See also: IRC log
mc: have been reviewing test files. trying to
decide what tets to make available in our next public draft.
... getting quicker at reviewing them, butalways raise issues.
... plan to do another chunk of tests next week.
... then talked about checklists and combining ideas from a few people -
trying to figure out how checklists should look at how should draw from
exisitng content.
... we've been looking for holes in the techniques (where there are
guidelines and no techniques). have a number of people assigned to make
proposals.
... our big gate is resources. know we have a lot of work, but need people to
help to do the work.
gv: whatever doesn't get done, will have to migrate here. we've already discussed moving discussion of general techniques to thursday to help offload work from wednesday calls.
<ben_> http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=171
<ben_> & http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=438
first two issues. exception for access broadcast that reviewers that were confused, have fixed it we think...no complaints yet on the 19 November draft
gv Joe clark worried that if a broadcast qualifies on the web. rebroadcasts will not be accessible
wendy ; yes, this is a different issue and not related to the confusion caused by the wording of the previous exception.
gv: let's close them and create a new bug for Joe's comment
gv closed
<ben_> http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=792
wc: we added definition of video-only, confident that we addressed issues but will check with reviewers
gv: issue closed
... issue 793
<ben_> http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=793
wc: request to clarify complex statement. in NOv 19 draft we broke it up, we clarified level 1 and level 2 clarified that no real-time necessary until level 3, think we are ok now...Andi is reviewer and says ok now
980
<ben_> http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=980
wc: exception of audio descriptions...extended audio descriptions...
gv: but reviewers might be off base, confusion in comment that audio descriptions for "deaf people"?
wc: but we've cleaned up the bulk of the concerns they had so we cleaned up the core, we've fixed it ...they complained that we raised a problem but no solution, but its ok now
Yvette: I think many people will make the same mistake about audio descriptions, may need to clarify it
gv: let's say "audio description of video"
WC: I think its a separate issue, I will ask them...but let's not discuss it now
gv: let's say "..of video" to make it simpler...but that's editorial....closed issue and open additional issue "...of video"
wc: we shouldn't say of video cause that's the definition...people should learn the terms...
gv: I see it coming up a lot
yh: in dutch it is confusing
jw: I think we should add it..does not replace thedefinition
<wendy> it will now say, "# Audio descriptions of video are provided for prerecorded multimedia "
gv: closed
<ben_> http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1028
wc: coallated transcripts...concern of cost and not frequent....in response we put it to level 3...Joe CLark says its not done frequently.. WC says we could check with orgs to see if it is wanted...
gv: joe clark answered himself ...don't think we should go out and ask...because they will say yes but not might even pay a nickle for it... if we survey we have to find out if they would use it.
jw: collated script can be generated by publishing the script of the orginal script which is usually around
gv: the reason is final production never looks like original screenplay...editing etc no electronic form to match final available
wc: audio descritions have their own poetry - scripts are often not the same as audio description. also, assume much of the content on the web may not have a script.
jw: well maybe we can overcome some problems by using the script anyway even if it is modified post production
andi: concerned that some country will legislate it
gv: right- it would be a large hardship and few people would use it
wc: additional issue about need and desire for collated scripts, should we move it to best practises....if we remove it how will people feel about it.
gv: create a bug with this quesiton..."is it really sufficient benefit to be in here but if we take it out, must be careful that we don't infer a higher level by removing it
wc: lets remove the criterion and ask how people will take it
jw: shouldn't remove it cause a certain group have it as only access option
gv: let's postpone by leaving it open
andi: let's leave it in but clarify why it is there. with that understanding, i don't think we should remove it.
gv: leave item in a close---closed
#952
<ben_> http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=952
wc: should stress that its easy access the transcript (for a video). for 1.1, we felt "ease of access" is a user agent issue (last week's call). for video, not sure of the solution, perhaps a 1.1 issue, think we should do some more research on this one. perhaps a repair technique
gv: do we extend programatically associated ? if you ave a picture and describe it...is it ok?? related to last week perhaps put on hold and refer to definition of explicit association
#982
<ben_> http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=982
wc: let's take middle ground, put to general tech because about, how multimedia ineract...if it is a requierement let's go level 2 or 3
js: can't require it perhaps a recommeded practise
gv: think wendy is right to go to advisory in general tech or elsewhere. thought we handled it and remove it... you can't make movies where nothing is happening of screen...while people are talking...then we went to training films butit is just to hard to do, that we should require it.
andi: we did cover it and gv summary right and coudn't make it happen and wouldn't work in a sc
wc:correct, the note has been removed, but since one commentor wanted a requirement for it we need to put it somewhere - propose in general techniques. move issue to general techniques.
#983
<ben_> http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=983
wc: concern of language excluding avatars...seems like the comments refer to general techniques... similar to JIS that talks about default font..but different issue ... let's move issue to general or multimedia techs
js: contrast...some UA support styling of captions, so authors can control that...2) it seems contrast is covered under 1.4
gv: we should say cc are controlled by author,
it is in HD TV
... we also have guidelines for audio and background sounds, problem about
level, audio quality on descriptions is for deaf blind, that we just talked
about... perhaps we should put in general... but lets not put in
guidelines
wc: that's what they are asking for---general techniques....let's move issue to Gener techs...default font thing for open captions, not sure how we would specify fonts. it's already logged as an issue. it is less about size of font than selecting a readable font
gv: but readable font's is grey area. move to general techs
#1027, 1154, 1155
live audio, video only content
wc: concern that wording requires transcripts of a all realtime audio (internet radio) and video (webcams). 19 nov draft clarify that only a description NOT captioning 1.1 level 1#6
wc: think we've fixed it.. except comment from
david polman...who says EVERYTHNG needs an equivalent . David poleman say
Nove 19 not enough
... current wording..."..." distinguish captioning from description...
gv: new wording OBE
gv closed
<ben_> http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1182
wc: think we can close issues because we fixed it in the new wording
gv: closed
<ben_> http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1085
gv: elephants = big broblems need to leanup with a shovel
wc: 1.1, 1.2 what do we do, I did research...seems that flash is most likely example where it would come up. looked at macromedia and webaim tutorials and was able to map all of the techniques to criterion in guidelines 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, and 4.2 therefore I think we have everything covered .. propose we don't need to change anything, except perhaps 1.4 using sound in flash....am I missing something? can someone think of an example that is not covered?
js: perhaps in language instructions
gv: don't think 4.2 should be relied on for fundamental stuff like this cause it requires an alternate..... perhaps video and audio should be in the same place....I'm concerned we are two theoretical
yh: in high school tests, real time...did I say a) b) c) d) we had write it down....
gv: wendy right video is covered under 1.1, on the web is it likely that there is audio without video that is interactive that you need to do NOW.
wc: want to see examples...
giam: perhaps there will be an example sometime..
wc: propose we close the issue because it is largely theoretical
gv: lets move to general: if there is an interactive audio ...
<Yvette_Hoitink> Possible example: interactive narrative-based audio only adventure games set in 3D virtual environments
<Yvette_Hoitink> http://www.cs.unt.edu/~roden/esrg/project_roden_audio.htm
jw: reaction time tests, I remember basically an audio event, when you hear a sound press a key...today you can provide a visual equivalent
giam: propose the someone looks for examples.. I will do it....
<Doyle> I'd like to do this or at least be a part of those who would like to do it as well. I think I know of soem examples I have seen.
gv: close the bug, but if giam finds one she's reopen it
doyle: I would like to look to
yh: found a role playing example...
wc: can caption dialogue ike a video game
gv: how could anyone do a transcript?
yh: this game is designed specifically for blind people
js: this is audio only version of something available in visual environment ?
wc: I will follow up and think about it and propose it...leave it open for the moment
<wendy> ACTION: wac research yvette's example for 1.2. write proposal (contact gian and doyle - who are also interested)
wc: hairy elephant... questions about when audo description and captions necessary...there is still suggestion that we could do more in scoping or policy makers could take it on... we have felt it is for policy makers but we don't have guide for them...we mention scoping but no examples of it... radio shows with interviews and songs etc difficult ... request someone come up with scoping claims,
gv: hard to conquer this, can't find good
criteria for when it is important
... drawing the lines....best we can do is give guidance...if hey have video
our scoping means the whole page fails...
jw: i think we can ...if i'm a content
developer who doesn't wantot make a multimedia accessible just won't include
this uri as not covered...
... policy makers can make the decisions about when they can do that
... leave scope entirely.. opposed to complicating SC by introducing policy
based exceptions...
wc: don't think scope totally handles it...maybe we can do something in 1.2 "Multimedia that doesn't....does not need caption"
jw: the issue in 1.1 is that some non-text is incidental, not appliciple concept in GL 1.2, I think scoping handles it..
wc: can you jason write something, want to see examples. don't want to say, my entire web site conforms except for this bit of video..
gv: i feel also feel we need something in 1.2
but hard to figure out how...
... should leave it open, don't close it on faith that it will be fixed and
overcome...
<wendy> ACTION: wac and js propose something for 1.2 that parallels G 1.1, level 1 #4 and/or a scoping example to address issue 1151 (and related issues). (jason willling to help)
wc: action to try to fix it or acoing issues to address 1151 and related issues and jason may help on scoping
gv: thx wendy for hard work, thx david for scribing