WCAG Weekly Telecon -- 3 Nov 2005

WCAG Weekly Telecon

<Makoto> I see. I'll be able to be in my bed 1 hour more for next months :-)

<Andi> scribe: Andi

not publishing November 10th as planned

must publish by November 17th to stay

must move forward - have to let things go that we "can live with"

Proposal to move GL 3.1 L3 SC 5 to L2

Gez thinks this is not hard to do and is in favor of moving to Level 2

Yvette thinks this is difficult to do

<Becky> q

resolution: Leave GL 3.1 Level 3 SC 5 at Level 3

Guideline 1.2 and 3.1 Proposed Level Changes <http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2005-11-03mtg/>

Discussing moving GL 1.2 L1 SC 1 (captions) to level 2

Yvette - very hard to do, people either stop using Multimedia which can be helpful for people with cognitive disabilties or stop doing WCAG because think it's too hard.

John - Multimedia is not accessible without captions, concern if we don't require captions because the volume of multimedia is increasing on the Web.

Yvette - would like to have "baby step" requirement at Level 1 that makes it minimally accessible

Loretta - captioned multimedia should always be sufficient at level 1 so don't want us to put something at Level 1 that would make captions not sufficient.

Michael - WCAG should define what it means to be accessible even if it's not "practical reality"

Objections to leaving this at Level 1 and objections to moving this to Level 2

Call for review should flag this issue, should include stakeholders from deaf community and captioning tool developers

resolution: moving forward with dissent on GL 1.2 Level 1 SC 1 (captions)

discussing GL 1.2 Level 1 SC 2 (audio descriptions)

more support for moving to Level 2 but not consensus

John - support leaving at Level 1 - multimedia increasingly important on the Web - seems wrong to lower requirement (WCAG 1.0 and Section 508 both require it)

Michael proposes transcript at level 1, audio descriptions at Level 2

Loretta - same as comment for captions - audio descriptions should be sufficient at level 1

Loretta proposes at Level 1 - text description or audio description is availalbe

Level 2 - audio description is availalbe

Ben proposes - Meeting GL 1.1 Level 3 SC for a combined transcript is a technique for meeting GL 1.2 L1 SC 2

Yvette proposes at least one of the following is available: text description, audio descriptions, or collated transcript

Tim - confusing to have the same functional requirement on different levels

Loretta clarifies - hard requirement for audio descriptions at level 2, option to do something less at level 1 but audio descriptions would still satisfy level 1

<scribe> ACTION: Loretta, Michael, Yvette, John to develop proposal for audio descriptions by Monday. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/03-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]

discussing - GL 3.1 Level 3 SC 2 - move to level 2

Gez thinks this is easy to do

testability issues with "unusual"

resolution: leave GL 3.1 Level 3 SC 2 at Level 3

<ben> sufficient techniques - http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2005-11-03mtg/results

resolution: GL 3.1 Level 3 SC 3 (abbreviations) - leave this at Level 3

<Kesh> scribe: kesh

katie - we did a survey, why are we re-voting?

Andi - three objections to moving it up to L2

John - we need to leave at L3, and note dissent

katie -- 17 people on survey -- I object, cannot live with it at L3

John - survey is not the same as "cannot live with it"

we have 3 to 3 objecting in each direction -- off the table till next week - but we need to decide, and I do not want to call for a vote -- we have so far been able to work to consensus

guidelines will be stronger if we can reach consensus

Andi: I think it's more about WHEN to apply it -- do we need to mark St. in an address as an abbreviation

resolution: move this issue of abbr to next meeting

Guidelines 1.3, 2.1, 2.4 and 3.1 <http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2005-11-03mtg2/>

Loretta -- the whole issue is 'what does this actually mean?'

loretta -- people were saying if the techno has structure, use it

gregg - I would rather see something that says 'the following structures need to be exposed programatically' if tech. does not have it, then people cannot use it

issue - how does this affect text files?

gregg -- there is a way to mark up text files

loretta -- this offers option three that was not on the survey -- proposing that specific structure be called out as mandatory

andi - this was proposed only in techniques -- 'the following need to be progr. determined ...'

gregg -- i would rather be specific instead of throwing a broad net to catch all the fish and dolphins at the same time

loretta - wcag 1.0 requires table markup at level 1, headers at l2

ben -- where the lost sheep of structure fit in -- kbd, etc.. what level, if any, do these fit in -- where do we draw the line

gregg -- maybe we should say markup that shows organizational relationships -- level 1,

gregg - if this gets the essence of what we think is important, then leave it there

organization and relationships to each other ...

<Michael> or not

Michael - a lot of the other sc cover things we care about in structure -- 1.3 is trying to be a catch-all -- we should be pretty open-ended in 1.3

loretta -- I feel the opposite of michael

michael -- if it's not there, then I think it should be

proposal: structure that deals with organization or relationship of text within the delivery unit can be programatically determined

structure related to with organization or relationship of text within the delivery unit can be programatically determined

andi -- have a problem with 'relationship of text'

gregg -- in guide doc we would deal with things like images, with alt text

counter proposal : a mechanism is available to find the definition of each word in the content

alex -- what about cross-referencing documents -- do I need to define a definition and a definition and so on, so on

be -- in favor of taking out of the sc altogether -- if not suff. techniques, then include in advisory under 'unusual ... way'

proposal: remove 3.1 L3 SC1 and add it to advisory

<bengt> I am just afraid that we will deny any way to reach definitions in a general way, why should we be restricted to unusual words ????

<bengt> ben ?

proposal -- (1) deleting is an SC and (2) adding it to advisory techniques

does anyone want to speak against deleting this sc (finding def. in all text and content), and adding that one plus Lisa and bengt's proposal to advisory techniques

can we just vote to move it?

<bengt> that reason hasnt been said before

can we get consensus to move this to advisory? and that we also add lisa and bengt proposal about meaning to advisory as well

under L3 SC2

proposal accepted

<bengt> there are problems with leaving it to other means, since they are incomplete in other languages than english ...

proposal: move 3.1 L3 SC1 becomes advisory techniques, as well as lisa and bengts' proposal, as adv. techniques under L3 SC1

<ben> scribe: ben

06resolution: remove 3.1 L3 SC1 and include it as an adivisory technique for 3.1 L3 SC2. Also include an advisory technique based on Lisa and Bengt's proposal01.

discussing: SC and guide for 2.4 L2 SC4

<Zakim> Michael, you wanted to say I think this one is quite broken

<Michael> ack

<Yvette> I object to keeping it as is

<Yvette> I can't call back in because the call is officially over

no consensus

<scribe> ACTION: michael and ben to work on the guide doc for 1.3 L1 SC2 and repropose [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/03-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]

discussing: Guide for 1.3 L2 SC1

resolution: accept guide doc for Guide for 1.3 L2 SC1 and keep SC as is

<Yvette> Excuse me?

<bengt> just tell zakim to open up again

<Yvette> how?

resolution: accept Success Criterion text and Guide for 1.3 L2 SC2 (action editors to clean up based on comments)

<bengt> wendy used to do that

next week: discuss last item in survey on 1.3, 2.1, 2.4 and 3.1 and remaining agenda items

<Yvette> Bye all!

- DRAFT -

WCAG Weekly Telecon

3 Nov 2005

Attendees

Contents