where scripts don't function. how do we address that today?
- 16:11:44 [wendy]
- in 1.0, proper decision to say sites must work w/out scripts. what do today?
- 16:11:50 [wendy]
- have to do the research.
- 16:12:10 [wendy]
- how many people using browsers that dn't support scripting?
- 16:12:24 [wendy]
- unattainable data?
- 16:12:50 [wendy]
- logs know in theory if browser supports, but what about peple who have disabled it?
- 16:13:20 [wendy]
- is a way to test, but people would have to hit that site.
- 16:13:40 [MichaelC]
- zakim, mute me
- 16:13:40 [Zakim]
- Michael should now be muted
- 16:15:17 [MichaelC]
- This sounds like the Web4All project
- 16:15:25 [MichaelC]
- Chris, do you know more than I do about that?
- 16:16:35 [wendy]
- tom will have some people who can test browsers and asst. techs.
- 16:16:59 [wendy]
- suggestion to add a component to the techniques product to keep track of tests that need to be done?
- 16:17:03 [MichaelC]
- Students testing Web pages
- 16:17:35 [wendy]
- web4all: people have a card, approach system, it will be set up for them as needed. e.g., onscreen keyboard.
- 16:17:42 [MichaelC]
- Maybe that's a subproject of what Chris is describing
- 16:17:56 [MichaelC]
- -didn't mean to distract-
- 16:18:29 [wendy]
- have tested w/real users.
- 16:19:25 [wendy]
- action: chris will look into who is available for testing (at atrc)
- 16:19:56 [wendy]
- need a list of user agent and asst tech combos that work for a certain number of techniques?
- 16:20:12 [wendy]
- when test for at and browser, ther eis an infinite number of combos, versions, platforms, etc.
- 16:20:25 [wendy]
- do we have a core list of uas that we want to be sure that the techniqeus work with?
- 16:20:44 [wendy]
- i.e., for it to be included, a technique must work with x,y,z browser and/or at/ua combo.
- 16:21:22 [wendy]
- lowest common denominator to test with?
- 16:21:59 [wendy]
- come up w/a list of things that people have?
- 16:22:38 [MichaelC]
- What specifically are we testing?
- 16:24:06 [wendy]
- name s/w, version, platform, manufacturer, hardware configuration (braille/audio, laptop/desktop, sound card, system, os, etc.)
- 16:24:30 [wendy]
- ben has been keeping track.
- 16:25:39 [MichaelC]
- The noise has gone up so I'm missing things now, apologize if I ask dumb questions
- 16:25:48 [MichaelC]
- Are we trying to inventory tools that exist?
- 16:25:58 [MichaelC]
- Are we inventorying feature sets that exist?
- 16:26:11 [wendy]
- yes, inventorying tools that people have and are able to use to test.
- 16:26:30 [MichaelC]
- To test implementations of techniques
- 16:26:43 [MichaelC]
- Things like Javascript examples?
- 16:26:53 [MichaelC]
- to see what happens?
- 16:29:10 [MichaelC]
- Appropos to script testing, where this started, there are also differences if you use *<javascript language="javascript 1.3">* vs. *<javascript>* using 1.3 features (for example)
- 16:29:13 [wendy]
- interesting to see what list of tools we come up with. concern that the only tools we'll come up with (at this time) will be english-based. will need to find other testers
- 16:30:16 [wendy]
- met some potential testers while in japan - possibly a way to get people involved and bridge communicaiton./
- 16:32:28 [sh1mmer]
- MichaelC can i have a word after?
- 16:32:43 [MichaelC]
- sure
- 16:32:48 [sh1mmer]
- or i can call you since you are in london now
- 16:32:59 [wendy]
- action: ben set up form to collect info about tools for testing (and gather volunteers to test)
- 16:33:10 [MichaelC]
- thanks - see you next week
- 16:33:13 [Zakim]
- -Chris_Ridpath
- 16:33:14 [Zakim]
- -Jenae
- 16:33:15 [Zakim]
- -Ben
- 16:33:15 [Zakim]
- -David_D
- 16:33:16 [wendy]
- zakim, bye
- 16:33:16 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #wai-wcag
- 16:33:24 [MichaelC]
- zakim, unmute me
- 16:33:27 [wendy]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 16:33:27 [RRSAgent]
- I see 5 open action items:
- 16:33:27 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: wendy find out if "work has ended" in 7.1.2 means "stabilized" or "discontinued" - and how that applies to our use of WG Notes to publish techniques docs. [1]
- 16:33:27 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/12/03-wai-wcag-irc#T15-39-06
- 16:33:27 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: wendy follow-up on s. african contacts from tom [2]
- 16:33:27 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/12/03-wai-wcag-irc#T15-40-59
- 16:33:27 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: tom work with lisa on editing rdf techs. [3]
- 16:33:27 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/12/03-wai-wcag-irc#T15-46-02
- 16:33:27 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: chris will look into who is available for testing (at atrc) [4]
- 16:33:27 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/12/03-wai-wcag-irc#T16-19-25
- 16:33:27 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: ben set up form to collect info about tools for testing (and gather volunteers to test) [5]
- 16:33:27 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/12/03-wai-wcag-irc#T16-32-59