See also: IRC log
last week's face-to-face. people worked long hours (~8:30-7:30 each day, with 15 minute breaks and 45 minute lunches) for 4 days.
changes made to wiki. gregg sent two lists of items. The first list - are these ready to go out for the next draft?
The second list - are these changes acceptable? e.g., ok to delete a SC or to combine a couple.
the third list are those things we still need to do - that hasn't been sent yet.
resolution: first block of items are ready for publication list at: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005OctDec/0121.html>
Proposal to delete this success criterion
RATIONALE: because it is almost impossible to do unless the live multimedia is scripted so you know when people are not talking so you can speak audio descriptions. In that case we are only talking about live plays or something and that was not seen as a major enough type of content on the Web for us to have a success criteria all about it.
resolution: delete Guideline 1.2 L3 SC3 - audio descriptions (live multimedia)
proposal: remove
Rationale: if you conform to other success criteria (1.1 and 1.3) then there are no further requirements. we're assuming that user agents should or could change color of text and background for contrast as long as the text is programmatically determined.
resolution: remove Guideline 1.4 L1 SC1
proposal: delete
Rationale: SC2 covers everything but very common words that are in a standard dictionary. people with cognitive disabilities would be better off using a dictionary that is tuned for them or that they are at least used to than having each author specifying a different dictionary. it is better for the user to pick the dictionary - something they are used to.
concern about disambiuity of words. feeling that it is handled in separate criterion.
there is a work item about pronunciation (for languages where something else is provided).
that's not the issue was trying to raise.
cites WWAAC work on concept coding.
original idea was about lexicon but evolved to dictionary due to lack of comfort with lexicon.
discussion if covered by existing level 3 sc 2 (terms used in restricted way)
not disambiguating words, it's concept coding
reminder that this SC does not cover concept coding - only that you point to a dictionary.
suggestion to keep this as because 1. a "placeholder" for something related to concept coding 2. concern that watering down guidelines wrt cognitive disabilities
need to work on guide document to reflect issues raised today
no consensus. ask for someone to write a proposal and act on at next meeting.
<scribe> ACTION: bengt and lisa proposal for success criterion and guide document by monday to address concept coding. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/27-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
proposal to delete
Rationale: moved to a general technique for 4.2 L1 sc6. Also, the implication of the wording is that accessibility conventions would need to be used even if they are not appropriate (e.g., "accesskey").
resolution: delete Guideline 4.2 L2 SC1
proposal to combine with 3.2 L2 SC3
clarification - not combine the 2 criteria, but delete the level 3 because it is covered by the level 2 criterion.
and then combine the guide documents since there are good techniques in the l3 guide doc.
this is in guideline 3.2 - about predictable functionality. concern about definition of function. does it include convey information?
proposal - leave both of them in since what they mean is unclear. someone needs to look at what they say and propose a clarification.
concern about how this applies to a site that provides a simplified version
resolution: combine Guideline 3.2 L3 SC1 and 3.2 L2 SC3 with proviso that we work on using the guide documents to clarify what is covered.
ready to go?
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Guide_to_1.3_L3_SC_2
it's a new SC that hasn't previously been published.
concern that it should be at level 2
proposal, "do not depend solely..." so as not to discourage the practice (similar to practice). don't want to say people can't use, but if they do be redundant with other encoding.
scribe: in another way that does not depend on shape or location.
<gregg> When Instructions convey information using visual characteristics such as shape or visual location of components the information is also provided in a way that does not rely on shape or visual location of components.
<gregg> When Instructions convey information using visual characteristics such as shape or visual location of components the information is also provided in a way that does not rely on visual characteristics such as shape or visual location of components.
<gregg> Instructions for understanding or operating a delivery unit do not depend solely on users' ability to perceive visual characteristics such as shape or visual location of components.
concern about tactile markup and other haptic devices that could be used in the future
proposal: When instructions for understanding or operating a delivery unit use (refer to?) shape or visual location , the instructions do not solely rely on these visual characteristics (i.e. shape and visual location)..
<David> tactile map link http://tactile.nrcan.gc.ca/page.cgi?url=index_e.html
"user's ability to perceive" is not testable
Instructions for understanding or operating a delivery unit do not depend solely on visual characteristics such as shape or visual location of components.
if narrow to shape or visual location, should also include size
concern that it needs more investigation
proposal: instructions do not rely on vision for understanding
as compared to JIS: our current wording limits to instructions but is broader (to all visual characteristics)
<scribe> ACTION: kerstin and makoto work on rewording of SC of about "shape and locaiton" and guide doc. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/27-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]
<Andi> Information required to understand and operate Web content does not rely on shape and location alone.
<Andi> Information required to understand and operate Web content shall not rely on shape or location alone.
resolution: adopt at level 2 with guide doc on the way from kerstin and makoto - Information required to understand and operate Web content does not rely on shape or location alone.
<scribe> ACTION: katie "next round we should..." wrt Guideline 1.3 L3 SC2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/27-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action03]
guideline 1.2 l1 sc1 captions - level 1 or 2?
guideline 1.2 l1 sc 2 audio descriptions - level 1 or 2
guideline 3.1 L3 SC2, SC3, and SC5 - move from level 3 to level 2?
we will send survey on these items.
latest notes. rough.
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Proposed_Guide_to_2.4_L2_SC4
guideline 2.4 L2 SC4 - decided to wait for discussion. think it's ready to discuss.
survey both wordings in survey
Guideline 4.2 L1 SC6 http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Guide_to_4.2_L1_SC_6
michael sent email to list
michael to work on 4.2 L1 SC6
instead of "guide" call "intent and best practice"
what about "explation and examples"