See also: IRC log
JS summarizes issues and goals for today.
mc: no techniques discussion at F2F. only
updates to css, html, and scripting techniques for this publication is to
update links to 30 june draft and a blurb that no major changes since
november.
... hoping that guidelines/success criteria will settle/stabalize and focus
of WCAG WG will turn to techniques
resolution: publish css, html, and scripting techniques with updates to abstract/status and updated links to guidelines/success criteria
(comments made previously are in our issues list. no need to resubmit comments)
results - http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/misc0621/results
discussion about proposal for caption and/or transcript at level 1
<scribe> ACTION: michael suggest editorial note for captions and/or transcript at level 1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/23-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
resolution: keep captions at level 1
concern that there are no examples of multimedia with audio descriptions in Japan. There is TV but not multimedia on the Web.
concern about lack of knowledge
concern about skill required to write audio descriptions (art form)
concern that too complex for level 1
concern that some people find the audio descriptions confusing and would need a way to turn them off.
concern addressed by a technique for providing multiple versions
some multimedia requires audio descriptions, vs most multimedia requires captions
concern that definition of audio description needs to include information that listening to the AD is optional. Counter that don't want to add to every definition that viewing or experiencing the info is possible and should be handled in techniques.
resolution: keep audio description at level 1. tweak editorial note that policy would describe scoping.
concern that taking specificity out opens up the guideline to say "you must do x, but we won't tell you x"
concern if don't specify which standards there will be fragmentation
rationle for removing - those that had been included were computer screen adaptation created with Graham Harding. Some of those guidelines/standards are being revised plus an attempt to create an international standard.
further, if we engrained numbers in our guidelines and the international standards came out with different numbers, there would be a conflict.
options:
option 1: proposed wording
option 2: current
optiion 3: current w/possibility to publish updated rec
option 4: current wording with clause that national or international standards prevail
options 1 and 4 had some support, 2 and 3 did not have any support
resolution: keep current wording for Guideline 2.3 and add a clause that national or international standards prevail
<scribe> ACTION: gregg propose clause for guideline 2.3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/23-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]
concern that this is a problem for web applications
concern about how you apply to voicexml
resolution: keep current wording for Guideline 2.4 Level 2SC1 w/ednote about concern about applying to web applications
Guideline 2.4 level 3 SC1: When a page or other delivery unit is navigated sequentially, elements receive focus in an order that follows relationships and sequences in the content.
concern about rationale for moving. response that it is critical for successful navigation and meets our defn of level 1.
need to test css layouts and tab order and that this might be a wcag 1.0-esque "layout table" issue
concern that have seen tab order and dom order not the same and issue.
concern that if people can choose their own order they'll get confused
several people can't live with it at level 1, uncertainty about level 2, everyone can live with at level 3
resolution: leave Guideline 2.4 Level 3 SC1 at Level 3
resolution: adopt proposed wording for Guideline 4.2 Level 1 multiple criterion to replace current level 1 success criterion 2
resolution: leave Guideline 4.2 L2 SC1 where it is and write editorial note
<scribe> ACTION: John write an editorial note for Guideline 4.2 Level 2SC1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/23-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action03]
Resolution: Proposed wording for guideline 4.2 new Level 3 SC1:adopted
summary: the 3 top options (1) 3 levels (2) 2 levels everything in 3 to advisory (3) 3 level with 3rd divided
a few people can't live with 3 levels
a bunch can't live with 2nd option
a bunch can't live with 3rd option
concerns that were getting into policy when we specify conformance in verticle segments, let governments to that
Discussion about meaning of consensus, W3C process, and how to acknowledge dissent.
<wendy> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/policies.html#Consensus
resolution: there is a decision to stay with 3 levels with dissent
<ben> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0932.html
bc: wanted clarification on 1.3 Level 3 critierion, we resolved to move from 3.2 to 1.3, question o we need a sc under gl 1.3 or is it covered
jc: with css layouts it is not immediately obvious of the reading order, and sometimes not an issue
Resolution: unanimous consent to accept the f2f resolutons for GL and SC under Principle 1
<ben> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0936.html
bc: want to make sure we open up ambiguous wording I proposed 2 options Level 1 SC2 , L2 Sc1
Discussion about the intent of the guideline and how to best state it.
resolution:adopt the following for guideline 1.3 L1 SC2 "When information is conveyed by color, the color can be programmatically determined or the information is also conveyed through another means that does not depend on the user's ability to differentiate colors."
resolution: GL 1.3 L2 SC 2 - move example to "examples" or guide document.
<ben> When information is conveyed by color, the color information is also conveyed through another means that does not depend on the user's ability to differentiate colors without the use of assistive technologies.
resolution: GL 1.3 L2 SC 2 - accept Ben's
proposal: "When information is conveyed by color, the color information is
also conveyed through another means that does not depend on the user's
ability to differentiate colors without the use of assistive technologies."
with the provision that the editors have permission to clean up the wording
but not change the intent.
... proposed wording for all guidelines and success criteria in 2.x are
accepted
... proposed wording for all guidelines and success criteria under principle
3 are accepted for this draft
Discussion about various approaches to take with Guideline 4.1. Use current wording with an editorial note that we are considering moving it to level 2? Is it easier/better to move it from L1 to L2 or L2 to L1 between now and Last Call? Replace all of the criterion with a short ednote that links to a separate page that covers the issue in depth?
Concern that need more time to discuss issue within W3C.
Acknowledgement that well-formedness doesn't apply to SGML and a proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0841.html
resolution: leave all of the SC out of GL 4.1 and have an ed note stating the problem and pointing people to an external page describing the problem in more detail along with our current proposals. Ed note will invite comment and comments can be added to the "problem/proposal" page.
<scribe> ACTION: Wendy to create the external page describing the problem and the proposals for GL 4.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/23-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action04]
resolution: include John's new introduction in June 30th draft
<wendy> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2005/06/checklist-proto.html
resolution: publish the first public working draft of the WCAG 2.0 checklist
<wendy> previously published general techniqeus: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-GENERAL-20041119/
<wendy> john's 4 may proposals for guideline 3.1 guide docs: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0368.html
resolution: For June 30th draft, publish General Techniques as a non-consensus document.
<wendy> (includes john's 3.1 proposals and adaptations of previously published general techniques into new guide format
discussion about length of time to allow for review - usually give 30 days but this is holiday season for many - should we give more time?
more time jeapordizes our ability to get to Last Call in September
<wendy> ACTION: everyone who did an issue summary/guideline proposal send a list of how the accepted wording closes the issues for that guideline as well as which issues are still open. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/23-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action05]
<scribe> ACTION: Gregg to send proposed form for comment submission to editors [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/23-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action06]
if comments are received in a standard format, Gregg has an admin who can be trained to enter them into Bugzilla
resolution: W3C staff will work with W3C management to ensure "status" on checklist is correct.