WCAG Weekly Telecon -- 14 Apr 2005

Agenda overview

TTF summary

<wendy> http://www.w3.org/2005/04/13-wai-wcag-minutes

<Yvette> WHO's TAKING MINUTES?

TTF looked at proposal from UAAG and PF

<Yvette> a, ok :-)

prototyping how to use rel and link for in page navigation

<ben> scribe: Becky_Gibson

discussed our concerns; Wendy has action item to bring this to xtech group

looked at DM's review of object test files; action for WC, CR, DM, MC to look at object test files

BG and DM tooked at some test files with respect to baseline and determining UA support

JA took action to update UA matrix; JS will be looking at different AT support - and see what info they can provide

JS will raise issue about object support with PF group

JS had an idea about dividing techs into chapters and has sent summary

CR took action item to review test files

<wendy> john's email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0129.html

js: MC had suggested talking about req. documents - but decided to wait until today's guide doc discussion for more input

<wendy> becky? please type a colon after the speaker's initials (the clean-up script then can pick that out as the speaker)

<wendy> ya - like that. ;)

Guide Doc and Structure proposals

js: want feedback on Guide Doc draft - questions, concerns, info to help us clarify and determine how to move forward
... at LA F2F attendees decided need a doc to provide stronger bridge betwn guidelines and techs

<wendy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0121.html

js: want to provide more info than envisiones for techs doc
... provide rationale for SC; so understand what it says and why; statements of benefits of SC; plus gen techs
... and links to specific techs
... JS mocked up sample outline and sent to subgroup for comments on the outline
... once outline agreed upon sent it to folks in group to work on specific SC
... also sent outline to non-WCAG members to see if headings and descriptions made sense
... group members filled in the outline for specific SC - these have been sent to the list
... each group member took a slightly different track - and raised diff. issues
... how to define terms, do the Guide docs do what we need to do? what do we say in certain sections
... consistent feedback from group that received sample outline
... every user had a completely diff. notion of what would fit under "Technology Independent Techniques"
... and all were diff. from this group's notion of general techs
... intent and benefits sections also caused confusion; also diff. between techs and samples

yh: devil's advocate: understand by Guide docs prepared but worried that we are throwing more work at the problem
... we seem to solve problems by trying to get more info; concerned readers of WCAG will contain too much information
... and people won't find info they really need

gv: as we write we need to not repeat things that have already been said/written
... need to focus on consiceness (sp?)
... don't try to make a tutorial; should help people knowledgable in the area understand our intent
... wants to put in a vote for modularity idea - cite general techs by name that can be expanded as needed
... worried that whole doc is getting very big - too big to comprehend or look at

js: surprised to hear you say we are addressing this to audience that already has some understanding
... from F2F thought it was to help people understand better than don't already have knowledge?

<David> was me who joined late

js: if trying to provide overview for people who aren't familiar than think this is helpful
... we need to clarify the audience served by the guide doc

gv: need info for those not familiar with WCAG 2.0 but need to assume audience is familiar with web tech
... don't want to repeat what EO is doing
... but don't repeat info that is already in the techs

<rscano> there are other working groups that has done similar initiatice?

gv: audience should be able to read and understand techs without it being tutorial
... want to cover broad range of audiences but don't want too verbose and overlap with EO

js: that is why we wrote the drafts so we have something to look at and discuss
... another idea discussed at F2F was that this doc would swallow up the gen. techs doc
... for 1.1 L3 SC 1 - BC took existing content from gen. techs and put it into the guide doc;
... then gen techs doc wouldn't need to exist separately OR guide doc would contain links to general techs
... guide doc begins to act as traffic cop for navigation
... also discussed if benefits should be in GL or be moved to the Guide doc?
... hope the examples will help us understand the issues and resolve these questions
... do Examples and benefits belong in GL? in Guide Doc? is it an either or?
... GL can have brief benefits that get expanded in GD (guide doc)
... do gen techs get subsummed into the GD?
... looking for feedback from the group......

dm: like the distinction of not overlapping with EO - imp. issue I hadn't thought of
... like techs to be in a separate document - think the audience will be different
... policy makers looking more at guide doc; devs and techs
... scribe correction: devs looking at techs

js: no one outside of WCAG seems to think of gen. techs as a place to look for how to write good alt text
... think of techs as code samples then get confused betwn gen and tech specific
... still looking for a good name for general techs to make distincion clearer

gv: what if we list techniques by a single sentence name
... writing alt text so it is x y z....
... each sentence has "ing" action word - each is a link to the specific technique document

wc: BC suggested links to all techniques without specifying general or specific
... which is what I did in my mock up

gv: goal is to read document and if don't understand can click on a link for more information

<wendy> wac reads the text from: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/att-0121/guide_to_G1.1L1SC2.html

jw: if believe need benefits, examples, more info -then GD is a good idea; agree with JS that combine gen techs into GD
... imp that GL doc be as self contained as possible; user should be able to read and understand SC and purpose

<Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "What about other technologies?"

jw: so don't want to see benefits and examples taken out of GL doc

yh: was suggested that could link from GD to tech specific techs - but have concerns because
... but as new techs docs for additional technologies occur then have to update GD

js: currently examples offered are just descriptions but don't link to any specific site
... when asked outside group - they expected examples to be live links to examples on the web
... can we do this as we move to candidate rec. since we have to prove viability with real examples

<rscano> i think that user are usually served with guideline + techniques: more docs means more problems. why don't set guidelines + techniques with example?

js: much of what we write in GD might go back into GL as informative material

<rscano> (sorry only irc tonight)

bc: imp. to sep gen tech from GD - if include all the gen tech in the GD get too much info so other info about SC gets lost
... when look at benefits and ex. in GL it can be difficult to know which ex. goes with which SC
... GD really helps with this

gv: each tech in a separate doc has raised some ques. do we include gen in each technology specific doc?
... also issues when use multiple techs ex: html & css
... we understand that new techs will have to be added; that is why GD is non-normative so
... it can be refreshed as needed
... worry about issue when need multiple techs working together - worry if each of those techs are on separate pages will lose some context for problem being sovled
... links for examples is good idea for GD and techs but not in GL; can't have links to real sites in normative GL

js: maybe that is one way for GD to differentiate itself; try to make short ex. descriptions in GL related to real ex. links in GD
... suggest group working on these examples get back together to review the issues raised today
... would like to hear from others not as closely involved in the GD

dm: have GL 1.0 open and it does link to techniques

js: can link to our own docs but not outside of our doc

gv: any more comments?

<wendy> ACTION: js, bc, wac, et al, continue work on guide doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/14-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]

Update on 4.2 and conformance

js: LG, JC, WC and DM? on call yesterday about 4.2; Loretta please update us on 4.2

lg: trying to understand web apps and what is role of UUAG and ATAG relative to them

lr: wc wrote up a summary to try and define UA and web app

lg: looks like we will need to selectively ref. parts of ATAG and perhaps UAAG

gv: you are seeing the need for a 4.2 and would apply to interface delivered as content?

lg: not sure we need 4.2 but maybe more specifcs in other GL. ex. GL 1.3 would require that
... state info should be exposed

js: issues of struct and func. lead to discussion of what is diff. between UA and web app
... result from yesterday was better understanding of questions that need to be asked
... for ex. what do authors need to do to allow UA to render info in a more accessible way

<Zakim> joeclark, you wanted to make a quickie clarification

js: action to map GL to checkpoints in UA - not sure anyone has taken it up

jc: GL 1.3 does say .....separable from presentation; should be structure, presentation and behavior
... structure==html; presentation==css; behavior==javascript (as exmaples) should use this format

gv: where is information?

jc: no one will create empty document with just <p></p> - no web pages with no content

gv: is important to say that info is separate from presentation - that is intent of the GL

jc: can use CSS to add content - but existing wording is problematic

js: JC to take action to explain this better

<wendy> ACTION: joe write proposal for rewording on guideline 1.3 ala structure, presentation, behavior and explanation how it address gv's concern about separating out information. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/14-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]

gv: remember that orig inspiration of 1.3 was to maintain original information in alternate presentations

<jslatin> intent of 1.3 to ensure that info is preserved when presentation format changes

gv: if content acts as UA follow UAAG; if authors content follow ATAG was suggested last week

<wendy> do we want to solve this now or is this what the group should be doing on our call tomorrow?

gv: sometimes UA separately, somtimes get with something else
... same rules for shipping UA separately and as part of content

<Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to ask "1.3 summary"

gv: also helps to cross link the guidelines

yh: back to 1.3 comment from JC - was going to 1.3 summary for next week - should I do 2.4 next week so can incorporate JC's proposal
... or better to do my 1.3 summary and have it to discuss with JC's 1.3 proposal

gv: have JC to issue summary for 1.3 as well; YH does 2.4

<ben> 1.3 issues: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/issuereports/content-structure-separation_issues.php

js: can JC take on that extra work?

jc: yes

<wendy> ACTION: joe do the issue summary for 1.3 and as part of incorporate proposal for new 1.3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/14-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action03]

<wendy> ACTION: yvette issue summary for 2.4 by next tuesday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/14-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action04]

lg: suggesting GV join 4.2 group since complexity of his proposal is what is perplexing the group

gv: will try
... 4.2 has been perplexing us for awhile
... issue with sites that allow others to post

jw: authoring tools dependency was discussed in the meeting; UA issue is more problematic-
... content acting as UA generally isn't something that you can't apply UAAG to
... so should add more specifics to our GL for that

<Zakim> wendy, you wanted to say that content doesnt' function as a UA

wc: propose that working group be given more time before we keep discussing in larger group
... then can perhaps provide a proposal

<ben> bg: concerns about expecting embedded content to meet ATAG or UAAG - hard to do

bg: concerns about req. A
... meeting ATAG and UAAG for tools embedded in content - will wait for more from the group

js: two issues - WC and others have been working to create detailed plan to get us to last call and candidate rec. etc
... not ready for distrib. to list yet but lots of progress being made
... will help us set the agenda for future calls
... quickly need to figure out next F2F in June

wc: week of June 13 for F2F seems preferable
... have been dividing up GL for each week; 3 GL proposals per week with two weeks to discuss then resolve
... also scoping out techs; want to have ttf shadow the GL WG; techs would work on GL in the week following its dicussion at the WG Thursdya meeting
... F2F in Europe; 1st day open to public -then 2 days of techs and 2 days of gl
... propose techs before GL
... 13th June - public day; 14-15 - techs; 16-17 GL
... do those dates work for people?

gv: would like regular WG to also participate in techs meetings
... so don't have to do a recap of everything for full WG and can help the techs groups
... so if can come would be good to come for at least 4 days

yh: where?

wc: possibilities are Venice, Spain, Germany

yh: probably can't make unless in Germany

gv: any issues with the dates? silence - so assume date is ok

wc: playing with different schedules;
... one shows Last call with no new Working draft; another shows sched. hit of another public Working draft
... sched. actually shows internal drafts each two weeks as issues are closed
... need to check with editors on hit of drafts every 2 weeks
... need to coordinate with people's schedules based on vacations and issues at work since we need everyone to be taking up and working on action items

js: heads up that you will be getting email or call from Wendy to do an issue summary by a certain date
... please be honest when you commit to doing the work - it needs to get done on time
... better to decline the work if you know you can't complete it; but we need everyone to take actions

<Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to ask "where?" and to ask "levels"

yh: still need to address how many levels we are going to have - a year ago we picked 3 but did we ever make a firm decision
... we have assumed that no one will do everything in level 3 - need to decide what we will do with level 3

wc: bugzilla has 13 GL as components but also have others; conformance, etc. all of these components need issue summaries
... conformance needs to be done sooner rather than later due to baseline issues
... in sched. on some weeks might address 3 GL and another component
... interesting to see how missing something by one week can really affect the sched. esp in summer months when don't have as many people (due to vacation)
... need to balance getting a quality doc out and getting things done quickly

gv: need to mentally stay focused

wc: if do addn working draft before last call will add 2 months to sched

gv: need to push forward as fast as we can and resolve key issues

jc: been making printouts of WCAG 2.0; went through each GL to find ones that do not have

<wendy> ACTION: joe send summary of analysis re: 2 levels of conformance [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/14-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action05]

levels 1,2 and 3; my preference is for only 2 levels (as has been stated before)

js: wc, bc, and asw have already been working on conformance issues; who took conformance issue summary at dublin meeting?

wc: gv
... but still 18 issues open

js: want to see that issue summary rolled into conformance discussions

<wendy> ACTION: wac, bc, et al consider conformance issues issue summary in work on conformance claims [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/14-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action06]

js: want to look at what issues might be candidates for closure but didn't get summary out to list on time
... prospose adjourning

<wendy> ACTION: js, gv, wac go through summary of issues to determine what can be sent to list to close. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/14-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action07]

lg: need to coordinate 4.2 w
... working group tomorrow

<Yvette> later!

<wendy> bye!

- DRAFT -

WCAG Weekly Telecon

14 Apr 2005

Attendees

Contents

Agenda overview

TTF summary

Guide Doc and Structure proposals

Update on 4.2 and conformance

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output