CMN: Has comments about baseline...

Comments on WCAG

CMN: No help in how to guess what browsers users have

JA: Hard since no UAUG browsers

<chaals> scibre: Jan

CMN: Yes but they could still provide some guidance

<chaals> ScribeNick: JR

JA: So are you saying there should be some sub-set of UAAG?

CMN: Just more help that's all...
... Some very basic things can always be assumed.
... Should be able to demonstrate that baseline can be supported by ..

<chaals> ... something that meets at least a basic handful of UUAG requirements.

<chaals> e.g. There must be some browser (including combined systems) available for the set of technologies in the baseline that rpovides keyboard access to all functions, zoom for any visual rendering, and stop/rewind/playback for audio.

<chaals> (these should actually be specified in terms of UAAG checkpoints... ;) )

<jallan> for example wcag guideline 1.1 provide text alternative for all non-text alternative

<jallan> assumes UAAG Guideline 2 ensure user access to all content

JR: Isn't this like asking for a UAAG lite

CMN: Perhaps UAAG group should work with WCAG to make a "UAAG ultralite" to be used as part of the baseline

JA: We've been waiting for Jaws 7.1 to come out to test with Firefox.
... Does Opera have interest in a UAAG conformance test?

CMN: But time is an issue.

JA: It took CL 3-4 days
... What would the minimum set be?
... Input/Output dependence; access to all info; allow conf not to render some content;...

CMN: Needs to be more detailed..
... Looking quickly through checkpoints...
... IE does 6.4, 6.5 (but Opera doesn't)...
... Some in 4 are often done be plugins but not impossible...
... 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 no prob...
... 4.4 tricky for some formats

4.5, 4.6, 4.7 no prob

4.8 is tricky

JA: 4.9 - 4.12 SR would do, CMN says his browser doesn't usually have an SR hooked up

CMN: Fair argument that Level A is actually fine
... Just a couple of P1's that might be arguable.

<jallan> comment that UAAG Priority 1 should be baseline for WCAG 2

JR: So are you saying UAWG should suggest UAAG Level A conformant browser in order for wcag2 baseline

CMN: Yes

<jallan> demonstrate that there is a (one) user agent that meets each P1 in UAAG

JR: Some developers against DOM etc.

<jallan> not that there is one user agent that meets all P1 UAAG requirements

JR: Which is a P1 (6.2)

<jallan> WCAG conformance claimaints should not have to guess

<chaals> what "browsers people with disabilities will use" means.

CMN: As a general comment UAAG covers a variety of cases (and so aren't always necessary)
... Sometimes there is a crossover...wcag has prohibition against flashing, and uaag has req to stop things from flashing.
... SO author could say since there is a UA that stops flashing they are ok to use it in their content.

JR: Which way does that relationhip go?

CMN: People should be allowed to do things that UA's can screen out, instead of prohibiting, wcag should warn authors that some stuff will be screend by some browsers

JA: OK so we need to look through wcag for things that ua's can get people around...

<jallan> authors should write content that supports User Agent functionality

<jallan> Use HTML headings then browsers will have mechanism to jump between headings and skip text.

<jallan> in other ML or Flash author may have to provide a mechanism seperate from User agent functionality