On the phone I see Michael_Cooper, Tom (muted), Wendy, David_MacDonald, Ben_and_Gregg, Yvette?, Yvette, Takayuki_Watanabe, John_Slatin, JasonWhite, Becky_Gibson, Mike_Barta
wac and gv summarize changes in charter and w3c process
20:30:34 [wendy]
questions from wg:
20:30:44 [wendy]
1. when will this go into effect? about one month
20:31:04 [wendy]
2. what about face-to-faces and Good Standing? up to chair, but fairly lax b/c of travel constraints.
20:31:38 [wendy]
3. can i be an invited expert and in good standing and vote? yes. all current people in good standing will be invited as experts
20:31:55 [wendy]
ack michael
20:33:19 [wendy]
4. what about participants who are deaf? if someone who is deaf wants to participate, we will set up real-time captioning (ala the RDIG telecon that used web-streaming)
looks like typo in milestones to list css and scripting techs twice in 3Q
20:39:14 [wendy]
resolved: we approve this charter
20:39:40 [wendy]
===
20:39:42 [wendy]
conformance
20:40:31 [wendy]
should all success criteria be testable?
20:40:37 [wendy]
ok for level 3 not to be testable
20:40:51 [sh1mmer]
q+
20:41:04 [MattBOS]
q+
20:41:56 [MichaelC]
q+
20:42:24 [sh1mmer]
ack Tom
20:42:26 [wendy]
level 3 exist, but don't create a conformance level. not likely that people will claim.
20:42:46 [wendy]
is the question that they are testable but testable to the same degree as level 1 and level 2?
20:43:11 [MichaelC]
q+ : if we have untestable items at a given conformance level, it is not meaningful to call that "conformance"
20:43:29 [wendy]
ack matt
20:44:19 [wendy]
if it's hard to make sure you did it, and there's a lot of stuff to do, then tools won't likely do well and the only people who claim will be wrong.
20:44:47 [wendy]
you can create 3 levels of guidelines, but only 1 and 2 should have a name applied that you can claim conformance to
20:44:50 [wendy]
ack michael
20:44:50 [Zakim]
Michael_Cooper, you wanted to if we have untestable items at a given conformance level, it is not meaningful to call that "conformance"
20:44:56 [GVAN]
q+
20:45:13 [wendy]
don't object to presence of untestable criteria, but they shouldn't be success criteria.
20:45:53 [wendy]
2 conformance levels + additional suggestions? or 3 conformance levels plus additional suggestions? or x # of conformance levels without additional suggestions?
20:46:15 [wendy]
mc supports any as long as we don't confound conformance w/idea of untestable items.
20:46:18 [wendy]
ack john
20:47:20 [wendy]
don't care how many levels of conformance. do care that difficult items related to language (guideline 3). can't support dropping them out.
20:47:24 [wendy]
q+ to say, "style guide"
20:47:29 [wendy]
ack kerstin
20:47:54 [wendy]
don't care about how many levels, but conformance is inherently about testing
20:48:29 [wendy]
ok to leave in as suggestions, but not part of conformance.
20:48:32 [wendy]
testability is key.
20:49:06 [wendy]
ack gvan
20:49:22 [wendy]
if call it conformance and success criteria, it has to be testable.
20:49:33 [wendy]
good idea to have "additional suggestions"
20:50:09 [wendy]
checkpoints?
20:50:36 [wendy]
if don't allow anything in between levels, each is all or nothing.
20:51:12 [wendy]
level 3 of 3.1 is cognitive and learning and disability, but it is not the only guideline. over 1/2 of the guidelines cover cognitive and learning disabilities.
20:51:18 [wendy]
ack wendy
20:51:18 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say, "style guide"
20:52:27 [wendy]
ack andi
20:52:53 [wendy]
would like one level (in interest of world harmonization), realize radical idea but...would likely help harmonization
20:53:03 [wendy]
agree w/kerstin - if it's part of a conformance scheme, ithas to be testable
20:53:26 [wendy]
chance it will end up in legislation. if have to defend from legal perspective, has to be testable
20:53:45 [wendy]
ack yvette
20:54:13 [rellero]
What about (3.3) actually deleted "Content is no more complex than is necessary" (>14.1), I think that not considering it at least at the level as 3 is inopportune
some are testable, others might be better off as best practices
20:54:56 [wendy]
first decide, which guidelines are testable (w/out thinking about testability)
20:55:03 [wendy]
and those things that are good for accessibility
20:55:08 [wendy]
that should be in best practice
20:55:14 [wendy]
think about how to really help web accessiblity
20:55:19 [wendy]
w/out thinking about which is what level already
20:55:31 [wendy]
ack pau
20:55:41 [GVAN]
q+
20:56:07 [wendy]
must have missed discussions of style guide. think it could be something valuable.
20:57:30 [wendy]
could be a reality check for people who are trying to make a difference vs comply w/rules
20:57:34 [wendy]
ack gv
20:57:51 [rcastaldo]
q+
20:57:56 [Zakim]
-Michael_Cooper
20:58:47 [wendy]
suggest (to move forward) by saying we'll look at 3 levels and only put testable things in them. also have "other recommendations and measures"
20:58:55 [wendy]
other things you can do that don't fall into one of the success criteria
20:59:06 [DoyleB]
DoyleB has joined #wai-wcag
20:59:38 [wendy]
first, we shouild build them, then later decide whether they should go into guidelines or gateway or style guide/something similar.
20:59:55 [DoyleB]
Sorry I am late, did not think I'd make it to a computer, cannot call-in. This will haev to do for today. Sorry I am late.
20:59:55 [wendy]
at that time, could also decide if 3 levels of criteria should be in 2 or 3 levels.
21:00:39 [wendy]
ack rob
21:00:43 [wendy]
ack rc
21:00:51 [wendy]
agree w/the suggestion.
21:00:55 [wendy]
in italy, have issues w/new law.
21:01:43 [wendy]
not all checkpoints in wcag 1.0 are testable.
21:02:21 [wendy]
yvette: we should focus on the guideliens and not get hung up on levels
21:06:07 [wendy]
ben: we've been here before.
21:06:20 [wendy]
gv would like to postpone discussion about sorting out until we know what we're sorting.
21:06:22 [wendy]
ack john
21:06:29 [wendy]
how many untestable items are there in level 3?
21:07:16 [Zakim]
-MattBOS
21:09:46 [wendy]
q+
21:10:10 [wendy]
not falling off the table - they are getting fixed or moving to gateway
21:10:12 [MattBOS]
MattBOS has left #wai-wcag
21:10:14 [wendy]
suggest a timelimit
21:10:25 [wendy]
for when they get moved out of conformance scheme into someplace lese
21:10:29 [wendy]
s/lese/else
21:12:22 [wendy]
ack wendy
21:14:23 [wendy]
propose that we draft a style guide. let's try a new way forward. we've talked about it, but never tried constructing it.
21:15:08 [wendy]
don't think putting it in general techniques gives it the profile that people would like to see. don't think we could get agreement on that as a compromise. think style guide different from general techniquyes
21:15:29 [wendy]
(propose wendy, paul, and matt work on propoal - if they are interested. think matt was first to propose a while ago)
21:17:24 [Zakim]
-Sailesh_Panchang
21:17:29 [wendy]
yvette - put non-testable stuff in one place
21:19:28 [wendy]
can imagine that several people have thought up guidelines but decided not to post since not testable.
21:19:41 [wendy]
what about an appendix in the working document that says, "items which are currently felt to be untestable?"
21:19:49 [wendy]
we could gather them there so we dn't lose track of them.
21:20:56 [bengt]
that would mean that evry level will be testable in the end ?
21:21:10 [wendy]
4 voices say, "would like to see style guide"
21:21:18 [wendy]
do we have to do one or the other?
21:21:21 [wendy]
do both?
21:21:42 [wendy]
while we explore the style guide idea, let's have a place to store the untestable items so we don't lose them.
21:22:02 [wendy]
is the idea to solicit ideas for more ntestable stuff?
21:22:10 [wendy]
no, it's just a place to put the ones that we have
21:22:28 [DoyleB]
Are we pulling the untestable items from the main guidelines document?
21:22:50 [wendy]
do we move it or just link to it? move it
21:23:04 [wendy]
we are moving untestable items from success criteria to an appendix at the end
21:23:43 [DoyleB]
I'd prefer moving as opposed to linking - movign to the end sounds good to me.
21:23:44 [wendy]
consensus: all success criteria should be testable
delete #1 under the defn of level 1 success criteria
21:28:45 [wendy]
"Do not set limits on content or presentation;"
21:28:57 [wendy]
not worded the way it is meant.
21:29:04 [wendy]
should be clarified to mean "default presentatioN"
21:29:42 [wendy]
s/resources/something less techy
21:30:35 [Zakim]
-Roberto_Castaldo
21:30:43 [wendy]
does anyone disagree w/deleting this item?
21:30:59 [wendy]
not that *is* invisible, but it can be
21:31:10 [wendy]
if there, it will be manifest in one way or another.
21:31:19 [wendy]
possible to implement in way that is not visible in some presentations
21:32:27 [wendy]
it presupposes a default user agent
21:32:28 [rcastaldo]
01I'm trying to re-enter in the meeting, but a voice says that "the conference is restricted at this time"
21:32:37 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
21:32:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Tom (muted), Wendy, David_MacDonald, Ben_and_Gregg, Yvette, Takayuki_Watanabe, John_Slatin, JasonWhite, Becky_Gibson, Mike_Barta (muted), Andi_Snow-Weaver,