IRC log of au on 2004-02-09
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 20:51:07 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #au
- 20:51:12 [m3mSEA]
- zakim, this will be wai_auwg
- 20:51:12 [Zakim]
- ok, m3mSEA; I see WAI_AUWG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
- 20:56:38 [Zakim]
- WAI_AUWG()4:00PM has now started
- 20:56:45 [Zakim]
- +[IBM]
- 20:59:18 [m3mSEA]
- zakim, call matt-bos
- 20:59:18 [Zakim]
- I am sorry, m3mSEA; I don't have the necessary resources to dial out right now
- 20:59:27 [m3mSEA]
- zakim, call matt-bos
- 20:59:27 [Zakim]
- I am sorry, m3mSEA; I don't have the necessary resources to dial out right now
- 20:59:41 [Zakim]
- +Matt
- 20:59:42 [Zakim]
- +??P1
- 20:59:59 [m3mSEA]
- zakim, ??P1 is Karen
- 20:59:59 [Zakim]
- +Karen; got it
- 21:00:03 [Zakim]
- +[IBM.a]
- 21:00:18 [m3mSEA]
- zakim, [IBM] is Barry
- 21:00:18 [Zakim]
- +Barry; got it
- 21:00:28 [m3mSEA]
- zakim, [IBM.a] is Kip
- 21:00:28 [Zakim]
- +Kip; got it
- 21:01:27 [Zakim]
- +Treviranus
- 21:03:34 [Zakim]
- +Greg_Pisocky
- 21:05:56 [m3mSEA]
- agenda+ Proposed new definitions
- 21:06:08 [m3mSEA]
- agenda+ Remaining open issues
- 21:06:17 [m3mSEA]
- agenda+ Further guideline prep for TR
- 21:06:22 [m3mSEA]
- agenda+ charter revisions
- 21:06:26 [m3mSEA]
- zakim, who's here?
- 21:06:26 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Barry, Matt, Karen, Kip, Treviranus, Greg_Pisocky
- 21:06:27 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, m3mSEA
- 21:06:58 [m3mSEA]
- regrets: Tim Boland
- 21:08:08 [m3mSEA]
- zakim, take up agendum 1
- 21:08:09 [Zakim]
- agendum 1. "Proposed new definitions" taken up [from m3mSEA]
- 21:08:23 [m3mSEA]
- jt: Has everyone followed the definitions on the list?
- 21:09:51 [m3mSEA]
- km: list of definitions:
- 21:09:58 [m3mSEA]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JanMar/0051.html
- 21:10:51 [m3mSEA]
- jr: Accessibility Problem, Accessible Content, etc. all have to hang together.
- 21:11:18 [m3mSEA]
- jt: You're proposing that the msg sent by Jan on Sunday should be the ones?
- 21:11:44 [m3mSEA]
- km: Yes, through "accessible authoring tool interface"
- 21:12:03 [m3mSEA]
- http://www.w3.org/mid/1076256021.40265d1535c0d@webmail.utoronto.ca
- 21:12:37 [m3mSEA]
- s/authoring tool interface/authoring practice/
- 21:12:56 [m3mSEA]
- km: "Accessible web content" and "accessible AU interface" are cyclical.
- 21:13:21 [m3mSEA]
- jt: Equivalent alternative information...
- 21:13:31 [m3mSEA]
- jr: There's equivalent and there's alternative. Two different things.
- 21:13:50 [m3mSEA]
- jr: Someone had an issue with referencing disability in terms of accessibility.
- 21:14:37 [m3mSEA]
- jr: Jon Hanna brings up the issue that accessibility may not mean just to disability.
- 21:14:47 [m3mSEA]
- mm: But that's out of scope for WAI's definition of accessibility.
- 21:15:20 [m3mSEA]
- The World Wide Web Consortium's (W3C) commitment to lead the Web to its full potential includes promoting a high degree of usability for people with disabilities.
- 21:15:49 [m3mSEA]
- jt: Jon supports making it clear that this is explicitly so.
- 21:16:54 [m3mSEA]
- jt: In the staged approach, you'd refer back to WCAG for "accessibility problem"?
- 21:16:57 [m3mSEA]
- jr: Yes.
- 21:17:14 [m3mSEA]
- km: You define accessible Web content as Web content without accessibility problems.
- 21:17:41 [m3mSEA]
- jr: WCAG specifically says Web content.
- 21:18:10 [m3mSEA]
- km: So, change accessible content to accessible Web content?
- 21:18:22 [m3mSEA]
- jr: I don't mind removing the word Web.
- 21:18:30 [m3mSEA]
- jt: Karen is proposing we keep it.
- 21:19:24 [m3mSEA]
- jt: Agreed to replace accessible content with accessible Web content and removing def. for accessible content?
- 21:22:19 [m3mSEA]
- jt: Thoughts on the term accessibility?
- 21:22:25 [m3mSEA]
- jr: I'm fine with what's there.
- 21:23:44 [m3mSEA]
- ACCESSIBILITY (some of the old text could go in the introduction)
- 21:23:45 [m3mSEA]
- Within these guidelines, the concept of accessibility has two senses:
- 21:23:45 [m3mSEA]
- - *accessible web content* refers to the content produced by tools being
- 21:23:45 [m3mSEA]
- accessible by people regardless of disability, and
- 21:23:45 [m3mSEA]
- - "accessible authoring tool interface" refers to the tools, themselves, being
- 21:23:45 [m3mSEA]
- accessible by people regardless of disability.
- 21:26:01 [m3mSEA]
- jt: How do we handle this between ATAG and WCAG?
- 21:26:09 [m3mSEA]
- km: I think this can go in Accessibility Problem.
- 21:26:19 [m3mSEA]
- jr: I think this goes into the Note on how ATAG and WCAG go together.
- 21:26:39 [m3mSEA]
- km: From ATAG References to WCAG?
- 21:26:41 [m3mSEA]
- jr: Yes.
- 21:26:49 [m3mSEA]
- jt: Does that make it clearer?
- 21:27:29 [m3mSEA]
- jr: That talks about our relative priority checkpoints.
- 21:29:08 [m3mSEA]
- jt: Other proposed definitions?
- 21:29:18 [m3mSEA]
- jr: We then have terms that we're still working on.
- 21:29:37 [m3mSEA]
- jr: There's new work being done further down.
- 21:30:07 [m3mSEA]
- jr: Applicable WCAG Requirements:
- 21:30:16 [m3mSEA]
- JR: Those WCAG checkpoints that could reasonably to applied to the web content
- 21:30:16 [m3mSEA]
- produced by an authoring tool. A WCAG checkpoint is "not applicable" only if
- 21:30:16 [m3mSEA]
- the authoring tool lacks the capability to produce content that could fail the
- 21:30:16 [m3mSEA]
- checkpoint. However, the inability of an authoring tool to pass a checkpoint
- 21:30:16 [m3mSEA]
- does not make the checkpoint "not applicable".
- 21:30:50 [m3mSEA]
- jr: So if you have a checkpoint that couldn't possibly fail, then it's n/a. But if it couldn't add alt text, that's not enough to say n/a.
- 21:31:53 [m3mSEA]
- jr: I think it's important to say "if you can fail it, then you can't claim n/a"
- 21:31:59 [m3mSEA]
- km: Agree.
- 21:33:05 [m3mSEA]
- jr: Authoring Tool Interface:
- 21:33:22 [m3mSEA]
- originally: The means by which an authoring tool is operated by an author.
- 21:33:31 [m3mSEA]
- new: The means by which an author operates an authoring tool and receives
- 21:33:31 [m3mSEA]
- information on the state of the tool.
- 21:33:51 [m3mSEA]
- km: Unsure if state covers everything.
- 21:33:58 [m3mSEA]
- jt: More like communication.
- 21:34:33 [m3mSEA]
- jr: Volunteers?
- 21:34:55 [m3mSEA]
- km: I can try to see if I can convey something more than state.
- 21:35:36 [m3mSEA]
- action: jutta work on definition of Authoring Tool Interface (state)
- 21:35:50 [m3mSEA]
- jr: Checking:
- 21:36:08 [m3mSEA]
- was: The process by which web content is searched for accessibility problems.
- 21:36:26 [m3mSEA]
- new: (includes "check for") The process by which web content is searched for accessibility problems. This
- 21:36:26 [m3mSEA]
- applies to searches performed automatically or with assistance from the
- 21:36:26 [m3mSEA]
- author. The search may be performed at specific times or be performed on an
- 21:36:26 [m3mSEA]
- continuous basis as Web content is modified. For more information on checking,
- 21:36:26 [m3mSEA]
- see ATAG checkpoint 3.2.
- 21:37:17 [m3mSEA]
- gp: Would using "search" in other areas of accessibility affect this? Is it really a search process? Scan?
- 21:37:28 [m3mSEA]
- jr: I could go with scan.
- 21:38:18 [m3mSEA]
- mm: "Evaluated" goes with W3C terminology.
- 21:39:00 [m3mSEA]
- jr: The process by which web content is evaluated for accessibility problems. This applies to evaluations performed automatically...
- 21:39:05 [m3mSEA]
- [agreed]
- 21:39:33 [m3mSEA]
- jr: Check for would go away:
- 21:40:31 [m3mSEA]
- "as used in 4.1, check for can refer to 3 types of checking: 1) automatically (validity, testing content of a link); 2) Needing help from the author; 3) Must rely mostly on the author and can only ask the author to check.
- 21:40:33 [m3mSEA]
- "
- 21:40:54 [m3mSEA]
- jr: This includes a lot of junk that doesn't belong here.
- 21:41:51 [m3mSEA]
- km: I'm okay with deleting "check for"
- 21:41:59 [m3mSEA]
- mm: Is there anything that can go anywhere else?
- 21:42:10 [m3mSEA]
- jr: It's already there. There's nothing here that needs to be there.
- 21:42:23 [m3mSEA]
- km: I'll check the techniques to see if anything is lost.
- 21:42:32 [m3mSEA]
- jr: Repairing:
- 21:42:40 [m3mSEA]
- The process by which web content, identified as an accessibility problem,
- 21:42:40 [m3mSEA]
- is modified (corrected, completed, or deleted) so that no accessibility
- 21:42:40 [m3mSEA]
- problem remains.
- 21:42:56 [m3mSEA]
- new: The process by which Web content is modified to solve accessibility
- 21:42:56 [m3mSEA]
- problems. This applies to modifications performed automatically or with
- 21:42:56 [m3mSEA]
- assistance from the author. For more information on repairing, see ATAG
- 21:42:56 [m3mSEA]
- checkpoint 3.3.
- 21:44:24 [m3mSEA]
- jt: "Repairing"
- 21:44:28 [m3mSEA]
- jr: ok.
- 21:44:33 [m3mSEA]
- jr: Workflow:
- 21:45:16 [m3mSEA]
- jt: My thoughts on this is that since we're defining workflow, most of my comments are in how we're using the term. I would propose changing the wording a bit.
- 21:45:27 [m3mSEA]
- jr: "familiar or customary sequence of steps"
- 21:46:02 [m3mSEA]
- km: I like customary.
- 21:46:56 [m3mSEA]
- jr: Agreed, using "customary" instead of "required"?
- 21:46:59 [m3mSEA]
- [agreed]
- 21:47:04 [m3mSEA]
- jr: That's all of 'em.
- 21:47:06 [m3mSEA]
- agenda?
- 21:47:17 [m3mSEA]
- zakim, next agendum
- 21:47:17 [Zakim]
- agendum 2. "Remaining open issues" taken up [from m3mSEA]
- 21:47:54 [m3mSEA]
- jt: Concept of a usability study override
- 21:48:02 [m3mSEA]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/issues.html
- 21:49:10 [m3mSEA]
- jt: Concept was to allow someone who thought of a better way and could run a real usability study could use that to make a claim. We haven't decided as a group whether this is a good or bad thing.
- 21:51:19 [m3mSEA]
- mm: I'm worried that this is a loophole. Might be better to allow a manual override that we could approve.
- 21:52:16 [m3mSEA]
- jr: If we had a number of questions, would there be an issue if we handled MS first, etc.? What if we wind down the group?
- 21:52:27 [m3mSEA]
- jr: Is there an ISO standard for usability standards?
- 21:53:01 [m3mSEA]
- gp: There's an ISO 9241: Usability metrics.
- 21:55:52 [m3mSEA]
- km: Is the whole idea superfluous?
- 21:56:20 [m3mSEA]
- jt: This came from developer members of the group, who felt we couldn't come up with rules that were as good as theirs.
- 21:59:36 [m3mSEA]
- mm: I don't know where we can draw a line for this.
- 22:00:02 [m3mSEA]
- jt: We have objective measures in success criteria, but it's hard to have all cases in there.
- 22:00:20 [m3mSEA]
- mm: Also hard to ensure that all usability tests will cover everything.
- 22:02:08 [m3mSEA]
- zakim, close this agendum
- 22:02:08 [Zakim]
- agendum 2 closed
- 22:02:09 [Zakim]
- I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
- 22:02:10 [Zakim]
- 3. Further guideline prep for TR [from m3mSEA]
- 22:02:11 [m3mSEA]
- zakim, take up agendum 4
- 22:02:11 [Zakim]
- agendum 4. "charter revisions" taken up [from m3mSEA]
- 22:03:24 [m3mSEA]
- mm: I'll put out a new draft charter today or tomorrow.
- 22:03:40 [m3mSEA]
- action mm: New charter draft
- 22:04:51 [Zakim]
- -Barry
- 22:04:54 [Zakim]
- -Greg_Pisocky
- 22:04:55 [Zakim]
- -Treviranus
- 22:04:56 [Zakim]
- -Matt
- 22:04:57 [Zakim]
- -Kip
- 22:04:57 [Zakim]
- -Karen
- 22:04:58 [Zakim]
- WAI_AUWG()4:00PM has ended
- 22:04:59 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Matt, Karen, Barry, Kip, Treviranus, Greg_Pisocky
- 22:05:03 [m3mSEA]
- zakim, bye
- 22:05:03 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #au
- 22:05:06 [m3mSEA]
- rrsagent, bye
- 22:05:06 [RRSAgent]
- I see 2 open action items:
- 22:05:06 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: jutta work on definition of Authoring Tool Interface (state) [1]
- 22:05:06 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/02/09-au-irc#T21-35-36
- 22:05:06 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: mm to New charter draft [2]
- 22:05:06 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/02/09-au-irc#T22-03-40