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

[minutes] 23 February 2005 TTF of the WCAG WG weekly telecon

From: Wendy Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:04:20 -0500
Message-ID: <421CC5A4.7010809@w3.org>
To: wai-gl <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Available at: <http://www.w3.org/2005/02/23-wai-wcag-minutes.html>


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

                       TTF of the WCAG WG weekly telecon

23 Feb 2005


      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0521.html


          Don_Evans, Wendy, Michael_Cooper, Jenae, Ben, Alex_Li,
          Alistair, David, Becky_Gibson, Chris_Ridpath, Lisa_Seeman

          John, Slatin, Sailesh_Panchang, Ken_Kipnes




     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]test 195
         2. [5]Checklist structure
         3. [6]Test file structure
         4. [7]Tests 70, 149, 150 (Tim's review) -
         5. [8]tests 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 167, and 101 (jenae's
            review) -
         6. [9]wendy's review
         7. [10]Agenda for Face to Face meeting and Meeting schedule for
            the next few weeks
     * [11]Summary of Action Items


test 195

   wc: we may start scribe rotation

   <wendy> [12]http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/tests/test195.html

     [12] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/tests/test195.html

   mc:Chris say internationalization issues overcome by saying this is
   english version

   ls: confused, is optional mean not relating best practice of check
   point or is it optional cause its unreliable

   mc: means optional tests have no checklist

   cr: can you explain?

   ls: click here, issues or long alt tags sometimes ok so there is a
   problem with test

   ag: propose tests go to general cause they are qualitative not really
   about html

   wc: how bout a holding bin? on questionable stuff solve it later,,
   lets get through the tests - this stuff is f2f issues

   mc: yep agree

   ag: then we need usability best practice holding bin separate from
   guidelines difficult to keep up to date

   cr: yeah its purgatory

   mc: call it a holding bin

   wc: all 3

   all: agree

   <wendy> ACTION: chris create list of all possible tests that are "in
   the bin" [recorded in

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2005/02/23-wai-wcag-minutes#action01

   <wendy> ACTION: everyone discuss tests "in the bin" at the f2f and
   consider what to call them, where they go, what they look like. are
   they not dependable? optional? will we be able to keep them up-to-date
   if they are usability issues? [recorded in

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2005/02/23-wai-wcag-minutes#action02

Checklist structure

   ag: are there going to be tests for deprecated items

   mc: probably not cause it says "here's how to do what you shouldn't

   cr: except marquee and blink

   ag: idea of mixing deprecated and non deprecated problem, let's pull
   them cleanly out

   mc: that's off agenda , techniques structure, unless we can agree

   cr: attribute called "deprecated" then fish them out in views.

   mc: this is f2f stuff

   wc: it would mean have discussion twice

   ag: will decisions be circulated

   JE: call in tomorrow? yes?

   mc: we need back and forth with thursday all in our group are invited
   to thurs
   ... talk about deprecated stuff next week

Test file structure

   ag: we were writing logic into tests that could get difficult, but its
   ok to get test done, but there may be a logic problem

   cr: let's just get through it and deal with structure later, cause its
   hard for me to make all these small changes as we go along, I've been
   making notes
   ... I'll get to bad errors but put off medium errors for later,

   ag: chris, must be a lot a work, is there a way to share work?

   mc: becky made suggestions on language,

   cr: I can show the code to do the xml input put if you are suggestion
   it would be easy
   ... are you offering to do work?

   ag: just think it could be easier somehow sharing

   mc: too many editors spoils the soup
   ... editors control a doc,
   ... we'll do more next week

   cr: no, haven't used bugzilla, but I will

   wc: it helps for scheduling and grouping issues etc...bugzy is good

   jenae: I'll help

   mc: test suite, structure , deliverables, ways to get work done
   ... tues scheduling
   ... scary amount of work
   ... interoperable implementation of guidelines

   jenae: browser matrix??

   wc: brainstorm, in a perfect world what would we do
   ... to get to candidate need two interoperable implementations, needed
   2 of everything two by two like the ark
   ... will decide in planing discussion

   mc: we'll run out of time next week.

Tests 70, 149, 150 (Tim's review) -

     [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/att-0422/wcagtestreview.htm

   wc: dropping seeds to grow ideas for next week, for everyone to think

tests 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 167, and 101 (jenae's review) -

     [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0519.html

   jenae: suggest keep them all but there are 9 bugzy files regarding

   mc: what is nature of open issues

   jenae: 819

   859, 870, 1068, 1069, 1107, 1125, 1144, 1198

   <wendy> [17]http://tinyurl.com/45hzn

     [17] http://tinyurl.com/45hzn

   wc: have totally different list

   <wendy> [18]http://tinyurl.com/4ms94

     [18] http://tinyurl.com/4ms94

   mc: these bugs seem a little unrelated to test


     [19] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20050211/#frames

   <wendy> i don't see any issues linked from the html techniques section
   on frames re: issues

   bg: test 33, has lots of examples, I think it might make people think
   they are the only ones

   mc: representative but not exhaustive

   mc: doesn't matter extension its the MIME type,
   ... but email programs don't know that
   ... need to update this technique

   cr: is the test that there needs to be accessible content

   mc: that's my proposal
   ... but we are just saying anything in a frame needs to follow
   guidelines but that's the same as every other container

   cr: what if I say frame source must be accessible i.e. 2 examples
   linked to jpg or 2) link to html page that load with alt text

   wc: ... discussed slide shows, is it reasonable
   ... one frame of links

   cr: text equivalent for image is in a whole different frame

   wc: seemed it was accessible

   mc: sometimes screen reader users like the frames cause they can just
   jump out of a links frame on left margin
   ... title attribute of frame most important think

   ag: idea was the frame element ever intended to link to image, was
   that speced in the html , must be relative to the spec, rather than
   how it is used, there are implications for interoperability

   mc: html provides frame to link to any URI

   ag: we need a harder line when it comes to deprecation, it seems a lot
   o our problems cause we allow more and more instead of saying hey
   don't use it"

   ls: would it make sense use a meta data title on .htm page, so if you
   have title on htm. page menu, title and description, why insist re
   giving the title, when it is reasonable easy to get the title from the
   source itself,
   ... other stands, html we have good mechanism of going to them and
   saying "problem with your spec" like next week, do it through pf
   group, to review other specs and say this is what we don't like.

   wc: frames aren't in xhtml2 and they are not likely going to do many
   updated on HTML 4.01. they feel frames are fixed by using css. In
   XHTML 2.0 they seem to rely on div, section and css. we need to help
   people make leap, so problem is just dealing with authoring tools that
   still generate this stuff

     [20] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/elements.html

   bc: look at test 35,36, suggest drop test requiring no frames. move to
   bin? UAAG issue?

   mc: drop 35 cause in spec, drop 36 cause user agent issue??

   bc: yup

   mc: we should keep 33

   ag: this browser matrix, is that what's in the there,

   bc: it was just what browsers, supported what

   ag: it would be great to have a list of browsers to see what supports

   mc: we should consider that

   ag: we could strike through that

   mc: its long process

   wc: not our job, but UA group has one that is less than perfect...

   <Michael> ACTION: Michael update HTML tech #frame_html to be generic
   to "accessible formats" [recorded in

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2005/02/23-wai-wcag-minutes#action03

   mc: while questions about its validity there is enough support for 33
   to go straw poll

   cr: which sc - i did 3.1 but mike has 4.2,

   wc: why not 2.4 navigation orientation

   bc: 1.1

   mc: agree. half techniques are 1.1

   mc: ben suggested removing no frame requirement because part of spec,
   and if the title is there you can use the frame effectively

   bc: even without title UA provides links to pages that are part of

   mc: no frames important in old days, how old is too old

   bc: that is really old

   cr: so 35,36 rejected?

   bc: can go into bin but not high priority

   mc: should reject technique also

   <Michael> ACTION: Michael deprecate HTML #noframes technique [recorded
   in [22]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/23-wai-wcag-minutes#action04]

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2005/02/23-wai-wcag-minutes#action04

   BC: or just deprecate them

   mc: if we add attribute will be ok for deprecated but might make
   deprecated techniques section

   cr: 34 technique deprecated, jenae asked do we need the test...

   mc: new bin for deprecated techniques

   cr: let's reject it

   mc: yup
   ... longdesc for frames dumb --reviewing external file to get info
   about another external file

   cr: 32 ready for poll

   mc: think so
   ... link to 2.4. cause orientation aid

   cr: what about title for documents

   wc: yup

   mc: GL 2.4 l3, sc 4

   <wendy> 3.1 level 3 #2 - Section headings and link text are
   understandable when read by themselves or as a group (for example, in
   a screen reader's list of links or a table of contents).

   mc: I think it is 2.4 but no sc for it
   ... think it points to hole in guidelines

   wc: perhaps part of the issue for frames, creates more work, can we
   build case against frames rather than hole in GL

   ag: should the value of the title attribute be the same as the page
   that is loaded

   Mc imo not important but see a case for it

   wc: 2 questions, point about how to navigate through content related
   to issue with headings, so I agree there, at one point frames were
   extreme change in context

   programmatically identified, explicit notice in extreme change in
   contents, not only ??? but the action of selecting link so 3.2 perhaps
   better fit

   wc: frame is very html specific

   <wendy> 3.2 seems to be a good fit for some of these issues, since
   frames have been considered "extreme change of context" -

     [23] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20050211/#consistent-behavior

   mc: don't know answers but identified number of issues

   wc: enter question of frame title and page title to list

   mc: fix mapping later

   cr: I'll leave 3.1L3#2 as wendy suggested
   ... 101 iframes,

   mc: yup

   wc: need tim here so go to test file review from wendy

   <wendy> ACTION: jenae write a test case for test 167 and 101 [recorded
   in [24]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/23-wai-wcag-minutes#action05]

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2005/02/23-wai-wcag-minutes#action05

wendy's review


     [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0522.html

   wc: would add <span> to list


     [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0523.html

   wc: link to structures and relationships prog determine

   43-4 misuse of headings, should accept them


   associated with structure & relationship

   1.3 L1


     [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0524.html

   37-41 reject them because would not let you out of headings

   cr: its been changed.

   wc: better form H# should not follow hn+h2

   H followed by the next header or anything less

   cr: reject 41 &42 cause following h5 can be anything

   or h6 can be followed by anything

   cr: so really only 4 test

   wc: recommend acceptance

   bc: have a hard time requiring H levels
   ... author could want it

   for sidebar

   wc: maps to several issues, we need to tell them the order in the

   bc: not convinced its a big accessibility prob

   mc: level 3 for me, I see benefits

   cr: not big problem , but not huge burden either, not week enough to
   be binned

   mc: authors would think it is a burden

   bc: it the point o H is for NAV, then use in templating, comes into
   conflict with main content of the page,

   it gets muddy mixing site nav and main content H

   bg: sometimes css order gets changed order of visual order different

   bc: order about eye following, but there are many issues when dealing
   with navigation

   wc: need to note John slating's comments

   <wendy> reads from john's email:

     [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2005JanMar/0369.html

   wc: reiterates JS issue

   bc: issue in the spec...pf is working on labeling blocks, no good
   solution in html, too big for us future spec needs to deal with it,
   making this requirement it burden

   wc: we don't have semantics. we should table it

   bc: don't agree with test Header following in order rejected

   bg: me too

   mc: can't think strong accessibility but I like it

   wc: would give AT better chance

   <ben> related post on this subject:

     [29] http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2004/07/21/pick-a-heading/

   dm: I could help change the culture of no headings to provide

   ag: people don't know how to use headers cause they don' know uses, in
   early days of html big honking documents, not so, need to tell how and
   where to use headers instead of making rules

   mc: that would shift it to general tech

   wc: interesting meyer article but he is using H in orders
   ... html issue
   ... not same issue in other technologies
   ... open issue about reading order, but reject these tests

   <wendy> wac: should reject the tests (meyer has a good argument),
   however have an open issue about how to address using headings and
   reading order.

Agenda for Face to Face meeting and Meeting schedule for the next few weeks

   face-to-face meetings 28 February and 1 March so not teleconference on
   2 March.

   We will meet 9 March.

   CSUN begins on 16 March so we will not meet on that day.

   We will meet 23 March even though we will be coming back from 20/21
   March face-to-face meeting in l.a.

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: chris create list of all possible tests that are "in the
   bin" [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: everyone discuss tests "in the bin" at the f2f and
   consider what to call them, where they go, what they look like. are
   they not dependable? optional? will we be able to keep them up-to-date
   if they are usability issues? [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: jenae write a test case for test 167 and 101 [recorded
   in [32]http://www.w3.org/2005/02/23-wai-wcag-minutes#action05]
   [NEW] ACTION: Michael deprecate HTML #noframes technique [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Michael update HTML tech #frame_html to be generic to
   "accessible formats" [recorded in

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2005/02/23-wai-wcag-minutes#action01
     [31] http://www.w3.org/2005/02/23-wai-wcag-minutes#action02
     [32] http://www.w3.org/2005/02/23-wai-wcag-minutes#action05
     [33] http://www.w3.org/2005/02/23-wai-wcag-minutes#action04
     [34] http://www.w3.org/2005/02/23-wai-wcag-minutes#action03

   [End of minutes]


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [35]scribe.perl version 1.111
    ([36]CVS log)
    $Date: 2005/02/23 18:02:33 $

     [35] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [36] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/


wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 18:04:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:52 UTC