See also: IRC log
gv: start off with discussion of charter and participation
gv: all members have to requalify
wc: now under new W3C patent policy
... W3C makes work available royalty free
... organizations who have patents on W3C work need to identify
... when members who are part of a W3C member org re-join, have to disclose
any applicable patents
... all others have to go through the "invited experts" process
<rscano> rs: I've done confirmation - as AC Rep for IWA/HWG for me, Roberto Ellero, Roberto Castaldo, Gez Lemon, Luca Mascaro, Sebastiano Nutarelli
<wendy> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/participation.html
wc: first step - only want to review draft
... second step - want to review drafts
... third step - want to become member in good standing
... if want to become member in good standing, have to joing mailing list
... need W3C login and password
... if part of W3C member org, W3C person in your org has to approve
... will take at least 2 business days
... if W3C member org, AC rep has to complete a nomination form
<rellero> The following errors were encountered: Cannot leave a group you're not participating in
wc: if have login already, don't need to ask for it again
al: what do we have to provide in terms of patents? if we have patents in the area of Web accessibility but don't apply to what we're doing here, do we have to disclose that?
<rscano> IMHO patents only if are wcag-specific... not WAI specific.
al: example - patent that allows Web application to function just like a Windows application in terms of keyboard operation.
<bengt> wendy: can only select one of the participation terms ?
wc: thinks the only way that would be an issue is if WCAG WG came up with a technique exactly like the patent, it would be an issue.
<rscano> yes this is right
wc: you can exclude W3C members from having to
pay licensing fee
... have 30 days to complete this
<wendy> ACTION: wendy talk with alex, ian, and others about sap patent question
jw: expenses to participate in the working group are an issue
js: Joe Clark and Yvette have raised this issue
as well
... issue for invited experts working on their own
<wendy> ACTION: wendy follow up with jason and judy about expense issue in the invited expert agreement
yh: my company will pay for some trips but I can't go on the very expensive ones
wc: issue with maintaining participant in good
standing status
... have to complete an invited expert appication for each group you want to
join
... all WAI groups have been re-chartered
... contact Wendy if have any issues or questions in completing the forms
mc: spent a lot of time reviewing test files
... some list discussion - reviewed yesterday - came to some resolution on a
lot of them
... action items resulted - edits to techniques documents and relationship to
the guidelines
... CSS technique about using certain syntax for identifying colors - will
close by putting in advisory information but not a CSS technique
... soon will be asking Wed participants to review batches of test files and
make recommendations on what to do with them
... face to face meeting in Boston at the end of the month
as: registration for the techniques meeting
wc: have to register for the W3C plenary
... will be registration for CSUN meeting
... will be meeting at the Marriott - don't have all the details yet
andi: issues in buzilla how to understand how to get from 1.0 to 2.0, we could have a mapping that stars from 1.0 to 2.0 , wg needs to agree on that
js: it will also help us make sure nothing falls through cracks in the transition
wc: highlighted that looking between 1.0 to 2.0 there are issues starting at priority 2 quesiton marks.
<Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "Most important is that every WCAG 2 level has list of new additions"
wc: andi said that we could just start at priority 1 and 2
<wendy> previous discussion of mapping, priority 1 checkpoints: http://www.w3.org/2005/01/06-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item03
yh: important for users to list what you need
to do in level 2 above and beyond what they did in 1.0
... from version 1.0 to 2.0
gv: should talk whether an item is required in 1.0, whether it is deprecated, or partially and we must say what part is different
andi: I was just looking at things that had a quesiton mark
gv: we must differentiate when something is changed or diffferent...
andi: 2 pass process, figure out different then
go back and elaborate on differences.
... 3.1 started with Ben's mapping...then I looked for SC ...it said related
to 4.2 but could not find related one
js: think it maps to 1.3
gv: don't think its tied toany SC...perhaps 1.3 advisory
gv: discuss where it goes
... I think it is not required for conformance... some aspect (related to
formating) are required but not like math ML
<Kerstin> Gregg, can we be careful to not use "Level 4" and instead simply call these things "advisory" -- we don't want the idea of level 4 creeping into our terminology
asw: 3.3
... mapped 1.3 & 2.4 but could not get sc
gv: 1.3 only advisory no sc
mapped to1.3 no sc - avisory
<lmascaro> the point 1.3 as it considers an ulterior level in XSL technologies?
<ben_> gv: think we should say, not required, advisory in html techniques
<ben_> yh: can we say WCAG isn't tech specific, so we no longer have tech specific info in the guidelines
<ben_> gv: some tech specific (ex. alt text for images) would be required by success criterion
<ben_> gv: ex WCAG 1.0 requirement to use alt on img maps to WCAG 2.0 1.1, this is different than this one (3.3) which is now recommended in HTML techniques
<ben_> ac: am I to understand that this req. has been removed b/c it is tech specific?
ac: is there a presentation that says you must use css
<rscano> "use stylesheets for presentation" :)
gv: no, any separation technique is ok
asw: not requiring metadata anymore...
js: might map to 3.1 level 3
... it may need a sc to be written
<Zakim> wendy, you wanted to say, "some of the prog located could be accom through metadata"
<bengt> agress
gv: yes
yh: 2.3 level 3 delivery units have descriptive titles - that is metadata
gv: limited map to 2.4 sc4
ben whats the 1.0 guideline
<ben_> 13.2
<Yvette_Hoitink> In my comment: s/2.3 level 3/2.4 level 3 item 4
gv: 1.0 guideline 13.2 to 2.4 sc4
... meta data is a tecunique that couldbe used o the folling requirements
jw: i don't think it covers it... that's a tech
specific statement
... 1.1 and 1.3 can be done with meta data as per Lisa
12.2
asw: frames and how the relate, tech specific,
js: 1.3?
structural component
gv: butthis talks about whats thepurpose
... sounds 2.4 ish
... is it advisory?
js: there is a html techniques for it
... should be more than advsory in html
bc: has a place
jw: a frame is purely presentational
jw: so there will be 1.3 probs
js: agree
gv: agree with jason which can be used to convey tructure which trips 1.3
k
gv: most uses of fmames would trigger 1.3
js: question: just wondering if it should be discussed in general techniques
jv: we can describe it in presentationrather than elemental form
asw: so what's the decision
gv: most uses of frames would require this to meet 1.3
bc: this until user agent has actually been fulfilled
hey andi what was that last one in 1.0
<Andi> 10.2
wc: proposal from John on structure and delivery units and authored units
jw: don't mind having it in but don't think it is particularly helpful
<Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "and/or?"
yh: not sure John has the correct definition
<wendy> Structure:
<wendy> a. The way the parts of an authored unit are organized in relation to each other
<wendy> b. The way a collection of authored units is organized in relation to a
<wendy> delivery unit;
<wendy> c. The way a collection of delivery units is organized
gv: add "and" after each to clarify
<wendy> current defn of structure (19 Nov 2004 draft):
<wendy> structure
<wendy> Structure includes both hierarchical structure of the content and non-hierarchical relationships such as cross-references, or the correspondence between header and data cells in a table. The hierarchical structure of content represents changes in context. For example,
<wendy> 1. A book is divided into chapters, paragraphs, lists, etc. Chapter titles help the reader anticipate the meaning of the following paragraphs. Lists clearly indicate separate, yet related ideas. All of these divisions help the reader anticipate changes in context.
<wendy> 2. A bicycle is divided into wheels and a frame. Further, a wheel is divided into a tire and a rim. In an image of the bicycle, one group of circles and lines becomes "wheel" while another group becomes "frame."
<wendy> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#structuredef
gv: recommendation to use John's definition and follow with some examples
<wendy> ACTION: js add examples to structure defn
gv: proposal to substitute user agent for plug-in
wc: if using UAAG for baseline, should use "user agent" here
<wendy> http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/glossary.html#def-user-agent
<lmascaro> but when it is the plugin to contain the user-agent type real player?
gv: software and doc components together have to conform to UAAG
<wendy> "The software and documentation components that together, conform to the requirements of this document." s/"this document"/UAAG 1.0
gv: Access Board issue - principles are not
testable
... principles are only meant to be titles, not testable. SC are testable.
js: thought we decided that guidelines were to be written as imperatives not as testable propositions.
gv: clarifies response - not that guidelines are testable, SC are testable.
jw: SC should be interpreted in the context of the guideline and GL should be interpreted in the context of the principle
<wendy> that fits well under: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#structuredef
gv: js to take a plain language pass at this
wc: paragraph under "how to read this document"
<wendy> ACTION: john and jason write paragraph to fit under "how to read this doc" that explains that when doubt in interpretation look to thte level above
gv: old issue from Greg Gay - minimize use of repetitive and non-meaningful content
gv: bc thinks this is covered under 1.1 gl about non-text content that does not convey any information
js: HTML technique about alt=""
lg: what about not including "link to" in your link text, etc.?
gv: do we want to put this in as advisory or do
we want to require this?
... requiring it may get us into trouble with some things we don't mean for
it to apply to
jw: not testable
... could be interpreted to cover items we don't want it to cover
gv: moves we close the bug with text Wendy proposed in 1.1