<Yvette_Hoitink> Hi Wendy

<Yvette_Hoitink> I just sent you a mail off the list

<wendy> hello yvette - happy new year!

<Yvette_Hoitink> You too!

<Yvette_Hoitink> I beat you to it :-)

<wendy> :)

<Yvette_Hoitink> Strange to have a meeting tonight, in the Netherlands this week is still a school holiday

<Yvette_Hoitink> but we worked until Dec. 24

<Yvette_Hoitink> Mike's early

<wendy> :)

<wendy> hello alan

<alan> hello

<alan> Am I a WG member yet?

<Yvette_Hoitink> Hi Alan

<Yvette_Hoitink> Where are you from?

<alan> Hi. I wanted to join the telecon

<alan> From England but I live in Spain

<Yvette_Hoitink> You've come to the right place then :-)

<Yvette_Hoitink> Yes: a fellow European :-)

<Yvette_Hoitink> I'm from the Netherlands

<Yvette_Hoitink> Hi Bengt

<bengt> Hi Yvette and all

<alan> Starts in 30 minutes?

<Yvette_Hoitink> nope, 5

<alan> I got confused, I might be a bit late dialling in

<Yvette_Hoitink> Wendy is the one to tell you about your WG membership by the way

<Yvette_Hoitink> She's from W3

<wendy> Alan, I think things are set w/your participation, but tying up a couple loose ends.

<wendy> You're welcome to participate in the call today.

<alan> Thanks

<Yvette_Hoitink> sigh, I was trying the mute-button on my new phone

Techniques Task Force Update

Kerstin (scribe) has joined

wc: most efficient way to get through techniques/tests -- mailing lists, wikis,
... efficient ways to get through -- more ideas and more discussion to come

<David> techniques: went through questionaire, math ML took to protocalls and coordinations group talked about how to conduct meetings, 100's of tests to get through, wikies, questionaire, limit time to 5 mintes per test,,, etc to get through an effient use of time...

<David> trying to get through all the tet ,,,, editing on tech docs in the next few weeks

kerstin: status on guidelines to techniques mapping?

<David> kertin :discussed mapping out techniequies end to ends... working back and forth will be what we will do

<David> I'll dro0p off and let Kesh continue minuting

thanks, David.

michael cooper just joined

<Yvette_Hoitink> kerstin: Do we need to finish the techniques before we can go to rec?

wc: kerstin, is your question "will we have a complete set of tests and techniques before we got to recommendation?"
... take those documents and show that we can meet wcag ...

<Yvette_Hoitink> kerstine: We need techniques to show how to use the guidelines

wc: we don't have to have everything done before to last call.
... solid: guidelines and sc for last call
... those should not change much past last call
... all other docs are not normative, so those can be continued to develop
... it would help us show that our guidelines and sc are solid
... should we schedule a whole call on w3c process -- we could brainstorm about all of this
... there is a specific implementation report

<Yvette_Hoitink> kerstin: I would like to see a discussion about W3C process and how that would work for us. I want to know what the timelines look like, which docs go where, and how it fits with the W3 process

wc: we need to close on this topic unless there are other questions -- quick thing before we go on to charters.
... 20 working groups there in Boston ... February 28 and March 1 --
... registration is open till Feb 10th
... wcag wg will be meeting the weekend after csun, 20th and 21st -- still tentativae

<Yvette_Hoitink> 20th of which month?

<Yvette_Hoitink> thx

wc: 20th, 21st march

CSUN in Los Angeles -- Hilton and marriott Airport hotels

Charter update, plan for 1st quarter - http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/11/wd-plan.html

wc: charter -- new charter has been approved, as well as all WAI
... everyone will need to re-join the group, since we now work under the new patent policy
... mostly formality, but gives us assurance that our doc will be royalty free
... internal draft end of january,
... again end of feb
... another public draft end of march or beg. april
... all this is on the page noted above (http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/11/wd-plan.html)
... are there any questions about charter, or rejoining?
... once the call for participation goes out to AC rep, and interest group, then there is 45 days to get everyone in order
... this will likely happen in the next week or two.
... instructions in the next week or two.

WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0 mapping http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004OctDec/0603.html

wc: main agenda item of the day:
... this is to go through the mapping that Andi created

a lot of issues came from people who understand 1.0 but do not know how to migrate over

as: what we really need is to get people from 1.0 to 2.0
... so, I took the tabular list of checkpoints .. then, I mapped to sc instead of guidelines
... is there a sc that maps to checkpoints from 1.0
... then analysis for changes
... in cases where the 1.0 checkpoint went to lower priority or higher priority I mapped it, or left question mark when I couldn't figure it out.
... any questions about process?
... do we want to get consensus on where I still have questions?

wc: let's focus on priority 1 questions

as: if it maps to the techniques, then what do we do if there is no sc to map it to?

wc: one is conformance issues, what do we tell people?

no URI for alistair's mapping -- mc will look andput in irc if possible

wc: automating the mappings as things change, ben has some techniques ...

ben: should not be too hard

action find a way to automate mappings as things change

<wendy> ACTION: associate wcag 1.0 checkpoints with wcag 2.0 guidelines/sc so that mapping can be automatically generated

thanks wendy

<wendy> ya - i'll get action items if you get everything else. :)

as: 1.1 checkpoint includes ascii art -- is this addressed in sc in 2.0?

<Zakim> Michael, you wanted to say Alistair has done a similar mapping but using WCAG 2 techniques instead of success criteria. It would be interesting to see how well these two mappings

lg: maybe it just needs a definition somewhere that shows that it's not text.

ben: we do have a definition of ascii art

<Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "depends on definition of text"

yh: never mind

<Zakim> wendy, you wanted to say, "http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-HTML-TECHS/#no-text-in-images"

wc: html techniques exists -- associated 2.4, level 2, sc 3 ....

<wendy> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-20041119/#navigation-mechanisms-skip

js: we might want to expand the ascii art

to just art that uses characters ...

as: the question is "is a text equiv. required for ascii art?

"

js: I would like to suggest that the term that "ascii art" be replaced by "character art" because it's not just ascii

js" it could be unicode characters ... then we can talk about whether or not text alt is required.

js: you can also put it in a div

jw: we didn't want to complicate all of our definitions to try to account for ascii art specifically

lr: should we be saying ascii art needs to be marked up?
... we should probably mention emoticons, too.

<Zakim> wendy, you wanted to say "text-based content - blogs, wikis"

gian: that was my point, I can take my hand down

wc: I don't think we are going to solve this today, and I think we should try to get through as many of these as we can .. make sure that this is an issue, and then we can take an action item
... I can at least take an action to include in bugzilla
... does anyone want to take this ascii art issue?
... like jason said, we didn't include ascii art in general because of how we think the future will unfold.
... how do we address the issues that have been brought up.

<wendy> ACTION: wendy add ascii art issue to bugzilla. summarize this discussion.

js: i will take an action to address in the general techniques for 1.1 if the group feels it should be addressed there?

<wendy> ACTION: john if needed, propose generat tedchniques.

as: wcag 1.0, cp 6.1 -- organized doc without stylesheets ....
... mapping wcag 2.0 this is mapped to 1.3, but no sc

js: I think that it doesn't map to 1.3, -- it's under 2.4, level 3, sc 1
... programatically determine a reading order?

<Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "technology-independent"

<wendy> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-HTML-TECHS/#css-style

yh: i think the reason we don't have mapping -- that one in 1.0 was very tech. dependent, and now we are technology independent
... it's too technology dependent
... there should still be something in our current techniques that say that you should be able to read without stylesheet

jw: this is a cp we wanted to NOT carry over
... it does not apply xml
... that was a requirement that should no longer exist in 2.0
... some aspects have implications, as js pointed out, that if you are providing proper structure and reading order, then effectively require effective elements of that

<Zakim> wendy, you wanted to say, "HTML: 13.1 CSS styling. - "

wc: to generalize it would not make sense, and exists in the techniques

wendy, did I capture what you meant?

if not, please type into irc

<wendy> wac: some of these html techniques only map to guidelines. to create a SC would have to say that the SC only applies to a certain technology.

ben: as we go ahead, we have an issue of whether or not we are going to be defacto requiring css to meet certain criterion

mike: wc and ben pretty covered it.

as: i know it's technology-specific, then we need agreement that it doesn't map to anything, and that it's not required in wcag2.0
... this really maps to 2.4, l3, sc 1?

two proposals

wc: straw poll after john?

js: need a technique to use divs to control reading order ...

wc: people vote on whether it's not required or whether it maps to 1.2 and 2.4

mike: 1.2, 2.4

jason: other

doyle: 1.2 ...

andi: 2.4, 4.2

js: "

ben: "

gian: 2.4, 4.2

david: "

yh: "

loretta: "

kerstin: "

becky: both

chris: 2.4, 4.2

alan: no vote

michael: both

bengt: both

jw: other: 4.2, possibly 2.4, and possibly 1.3
... but I don't want a big debate

<wendy> maps to 4.2 or 2.4 (not 1.2)

jw: it's a cross-reference ...

thanks

wc: i am assuming you will update the mapping?
... do you have enough information, andi

as: maps to two sc that are both at the same level

wc: we will need to map to html techniques

<wendy> ACTION: michael and wendy make sure html tech maps to both as well

as: wcag 1., cp 6.2: maps to 1.1

but not sc

correction: but no sc to map to

wc: we may just want to depricate ...

<Yvette_Hoitink> ack }

<wendy> ack }

gian: can this kind of fall under text equiv.?

<Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "this is already covered by alt"

gian: dynamic content is not text, and therefore should have alt

yh: same thing

jw: i wouldn't mind getting rid of it saying that it does not mapt o anything in particular

js: same

david: text alternatives are updated when dynamic content changes ...

wc: this was about roll-overs ..
... one of the main solutions to that was to use css instead -- this one was techn. specific
... consensus that this is covered by the guidelines ... but not consensus about where

<Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "guidelines apply all the time"

yh: our guidelines apply all the time, if it's dynamic content that changes all the time, then the equiv.s should change .. not just design time

if it's multimedia then it's covered under 1.2

if it's alt text, then 1.1.

wc: if it's an application, then 4.2 would cover?

yh: dynamic aspect does not need to be called out specifically
... maybe we make that explicit in the mapping?

wc: does anyone disagree that this maps to 1.1, 1.2, and 4.2? do we need to be more specific about it?

js: if content changes, then all sc apply to new content

<Michael> I finally found the link to Alistair's document that I mentioned, mapping WCAG 2.0 HTML Techniques to WCAG 1.0 Checkpoints: http://www.accessinmind.com/supportEAM/HTMLTech.html

yh: I would prefer that we not map it explicitly, and just say that it should apply generically

gian: if we don't map to something then people will just forget about it
... might help in understanding new criteria, too.
... even if we say what yvette said, but add that it maps to 1.1, 1.2 and 4.2

wc: do people support?
... anyone disagree or have more comment?
... andi, have enough?

as: redundant text links are not explicitly associated with server side image maps ...

Can someone else scribe, please?

For the last half hour?

becky: does that sort of go away as html specific?

wc: there seems to be an issue, where we might want to create a caveat?

as: some technologies just don't support it -- but there are other ways to create alternatives.
... it's in bugzilla

<wendy> ACTION: andi check that issue about explicitly associating text equivalents with their object is an issue logged in bugzilla. if not, add it.

<Zakim> kerstin, you wanted to ask if someone else can scribe

<Yvette_Hoitink> I'll scribe

<Zakim> Michael, you wanted to say I'm not sure text links for SSIM is a 1.1 issue - it's not a text equivalent issue, it's a functionality issue, under Principle 2 somewhere

<Becky> mc: not a text equiv issue but is a links issue so under GL 2

<Becky> jw: agree with Andi - mixture of 1.1 and 2.1

<wendy> ACTION: michael send proposal for mapping text links for SSIM to something in principle 2

<Becky> jw: gets addressed by conforming to 1.1 and 2.1 at level 1 then have to do this

<Becky> js: still impossible to make server side maps keyboard operable - thus can't pass Guideline so maybe need to deprecate

<Becky> asw: don't want to deprecate server side image link cuz if you provide redundant text links you have acheieved keyboard access.

<Becky> asw: if make client side image map with hot spots or server side with redundant links then should conform

<Becky> js: concern as end user who uses screen reader - has to listen to server side image maps and it is redundant

<Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "the whole SSIM discussion sounds more like techniques than SC"

<Becky> js: hard to identify server side hot spots and know not to click - creates confusion for screen reader user

<Becky> yh: belongs in techs rather than SC

<Becky> asw: many of these do end up in techs but need to provide the mapping from WCAG 1.0 to 2.0 so people understand how to conform

<Becky> asw: shouldn't be at level 1

<Becky> asw: leave this one open

<Becky> andi will enter bugzilla entries for open issues

<Becky> asw: issue of 12.2 mapping to GL 1.1

<Becky> asw: doesn't agree with the mapping to 1.1 - frame title is not equiv. to the function of the frame

<Becky> asw: don't want this at level 3

<Becky> js: thinks it goes under 1.3 since a frame is a structural element

<Becky> bc: thinks it is mapped to 1.1 becuz can consider frames to be non-text content - they have func. that isn't visible on page

<wendy> 1.1 L1 #1 - For all non-text content that is functional, such as graphical links or buttons, text alternatives identify the purpose or function of the non-text content. [I]

<Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "we don't want the EQ of the frame"

<Becky> yh: don't include frames here - sounds like we must provide an equiv to the frame

<Becky> wc: loosely interpret to provide labels to give idea of the purpose of the frame

<Becky> js: concern that we are talking about the appearance of the frame as non-text content; seems clearer to identify as a structural element

<Zakim> Michael, you wanted to say frame title is another one I don't consider a text alternative. It's a label that facilitates navigation and therefore belongs somewhere under Principle

<Becky> wc: john is proposing mapping to 1.3 but not sure this is a good fit either

<wendy> 1.3 l1 #1"Structures and relationships within the content can be programmatically determined." however, marking it as frame makes it prog determined.

<Becky> mc: believe frame title is not a text alternative; would map to where clear link text maps

<Becky> asw: agrees with js about 1.3 but also see that argument(from mc) that making it a frame auto. provides structure

<wendy> 3.1 L3"Section headings and link text are understandable when read by themselves as a group (for example, in a screen reader's list of links or a table of contents)."

<Becky> asw: what about 3.2 #6?

<wendy> "The destination of each link is identified through words or phrases that either occur in the link or can be programmatically determined. ["

<Zakim> ben, you wanted to say, "is this a good candidate for a required attribute in the spec(s)?"

<Becky> mc: maybe need to say that need to think of frames as navigable elements

<Becky> bc: map to 4.1 since is a spec related issue

<Becky> bc: seems we are leaning that must title it

<wendy> ACTION: andi action rich to take issue of title on frame to pfwg (or similar structures).

<Becky> wc: want this to be level 1 criteria but is very specific to frames

<Becky> wc: there are techs that currently map to level 1 criteria that aren't really the first things you should be doing to make a site more accessible

<Becky> wc: techs group is wrestling with this issue

<Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "frame title just symptom"

<Becky> asw: 11.4 provide link to alternative access page if can't make page access. maps to GL 4.2 but no SC

<wendy> ACTION: yvette add issue to bugzilla about "frame title just symptom"

<Becky> jw: can fall under navigable link GL

<Becky> jw: alternative pages with same func. - we have changed our approach in ver 2.0

<Becky> jw: content is customized to delivery context

<Becky> jw: don't need GLor SC becuz conformance schemes cover this

<Becky> jw: ends up being part of conformance claim

<Zakim> Michael, you wanted to say We don't want a guideline about separate but (maybe not) equal. The way Techniques work together, it should always be possible to achieve an accessible

<Becky> js: the caveat is the assumption is that there are multiple presentations generated from the same source

<Becky> mc: evaled a site that did this but other site still had the same access. problems :-(

<Becky> wc: we need to dispell the myth that text only fix is an easy one

<Becky> wc: have been getting lots of press releases from companies that have put up text only site and now claim that they are accessible

<Becky> wc: does anyone want to keep this (11.4) around as a SC?

<Becky> dm: I might not go up the stairs but an alternative is provided - a ramp; or in other cases, a back door

<Becky> wc: see equating making access. with a screen reader as making accessible - there is more to it than that

<Becky> dm: what would make a text site not accessible?

<Becky> bc: all graphical info is stripped - but now have lost information

<Becky> bc: so text only version isn't really equiv.

thank you, Becky.

<Becky> yh: or might still use difficult words

<Becky> wc: becuz of technology don't have to create elevator around back - there are technological ways to make equiv

<Becky> dm: generally agree but shy to give up text only alternative yet

<Becky> asw: general premise that if you can't meet GLs that if you provide an alternative that has same info and function you should be access

<Becky> asw: for example you are using a new tech that isn't accessible with current technologies yet - you can still provide an accessible alternative

<Becky> asw: does it belong as a GL or is it an assumption that needs to be described better

<Becky> wc: covered by 4.1 level 1 #2

<Becky> wc: is a bit of a stretch from what Andi is saying

<Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "metaphor"

<Becky> yh: if you want to make a building wheelchair accessible you don't give everyone a wheel chair you just make a ramp

<Becky> yh: in web example, tools are available to make an alternative site that is accessible - doesn't have to be text only

<Becky> wc: made good progress. Perhaps next step is to make a questionaire

<Becky> wc: to get a straw poll on where this is agreement. still working on wording for poll - stay tuned

<Becky> jw: can andi look at sections of conformance scheme that might cover this

<Becky> wc: reminder to those who took action items at Dublin meeting to review open items

<wendy> Scribe+ Becky

<wendy> Scribe: Becky and Kesh

<Yvette_Hoitink> bye all