W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

[minutes] 28 April 2005 WCAG WG telecon

From: Wendy Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:29:57 -0400
Message-ID: <42718E15.5070002@w3.org>
To: wai-gl <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Minutes available at: <http://www.w3.org/2005/04/28-wai-wcag-minutes.html>

Action items:
[NEW] ACTION: andi rewrite defn of baseline and conformance section
[NEW] ACTION: editors looks into iso rules and referencing
... non-normative documents
[NEW] ACTION: Gregg work with Loretta to rewrite proposed success 
criterion for 1.3
[NEW] ACTION: jason check for definitions for role, state, value
[NEW] ACTION: jason will post proposal to list
[NEW] ACTION: Loretta to collect proposals and comments on 4.2,
... change proposal, and re-post to list on Tuesday, 5/3

   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                            WCAG WG weekly telecon

28 apr 2005

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0265.html

Attendees

   Present
          Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Michael_Cooper, Becky_Gibson,
          Dave_MacDonald, John_Slatin, Wendy, JasonWhite, Gregg, Andi,
          Bengt_Farre, Yvette_Hoitink, Mike_Barta, joeclark

   Regrets
          Sebastiano_Nutarelli, Roberto_Ellero, WATANABE_Takayuki,
          Roberto_Castaldo, Luca_Mascaro, Roberto_Scano,
          Christophe_Strobbe, Ben_Caldwell, Doyle_Burnett, Lisa_Seeman,
          Tim_Boland

   Chair
          John, Gregg

   Scribe
          wendy, andi

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Agenda overview
         2. [5]Techniques Task Force update (Michael, 5 minutes)
         3. [6]4.2 Proposal and summary (Loretta, 25 minutes)
         4. [7]1.1 Proposal and issue summary (Wendy, 25 minutes)
         5. [8]2.4 Proposal and issue summary (Yvette, 25 minutes)
     * [9]Summary of Action Items

     _________________________________________________________________

Agenda overview

   <wendy> js: goes over the agenda

   <wendy> js: there are a lot of proposals to cover. propose that we
   don't discuss examples or benefits because they are informative, thus
   domain of editors (per previous WCAG WG discussion/resolution).

   <wendy> js: if you have comments about examples or benefits, please
   send to list and editors will address on list.

Techniques Task Force update (Michael, 5 minutes)

   minutes from yesterday's telecon:
   [10]http://www.w3.org/2005/04/27-wai-wcag-minutes.html

     [10] http://www.w3.org/2005/04/27-wai-wcag-minutes.html

   mc: we assigned techniques/test cases yesterday to people for 1.1,
   1.3, 2.4, and 4.2
   ... will do issue summary and proposals for all techniqeus and test
   cases that are related.
   ... follow similar process to thursday calls.
   ... by monday will have issue summaries for the first batch.
   ... trying to stay in synch with the guidelines work.

   <Michael>
   [11]http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-wcag2-tech-req-20050426.html

     [11] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-wcag2-tech-req-20050426.html

   mc: techs task force ppl will coordinate with the folks who did the
   issue summaries for each guideline.
   ... did some work on requirements for techniques and checklists
   ... more actions yesterday for clean
   ... baseline is a big issue. will talk next week about how it effects
   techs.
   ... also discussed becky's mappings of script techs to
   guidelines/success criteria. about 1/2 way through discussion.

4.2 Proposal and summary (Loretta, 25 minutes)

   js: of the 6 points related to the proposal, list discussion has
   focused on item 6 (new SC for 1.3), and 1 (defn of baseline).
   ... would like to get people's concerns. begin w/people who have been
   involved in the discussion. then discuss proposal.
   ... anyone who has already commented on list wish to clarify or add to
   anything they've said?

   gv: proposed removing the guideline because it is covered by the defn.
   Howver, the defn is full of success criteria.
   ... it has "must" and "may" which is SC language.

   lgr: what are you refering to?

   gv reads from loretta's proposal, "technologies that must be
   supported..."

   lgr: this is trying to defin what baseline means.

   gv: in the rules of writing standards, must and may can not be in
   definitions.

   js: the 1st sentence contains a definition, some of the other items
   could be treated as SC under a rewritten 4.2.

   gv: 4.2 was to ensure that user interfaces are accessible. however,
   not sure how a definition can substitute for a requirement.

   lgr: issue is "will the guidelines require a baseline or not?"
   ... my analysis assumes we are moving baseline out of guidelines, but
   that a BL does exist.
   ... this is an attempt to capture what we mean

   gv: if we don't set the baseline then it can be anything

   lgr: someone will have set what we hope is a sensible baseline

   js: perhaps we should look at the other 5 parts of the proposal since
   they all interact.

   gv: at this point, the defn needs to be looked at. haven't figure out
   if we have achieved what we wanted to. agree, should walk through the
   rest.

   jw: agree with all 6 of the proposals. also agree with gv's comments.
   ... a couple ways to approach: 1. we're letting devs set baseline.
   also giving them guidance about setting. can't do in defn of baseline.
   the reqs either belong in conformance (since apply to all guidelines)
   and determine how conformance is judged or belong in a rewritten 2.3
   (?). this effects how you apply all of the guidelines. therefore,
   don't think it belongs in a guideline.
   ... needs to be clear that it does apply to the whole doc. perhaps
   revised 4.2, although conformance probably better place.

   asw: should go in the conformance section

   lgr: felt that were 2 parts of 4.2 that were covered: 1. moving
   baseline and UA assumptions out of guidelines. 2. creating UI elements
   (and their accessiblity)
   ... feel that the group focused on 1. then went back to look to ensure
   covering 2.
   ... think it's easy for us to get lost in the sea of all things we
   were trying to accomplish w/this analysis.

   mb: defer. agree w/other points

   js: broaden scope to talk about the other components of the proposal.

   <scribe> ACTION: andi rewrite defn of baseline and conformance section

   gv: re: conformance section - "need to know what...by user agents"
   should be "accessible user agents"
   ... if there is potential for wcag 2.0 to be adopted as iso standard,
   should pay attention to iso rules.

   js: iso rules seems like an editors thing.

   gv: issue with referencing a non-normative document (see "WCAG 2.0
   Guide to...")

   <scribe> ACTION: editors looks into iso rules and referencing
   non-normative documents

   gv: there are several open issues related to conformnce.

   js: proposed SC for 1.3 - concerns about what can be changed
   progrmatically or if should be limited to elements.
   ... discussion was that should go beyond element to all content.

   gv: should check with greg lowney re: role question.

   gv reads latest proposal

   Any change made to content via the user interface, including changes
   to state and value, can also be made

   programmatically

   jw: role, state, and value deserve definitions.

   js: if defined in xhtml 2.0 spec or uaag, should use those defn.

   gv: should considerif we need defns or not.

   <scribe> ACTION: jason check for definitions for role, state, value

   bg: role is an attribute, are we saying have to change all attributes
   programmatically?
   ... i can write a javascript function to change the role. is that the
   user interface?

   gv: yes. and it should be operate programmatically.

   bg: confused as to what we're really trying to say.
   ... i can change any attribute. do you mean things that the user agent
   UI can change or ??

   js: a user interface element in the content.

   gv: most people who are writing in HTML are going to have no idea what
   this is refering to.
   ... also, if writing in HTML don't have to worry about. doesn't apply
   to the author unless the author is creating their own interface.

   gv: thinks the requirement is to be able to operate the interactive
   element programmatically

   <scribe> ACTION: Gregg work with Loretta to rewrite proposed SC for
   1.3

   js: will wait for Gregg to post questions and for Andi, Gregg, and
   Loretta to complete today's action items before consensing on this
   proposal

1.1 Proposal and issue summary (Wendy, 25 minutes)

   <wendy>
   [12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0262.htm
   l

     [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0262.html

   <scribe> ACTION: Loretta to collect proposals and comments on 4.2,
   change proposal, and re-post to list on Tuesday, 5/3

   wc: Becky concern about form controls that have an event handler
   attached to them

   <wendy> related to, "Any text alternatives are explicitly associated
   with the non-text content." added a note

   wc: note added about explicitly associating text alternative with
   non-text content. Expecting comments. Didn't get any

   js: did not interpret this as requiring a transcript for multimedia
   ... definition of multimedia we have been using in our discussion has
   excluded audio only and video only as multimedia

   <wendy> current defn: multimedia For the purposes of these guidelines,
   multimedia refers to combined audio and video presentations.

   js: disagrees with note under Level 1 SC 2 - don't think this requires
   a transcript

   gv: current wording does require transcript

   wc: 1.2 is about synchronized equivalents for multi-media, 1.1 is
   about the text alternative for non-text content

   js: says equivalents have to be synchronized

   in 1.2

   gv: still have something to do for 1.1 Level 1 SC 2

   js: have to decide if we want it to include transcripts or not

   gv: what is label in Level 1 SC 1

   wc: propose changing "label" to "text alternative"

   gv: if I have a Web camera that is pointing at the water level in a
   reservoir - have to have text alternative or have to have another
   place where I talk about the water level
   ... if want to provide image of what is outside to staff inside, put
   the image on a separate page and exclude that page from teh
   conformance claim

   wc: only have to provide a text alternative that describes the purpose
   of the "outside image"

   gv: then a videoconference would only have to have a text alternative
   that says "displaying what is being written on the board"
   ... don't want to say this is accessible because it's not

   jc: think SC covers the quirky case of a Web cam
   ... in the case that GV just described, presenter has to describe what
   they are doing just as if they were on stage
   ... should concentrate on the big problems we need to solve rather
   than worrying about people's Web cams

   as: asks Gregg, are you trying to say that Web cams don't have to
   conform

   gv: Level 1 conformance to guidelines doesn't say anything is
   "accessible" - just says it has met a certain degree of accessibility
   ... one of the reasons to cover in SC 6 separately is because it
   bubbles up. Wanted to make it clear that Web cams should be handled
   separately.
   ... if it's important that the Web cam information be conveyed, it
   will have to be conveyed another way
   ... proposes that we accept the new language but log 2 bugs against it
   ... bug 1 - not clear that we intend to require a transcript for all
   multimedia at Level 1

   in reference to Level 1 SC 2

   gv: bug 2 - in Level 1 SC 3 thinks "describe" is not testable enough

   "how to" can be described in techniques but not "how much to"

   js: also have some issues with definitions: unicode and non-text
   content
   ... ASCII art

   wc: 2-dimensional arrangement

   gv: what about emoticons

   <wendy> joe reads: ASCII art, an artistic medium relying primarily on
   computers for presentation, consists of pictures pieced together from
   characters (preferably from the 95 printable characters defined by
   ASCII).

   <wendy> [13]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascii_art

     [13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascii_art

   <joeclark> Smileys can be marked up with abbr. For the record.

   jc: ASCII art, an artistic medium relying primarily on computers for
   presentation, consists of pictures pieced together from characters
   (preferably from the 95 printable characters defined by ASCII).

   mb: emoticons are not a big issue because they are so small

   jc: Smileys can be marked up with abbr. For the record.

   <joeclark> "ASCII art uses (Unicode) characters as a medium to create
   an image."

   <wendy> "consists of pictures pieced together from characters"

   gv: should simply use "pictures pieced together from characters"

   jc: "ASCII art uses a sequence of (Unicode) characters as a medium to
   create an image."

   js: delivery unit definition is plain language paraphrase of the DI WG
   glossary definition
   ... proposal is to use the DI WG definition in the glossary and
   provide the paraphrase additionally

   accept pending Wendy's review with DI WG

   gv: thought explicit association could be in text - doesn't have to be
   programmatically associated
   ... what is in the note should be in the definition
   ... that's the note under Level 1 SC 5

   js: have to decide if "explicitly associated" means programmatically
   determined
   ... comments should be posted to the list

   non-text content

   bg: have a problem with non-text content - are UI widgets non-text
   content?

   gv: definition excludes them

   jc: aren't there some elements in HTML that are quasi-behavioral -
   form elements and buttons
   ... should be covered by "use DHTML correctly"
   ... trying to clarify cases that would break proposal

   jw: wants widgets and UI controls to be covered somewhere besides 1.1

   js: thinks widgets could be covered under either the current or
   proposed 1.3

   wc: should delete Level 1 SC 1 or change it to say "for IMAGES that
   are functional"

   gv: could it have been meant to apply to image maps? if so, can these
   be covered in 1.3 too?
   ... Joe's comment about behavioral elements is interesting. Maybe 1.1
   is meant to only apply to presentational elements that don't have
   behavioral aspects

   wc: cannot rework proposal by next week

   js: how would we rewrite 1.1 to logically exclude widgets?

   jw: proposes add label association to 1.3 in addition to role and
   state

   <scribe> ACTION: jason will post proposal to list

   consensus to accept definitions for perceivable unit, text, text
   alternative, and unicode

2.4 Proposal and issue summary (Yvette, 25 minutes)

   js: will not discuss examples as they are non-normative

   <wendy>
   [14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0247.htm
   l

     [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0247.html

   <wendy>
   [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0169.htm
   l

     [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0169.html

   js: propose we accept proposal to close issues by explanation to
   authors
   ... hold off on 2.4 and 1.3

   wc: face to face will be week of June 13th in either Brussels, Venice,
   or London
   ... expecting to finalize in the next few days
   ... and will send something to list
   ... if in Brussels will only be 4 days, not 5
   ... assume people prefer Monday through Thursday

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: andi rewrite defn of baseline and conformance section
   [NEW] ACTION: editors looks into iso rules and referencing
   ... non-normative documents
   [NEW] ACTION: Gregg work with Loretta to rewrite proposed success
   criterion for 1.3
   [NEW] ACTION: jason check for definitions for role, state, value
   [NEW] ACTION: jason will post proposal to list
   [NEW] ACTION: Loretta to collect proposals and comments on 4.2,
   ... change proposal, and re-post to list on Tuesday, 5/3

     _________________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [16]scribe.perl 1.94 ([17]CVS
    log)
    $Date: 2005/04/29 01:25:34 $

     [16] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribe.perl
     [17] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/scribe.perl



-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/--
Received on Friday, 29 April 2005 01:30:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:37 UTC