See also: IRC log
For any technologies not in the chosen baseline, the following are true:
<scribe> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0511.html
f2f info and registration: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2005/06/f2f-agenda.html
13/14 june full WCAG WG, 15/16 june techniques task force (details soon in proposed agenda)
survey results: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/techsupport0516/results
Proposed wording Level 1 SC 1: When rendering or operating content requires a plug-in or applet, a mechanism is available and associated with the content for downloading a version of the plug-in or
issue: michael's comment on list, delete the SC. other questions: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0512.html
my response in the survey suggested, "a mechanism is available and associated with the content for downloading a version of the plug-in, applet, or an alternative that allows the content to conform to these guidelines." ??
proposal: a pair of criteria 1. if its in the baseline do x, 2. if it is not in the baseline...
reminder of definition of baseline
Proposed wording for (new) guideline 4.2 l1 sc 1 For any technologies not in the chosen baseline, the following are true:
1. The Web content still conforms using user agents that only support the technologies that are in the baseline (i.e. the use of technologies that are not in the baseline does not "break" access to the Web content by user agents that don't support them.)
2. All content and functionality are available using only the baseline technologies.
additionally, the current proposal for guideline 4.2 l1 sc1 would become sc 2
propose that piece above doesn't leave the "conformance requirements" section. stays there *and* is repeated as SC in 4.2.
issue: specifically reference baseline in a SC
however, saying "whatever baseline you choose..."
it is in the definition of the conformance levels: e.g. 1. Any conformance with WCAG 2.0 requires that all level 1 success criteria for all guidelines be met assuming user agent support for only the technologies in the chosen baseline.
tim disagrees using "baseline" in the definitions of level a, aa, aaa
tim's comment in survey: QA, "fragmentation" of market, interoperability concerns. I don't think that "baseline" should be strictly included as an integral part of the WCAG conformance model (should not be part of definition sentences of A,AA,AAA conformance); I think that baseline information should be included with other relevant information as part of a WCAG conformance claim, but should...
conformance claim examples and proposals: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0021.html
example and proposal may address tim's concerns
<ben> resolved: include proposed SC1 (adapted from the conformance proposal and pasted above) in next draft as first SC under 4.2
issue: author assumptions are not incorporated in conformance requirements.
the following paragraph was not intended to be dropped "The Working Group believes that success criteria at all 3 levels are important or essential for some people. Thus, the old descriptions of "impossible to access" for Level A, "difficult to access" for Level AA, and "somewhat difficult" for Level AAA are no longer used. Instead we define the three levels as above."
add an ednote, "ongoing WCAG WG study..."?
<scribe> ACTION: tim add issue to bugzilla re: conformance and baseline [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
resolved: replace current "conformance requirements" section with proposed+existing last paragraph
<scribe> ACTION: ben and wendy add issues from survey to bugzilla (against conformance requirements section) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]
action 2 = ben and wendy add their issues from survey to bugzilla (against conformance requirements section) [i.e., we don't need to add all issues, only those we raised. others feel free to add your issues if youw ant further discussion]
resolved: proposal for 4.2 l1 sc 1 (now sc 2) will go back to subgroup for further work to address comments.
<scribe> ACTION: loretta continue to shepherd discussion of guideline 4.2 SC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action03]
results from 2.5 survey: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/minerror0517/results
Proposed wording Level 2 SC 1: If an input error is detected, the error is identified and provided to the user in text.
resolved: adopt proposed wording for Guideline 2.5 Level 2 SC 1
Proposed wording level 2 SC2: If an input error is detected and suggestions for correction are known and can be provided without jeopardizing security or purpose, the error is identified and the suggestions are provided to the user in text.
editorial suggestion: "the security or purpose of the content"
editorial suggestion: add "in text" at the end. [some felt this was too constraining]
proposal: instead of "in text" "in a manner that conforms to the guidelines"
issue: do we say each time "conform to the guidelines" or is that obvious?
proposal: suggestions are provided. [since enough information, even about error messages, should be part of delivery unit to make perceivable unit accessible]
resolved: adopt L2SC2 If an input error is detected and suggestions for correction are known and can be provided without jeopardizing the security or purpose of the content, the error is identified and the suggestions are provided to the user.
Issue 1344 - Reject suggestion that we require all actions should be reversible?
resolved: reject issue 1344
Proposed wording Level 3 SC 2: If there are more than 75 choices, selection lists must not be the only means of providing the input choice. Another input method, such as a text entry field, text typing to select items from list, or a search function, must be provided instead of, or in addition to, the selection list.
issue against: Proposed wording makes it impossible for several web applications. For example: an online chess game where there are more than 75 choices of which piece to move where. The current wording would be no problem, because the game doesn't require text entry so it wouldn't apply. The proposed wording suggests that you provide the choices in a selection as well as another method...
other issues: 75 is arbitrary, proposed wording is better but should remove the criterion
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1017
discussion about how this change came about. concern that it doesn't belong here -typing vs picking info is not a way to prevent error. it's about efficiency.
75 purposefully higher than 50-60 so that it wouldn't apply to u.s. states, etc.
Current text: Where text entry is required for which there is a known set of less than 75 valid choices and they can be provided without jeopardizing security or purpose, users are allowed to select from a list of options as well as to type the data directly.
Proposed text: If there are more than 75 choices, selection lists must not be the only means of providing the input choice. Another input method, such as a text entry field, text typing to select items from list, or a search function, must be provided instead of, or in addition to, the selection list.
Rationale for proposal: The current success criterion was split into 2 per a proposal from December 2004. Related to issue 1017. Consensus not reached on 10 and 75 as thresholds. Andi suggests removing this criterion since it appears to be technology dependent.
<scribe> ACTION: gregg will take action to discuss with andi [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action04]
action 4 = gregg talk with andi about guideline 2.5
resolved: current text for Guideline 2.5 Level 3 SC 2 is better than proposed text for this particular guideline. for now, keep current wording.
action 4 = gregg talk with andi about guideline 2.5. ask andi if proposed text fits better under a different SC.
Issue 1351 and Issue 1396 had split feedback. andi should look at feedback and return with an updated proposal.
resolved: Issue 1344 non-controversial. close.
<ben> Results of Questionnaire - Proposal for Guideline 3.1: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/meaning0516/results
Proposed text: Guideline 3.1 Make text content readable and understandable.
concern about testability of "readable" and "understandable"
concern about only making text accessible? what about graphics/images?
js willing to think about, however likely a separate guideline (to make non-text content accessible)
john clarifies difference between "readable" and "understandable" and that at this time, none of the proposals address "understandable"
<scribe> ACTION: john update proposals for Guideline 3.1 based on feedback from survey. ask people to make comments before the weekend to have a chance to incorporate. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/19-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action05]