See also: IRC log
js: harvest feedback on issue summaries of 2.4,
1.3, 4.2, 1.1
... get stuff on table for people to incorporate into revised proposals
... then look at planning framework
<wendy> http://www.w3.org/2005/04/20-wai-wcag-minutes.html
wac: discussed Becky's categories of scripting
techniques
... Becky has more action items
... discussed planning framework
... actions to work out details
... assignment templates - for people to use as they work on proposals
... discussions on <object> issues
... technique using <link> from PF group (based on DHTML roadmap)
... more action items to investigate
... discussed structure of guide doc, re proposals sent last week
... more work to do on those to harmonize and re-propose
js: reminder, just take questions, and take comments and responses, goal not to close today
yph: found items to close, some that need small
amount of discussion, some proposals for new SC, and some proposals for
deletions
... a major problem is overlap between 2.4 and 1.3
1.3 is separate structure from presentation (or behaviour), 2.4 is structural stuff for navigation
yph: 434 propose to close
bbc: fact we have a level 1 SC doesn't necessarily deal with overlap with 1.3
yph: some suggestions to make L3 items L1, propose to postpone until those are handled
gv: artifact from back when we designated as Core or not, therefore can close this as overcome by events
bbc: not opposed to closing issue, just want to be sure of rationale
js: objection to closing on above rationale?
yph: 829 move linear reading order to L1
... now reworded as re sequence
... related item we might want to delete - issue 1441
... can't test if sequence matters (author decision), and also covered by
1.3, therefore remove SC
js: 1 proposal to promote, 1 to delete, discuss
gv: current wording doesn't make sense, not
sure why necessary
... need to be sure whatever we do is conditional re sequence, because much
content can be read in many correct ways
wc: relates to 1214 and 1391
... 1391 is programatic determination of sequence is too vague, maybe needs
to be always programatically determined
wac: perhaps sensible keyboard navigaiton overlaps
wac; 1214 is skipping groups of links, also relates to order making sense
wac: we need something at level 1 but could make it more broad
js: example of online newspaper with sidebars
etc. in general techniques
... intent not to assume all conditions but to deal with when screen readers
make gobbledegook
... perhaps wording to clarify that needed
tb: concern of objectivity of "meaningful" -
author and user may disagree
... can it be objectively evaluated?
js: can be evaluated by human
yph: 1214 promote to L1 for harmonizing with
Section 508
... is harmonizing something we want to consider?
gv: propose we hold off because one of the WAI metagroups is discussing
wac: if we agree to move navigating items in
sequence to level 1, this really just falls into techniques so we can remove
SC
... need to be sure we discuss grouping things, then discuss navigating in
sequence
... some ohter changes outlined in a post re this
js: discussion of <link> to provide such features another technique, supporting Wendy's position
gv: not clear on Wendy's proposal
js: discuss on list
yph: progressive complexity - easy to
understand summary, then other stuff
... was proposed to go under 2.4
... bug 1132
<ben_> http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1132
js: should be addressed by a proposal working on
yph: 1137 increase prioirty of divide blocks of
information in to manageable units
... 2 SC for this - text as paragraphs and hierarchical sections
<ben_> http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1137
yph: perhaps we should have a more generic
version
... re need to divide blocks of info into manageable units
gv: recursive - when you divide blocks you still have blocks that need to divide. Need a divide when "too large" and how do you define threshold.
js: work on 3.1 might be relevant
... relative to size of task user has
... exist generally accepted ways of discussing that stuff, will send to
list
... may be advisory too
gv: many of the things we look at we "harvest out" into advisory techs
lgr: agree not only text that needs structure,
but concerned re house example
... zoom in vs explore
yph: yes, need manageable
js: yvette should write up as functional outcome, then we can look at techniques to achieve, e.g., separate steps, zooming, etc.
js: process pause - we want to get to a proposal, which should allow us to close bugs
gv: may need to modify proposals for some things based on discussion, things too controversial might need to be re-raised
lgr: 4.2
... summary from subgroup work in overview message
... difference between web application and user agent
... based on that distinction that Wendy wrote, we tried to walk through UAAG
level 1 to see what was involved and see if WCAG already covered that or
things needed to be added
... feedback anyone?
gvdh: is the distinction in the post?
js: listed in the agenda, includes Wendy's message with distinction between web application and user agent
<wendy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0160.html
js: sorry for the URL mix up, wrong URL was in the agenda
lgr: is definition of web application appropriate for what we want with this guideline?
js: that's two questions: 1. definition of web
application clear and accurate? 2. is this appropriate for our purposes?
... anyone have a different definition for web app?
gvdh: do web applications have interface
controls? 4.2 is meant to handle the included interface. Example: flash
... we never said that it _was_ a user agent, just that it has interface
controls so we said rather than make our own rules we refer to UAAG
wc: we were looking at UAAG because we were
looking at interface. However if you look at our guidelines, we actually
cover interfaces pretty well in our guidelines
... main issues: name widgets, make sure widgets can be accessed, provide
role and state information
... we matched all the UAAG to WCAG 2 criteria and realized that there are
places where authors need to provide the input the user agent needs to
provide the interface
... there are some additions we need to make, without re-inventing the wheel
of UAAG.
... interface _is_ covered by our guidelines, with some possible additions
js: confirm what wc said
... there are analyses of how UAAG relates to WCAG
bg: Questions about Wendy's message about web
app and user agent
... I'll get back to that later
jw: Agree with wc
... in analysis it became clear we couldn't just refer to UAAG
... it's not possible to conform to UAAG with web content
... we need to find out what's missing from the guidelines for user agents to
work with
bg: I didn't get some of the examples Wendy gave like the Javascript one.
wc: examples were to illustrate web applications that were not user agents
<wendy> what the author needs to provide in the delivery unit so that the user agent can generate an accessible perceivable unit
gvdh: if I understand correctly, most of that
is already in our guidelines
... so rather than sending people off to UAAG, just include what's missing in
our guidelines
... so we suspend the reference to UAAG until we figure out what's missing
... need to make sure people creating web applications put the right stuff in
so they're accessible
... make sure all the information is available to screen readers
js: that's exactly what the analysis calls
for
... analysis tells where in our guidelines we need to specify that
bc: In the UAAG analysis there are examples
that talk about requiring that things be available programatically
... confused by what was meant by some of those f.e. "require to determine
background images programatically"
lgr: the idea is to make sure that no matter
the form, the user agent will be able to get at the information
... if it's HTML source, that's programatically available to the UA
... it's a way to say that the source expresses the information about these
relationships.
bc: that helps a bit, I can see that there are
cases where it's more difficult to distuinguish between foreground and
background
... I can see where you're going
bg: Issue I have with this (will post) is about
requiring ATAG for web apps that allows content generation
... for example: mail input web app that would require asking for alt-text
... scares me as web app developer
wc: only web apps that involve creating content
that is meant for the web would need to conform to ATAG
... hairy issue: for example, our IRC client logs to the web, so would our
IRC program have to confrom to ATAG?
... we could say "if your app generates web content, go to ATAG"
... doesn't clarify when web content needs ATAG or WCAG
bg: an e-mail application could generate web content too, but you mean specifically web content generating applications?
wc: Yes, blogger for example
bg: I'll post my example to the list
tb: ATAG meeting next week. I'll take it to that group.
mm: from the ATAG perspective everything is well defined already. I'm missing what the grey area is
wc: the current def of AT doesn't exclude
content that isn't necessarily meant for the web
... when we participate in mailing list, we are generating web content
mm: not true, the W3C tools are creating web content. They are taking content not meant as such and creating web content from it. IRC client is not an authoring tool
js: Loretta, can you make 4.2 proposal by Tuesday?
lgr: SURE!
js: There's a number of important messages about 4.2. PLEASE READ THEM
lgr: Would like comments by end of day Monday
<wendy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0172.html
wc: when started 1.1 revies serveral issues
about definitions
... depending on defs. SC can mean very different things
... started with definitions to get grounded and felt first SC is most
contentious and affects baseline
... main ques. is if we define text content as ...... and functional text
content as ..... (see post)
... also proposed defs for content
... don't want 4.2 to morph into just how to label widgets
gv: separate out non-text content is anything not rep. via unicode characters - feels like good def - are there any concerns?
bc: what about ascii art?
gv: is ascii art represented as string of unicode characters?
wc: going to need a sub def for each type on
non text content
... functional non-text, non-text to create a sensory info and .....
... ascii art is used to convey info so I think def holds
... 3 text def: functional non-text, not-text to convey info; and to convey
sensory exp.
gv: have to consider spatial arrangement - will post a def
jw: issue of meaning of content; ordinarily
content in delivered unit is considered content; it is not always a stream of
ordered unicode characters
... not all of those may be presented - we need to make a disctinction about
what is content that is presented to the user
... need to be specific as to what content wcag applies
... example is a pdf file structure of the document is not represneted as
seq. of unicode characters even though the text is
... don't want to req. the structure to require text alternative
cs: concerned that req. unicode is
controversial
... issues with Japanese and chinese in particular
wc: to address CS will take action to check
with WT and Makoto
... but thinks unicode should cover
js: but we are not req. unicode, right?
<wendy> ACTION: wendy to check with makoto and takayuki other w3c people. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
wc: correct; document does not have to be
documented in unicode but must represent unicode character
... non text content refers to what is in perceivable unit; content refers to
what is in delivery unit
... will tweak defs
gv: I think we are req. unicode- if not what
else are we req text to be in?
... if not req. unicode then what is our def. of text?
... jason's pt is excellent - talked about separating structure of info from
the info
... structure is content so can't define all next content to incude;
... what do we call content that is not part of structure?
lgr: i think we are saying that unicode rep of text should be programmatically determined
gv: want it to be in unicode when AT accesses
it; can be encrypted, compressed and UA would pull it out
... has to be in fashion that when it goes thru UA it gets presented as
unicode
lgr: thinks wendy's def that talks about any encoding can be used but must be able to be mapped into unicode
gv: but mapping is issue - are we req. all UA
to convert everything to unicode
... have Vander
... have VanderEncryption so now UA is req. to map that to unicode?
lgr: you must provide mapping/apis
wc: unicode is very "general" term - there are several encodings you can use to get to unicode characters
gv: but lgr was going further saying any coding
lgr: think misinterpretting programmatically
determinable
... suggest taking off list
gv: wendy has discovered imp. whole
wc: think some of issues we are discussing with tweaks from JW that defs proposed are still heading in right direction
gv: see Jason's issues as biggest - use of word content
wc: we can use what is in delivery unit vs perceivable unit to help clarify
mm: disagree that structure is info - structure
is meta info.
... if have a doc with only structure there is no info being conveyed
gv: structure is not information
js: markup is information about the document -
that is one kind of info we are trying to preserve across changes in
presentation
... markup is meta info about the content and how it is organized so we need
to be able to talk about both that and the material that is not pure
structure
... but is presenting substance of what we want users to interact with
bc: want to ask about the labeling and flickr
app
... curious of how baseline ques. fit in - right approach to force labels for
each function
... if my baseline includes support for flash I assume flash player deals
with desc. of information
... with it
wc: each widget must be labeled for the baseline that assumes web apps; for lower baseline would provide the alternative mech to provide functionality
gv: if have flash that has controls and exposes
them to screen rdr then they would have labels
... if controls are not exposed to screen reader then would have
alternatives
... all the way down to the widget level there is text
... describe the widget at the level that it occurs (editor didn't capture
this very well - sorry)
wc: thinking that role and state stuff fits
under 1.3
... 1.1 labelling the function, - keyboard access; 1.3 - behavior
js: please read and respond to Joe Clarks issue summary - deals with GL and not SC so will ask him to address SC in relation to issues he summarized
wc: can you post what you just said about 1.3 and role and state
<wendy> ACTION: wendy suggest role/state as part of new 1.3 (ala joe's proposal) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]
js: more comments or concerns about info
already discussed?
... any objections to Wendy pursuing her approach on 1.1?
gv: think it is good as it is exposing old
issues - so think it is worthwhile continuing the exploration
... but a bit worried about combining 4.2 into other places things will be
too confusing - only a mathematician can understand
... don't want it to be too confusing because defs are so precise- may need
plainer language
js: each thurs call will discuss 4 issue
summaries and/or proposals
... 2 step seq. first call will discuss and raise concerns about proposals
sent to list two days earlier
<wendy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0156.html
js: discussion will feed revised proposals and
issues summaries to be sent to list on following tues
... for hopeful resolution /consensus on following thurs
... WC is putting this into an app and will be posting the calendar into
planning section of WG site
... is dynamic plan so we can get clear representation of what happens when
we fall behind
... hope this keeps us mindful of role we play and implications of missing
deadlines
... so as soon as you know you are going to miss a deadline please let
someone know so we can plan and adjust
... know this sounds very corporate but needs to be said
... want to thank all who are working hard and participating
gv: if any hope ot getting to end need to
operate in such a fashions
... need to continue momentum to keep making progress - reiterates thanks