WCAG WG TTF telecon

 

 

mc: agenda is issue review
... agenda for f2f will be posted soon - will be working session
... please sign up if planning to attend

bc: just published new GL draft with latest resolutions

mc: start with 4.2 css techs

Continue review of 4.2

4.2 summary

dm: no clean hits for css techs for gl 4.2

bg: tech about using display:none and positioning to create invisible labels

js: have issues with display:none

mc: also have issues with display:none; also it is a tech to work around WCAG GL's that people don't like

dm: not sure this applies to 4.2

js: would put under 2.5 - avoiding error; or 1.3 - making structures percievable

dm: think both are better hits than 4.2

js: also touches on baseline
... think about mapping techniques to tasks and tasks to SC

ls: curious how css techs map to people with learning disabilities

js: will get to when discuss 3.1

bc: a little hesitant about tasks mapping idea

mc: is this something to work out at f2f?

<jslatin> action john Think about CSS techniques that help people with LD and cognitive/language issues

wc: am working on proposal to send to guide doc sub group

<leasa> Can I jion John on that

wc: in guide declare whether techs are req. or optional for achieving task

mc: back to 4.2 issue summary

dm: don't think any of the css techs currently mapped to 4.2 as belonging there

js: 1.1 and 1.2 css techs seem to map to 3.2

wc: not all techs will directly map - for ex: creating a layout
... task is creating a visual layout - some techs will map to that

js: making structure visible might be task for GL 1.3
... have concerns but certainly think it is worth pursuing

<wendy> note to self: perhaps "designing visual layout" is part of an "application guide" and not guide doc level task?

mc: action is to flag these for followup later

dm: remove mapping to 4.2 and remap
... 5.5 goes to 1.3 or 2.5
... 1.1 and 1.2 goes to 3.2
... 5.2 goes to 1.3 or 3.2

<Michael> ACTION: David propose remapping of CSS techniques currently mapped to 4.2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/01-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]

ed note: format above is - css tech (x.y) goes to GL a.b

mc: move to scripting for 4.2

dm: issue is JS uris

bg: is baseline issue

ls: can set role

mc: but that is future

ls: works in Firefox now

prev. discussion was about form submits and use of js uris

dm: hearing that we want to discourage js uris

mc: yes - because it doesn't fallback but also is not a spec

dm: so maps to 4.1 since js uri is not in any "official" spec
... ques about how JAWS will handle these?

js: does handle in links list and seems to also handle events on a span

mc: propose mapping to 1.1 - and note that it baseline related

bg: why 1.1?

mc: because it is impossible to provide a fallback

js: think it is 4.1 or 4.2

mc: so keep at 4.2

<wendy> 2.2: Dynamic content generation

dm: need to mark it as a NOT to do tech

<wendy> bg: can be used, but need to know how/what to do and not with XHTML.

<wendy> bg: related to baseline

bg: need to decide how much information we want to provide - can use document.write accessiblity but we probably don't want to encourage it

js: so clarify based on baseline
... basline is HTML 4.01 and scripting can use document.write carefully, if baseline is xhtml and script should use createElement

<wendy> Why document.write() doesn't work in XML - http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1091626816&count=1

Continue review of 1.3

1.3 summary

<wendy> Questions about classification of techniques:

bg: questions about tables for layout mapping

mc: we talked about this in the 2.4 discussion

js: we decided that we reading order would be in 3.2

mc: i believe this should be in 3.2

bg: where does "summarizing data table go

mc: perhaps 2.4 cause helps navigation

js: yup 2.4

<wendy> Begin CSS Techniques Issues relating to GL 1.3

bg: css, many are generally mapped to 1.3 with no sc, and many are best practises

bc: this wouldn't exest if not for browsers quirks so its 4.2

mc: but scalability is important

bc: but its a repair technique

wc: there are times to scale and times not to scale ie, borders, teaching people that content will be magnified, and what authors need to consider about that

js: we need a sc for making text epercievable, we are making a default assumption that text is accessible, whihc is not good

<wendy> http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1522

<wendy> http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1025

<wendy> http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=892

<wendy> 892 is pending -proposal to add criterion to 1.4, not discussed

LS: the functional outcome of accessble text is that a AT can parse it

mc: but not all users have AT

mc: font typface ans size are different SC

js: do we need a new sc
... new guideline about text

mc: propose new guideline with 2 SC at least (mentioned here)

<wendy> ACTION: john and michael propose new guideline re: text [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/01-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]

bg: the next one falls under that as well, (px)

<jslatin> advantage to GL about text: provides home for many techniques

<Michael> action 2 = john and michael propose new guideline re: text and update issues 728, 827, 1012, 1013 as appropriate

<jslatin> and def of 'text'

bg: selecting individual characters or lines, maps to 1.3

mc: sounds like CSS tutorial

wc: accessble drop cap instead of an image

bc: purly decoration and not emphisis

js: drop cap is not symanitic

wc: then this a visual design task, that we were talking about earlier

mc: most drop caps after 1500AD the experience is not significant

<jslatin> we need an sc for incunabula <grin>

bc: unless css is not in your baseline
... then it would be image with text alt

js: there are probably people doing cool stuff with this who we could reference

bg: currently mapped to 4.1 and 1.3 IBM public review asks for more examples and information

wc: could relate to 2.4 depending what is done with style sheets

js: could map to 3.2 also

wc: satisfies a variety of needs
... could map to 4.2 because we are providing a fallback alternative, 4.2 is the only place we talk about alternative mechanisms
... the questin came back in Japan, in ENgland, david sloan relying on printing things, wanted to know if it covered print, I don't think it's in our scope

bc: big can of worms all the ways that deal with media types etc

wc: maybe just get rid of it, no use case

bg: delete it for now???

mc: yupa

<wendy> 4. * Media types - deleted for now

<wendy> resolution: delete 4. * Media types - for now. follow css spec.

css 4.1

borders

bg: borders can be useful for highlighting stuff without color, if we update the technique to deal with color separation can put it here

<jslatin> ACTION: john find old sc abt using presentation to support understanding [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/01-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action03]

bg: if mapped to 1.3, it would probably go to color but that's not really what this technique is about, but otherwise no mapping

mc: could go into resurrected sc using presentation to support understanding

<wendy> older guideline was "Checkpoint 3.2 Emphasize structure through presentation(s), positioning, and labels." - http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-WCAG20-20020822/#use-style-to-emphasize

<wendy> even older version from 2001 "Checkpoint 3.2 Emphasize structure through presentation, positioning, and labels." - http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-WCAG20-20010824/#use-style-to-emphasize

<wendy> (more detail under it)

BG: don't think it maps to 1.3, not about structure,

js: could go under, visual design as per wendy's suggestion of a new task about vsual design

bg: task is marking document symantics, optional techniques could be highlighting them or styling them

wc: in guide we good give concepts, in techniques doc

in tech doc get more specific

wc: the sufficient tecnique is to use fieldset, but there are optional techniqes
... we cannot creat a sc about visual design so have to map it ther

js: al gilman posted class=change etc
... progressive enhancement start with basics and then add for more equiped browsers

mc: why not have sc about visual layout, i,e cognitive

wc: tons of freedom of expression issues

js: we'll get beat up if we try that
... they belong under 3.1 and 3.2, I will find a way to recoperate a way to link presentation to undersanding

mc: I could live wiht that

wc: caution about effort into new guidelines, I'm looking for ways to use what we have

js: yeah, we need a guideline, that deals with the inacurate assumption about text being percievble but I don't want to proliferate guideline

wc: why don't we say borders maps best to 3.1 because it makes it easier to coprehend

mc: ok let's check in should we move to 2.5???

perhaps a technique around the 75 choices etc...

First review of 2.5

2.5 summary

bg: not a lot to talk about in 2.5

<wendy> http://www.eramp.com/david/general/

bg: I won't be here for the frst hour next week

mc: I will contact people for homework for f2f