IRC log of wai-wcag on 2003-07-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

07:20:22 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
07:25:28 [wendy]
07:26:27 [wendy]
tomas caspers, daniela d'aloisi, silvia dini, roberto ellero, bengt farre, katie haritos-shea, ian lloyd, matt may, roberto scano, lisa seeman, cynthia shelly, andi snow-weaver
07:26:51 [wendy]
charles mccathienevile, patrizia bertini
07:27:02 [wendy]
07:27:17 [wendy]
andy judson
07:27:20 [rellero]
rellero has joined #wai-wcag
07:27:40 [wendy]
maurizio vittoria
07:28:36 [wendy]
07:28:47 [GVAN]
GVAN has joined #wai-wcag
07:29:12 [wendy]
07:29:15 [wendy]
07:30:30 [chaalsVCE]
chaalsVCE has joined #wai-wcag
07:31:11 [chaalsVCE]
Charles McCathieNevile - W3C (but not WAI! - another bit)
07:31:23 [chaalsVCE]
Patrizia Bertini - independent, Italy
07:31:32 [chaalsVCE]
Lisa Seeman - UB Access, Israel
07:31:39 [chaalsVCE]
Bengt - WWAAC
07:31:52 [chaalsVCE]
Andy Jensen - Univeristy of Dundee
07:32:02 [chaalsVCE]
Andy SNow-Weaver - IBM Accessibility
07:32:16 [chaalsVCE]
Maurizio Vittorio - Marciana
07:32:16 [wendy]
charles - i've got the info in the registration.
07:32:23 [wendy]
thanks roberto!!
07:32:35 [wendy]
thank you maurizio for the books!
07:32:50 [wendy]
07:34:38 [wendy]
want to make sure that international standards meet needs of the international community.
07:34:49 [rscano]
rscano has joined #wai-wcag
07:34:58 [wendy]
thus, want to hear what the guidelines mean to you and to each of your country.
07:35:05 [wendy]
start with WCAG 1.0 and the migration to WCAG 2.0.
07:35:26 [wendy]
then conformance of WCAG 2.0. making sure that what we are drafting fits the models that are used in different countries.
07:35:39 [wendy]
we want to facilitate the adoption of WCAG 2.0 and its use in different countries.
07:36:26 [wendy]
please raise your hand if you need something repeated.
07:36:56 [wendy]
07:36:57 [chaalsVCE]
Alessandro Fossato sends his regrets for the morning
07:37:27 [wendy]
testing followed by WCAG 2.0 messaging. What is the message that we want to get it out about 2.0? Why do we have it? What is different?
07:37:30 [bengt]
bengt has joined #wai-wcag
07:37:36 [silvia]
silvia has joined #wai-wcag
07:37:44 [wendy]
Is it better or worse and in what ways?
07:38:40 [wendy]
07:38:45 [wendy]
Migration from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0
07:38:45 [m3mVCE]
m3mVCE has joined #wai-wcag
07:38:48 [RylaDog]
RylaDog has joined #wai-wcag
07:39:26 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #wai-wcag
07:40:10 [wendy]
+elena Brescacin, Rudy Cavallin
07:41:05 [wendy]
a key thing is a "delta" document - here are the differences.
07:41:08 [wendy]
what are the changes?
07:42:44 [chaalsVCE]
CMN For Sidar it is important that that carries thruogh to the techniques
07:43:12 [wendy]
things not covered by 508, we call "usability" and find ways to address.
07:43:43 [wendy]
(my thought is that) 2.0 is more flexible.
07:44:22 [wendy]
i'm able to tell my client, we can reach core. work on tables, css, to gain "+"
07:44:32 [wendy]
I find it more usable.
07:45:21 [wendy]
Some sites that reach AA differ from each other in many ways. I can personalize the level of the site for each client.
07:46:05 [wendy]
+Giuseppe Lapis
07:46:44 [silvia_chiossone]
silvia_chiossone has joined #wai-wcag
07:47:01 [wendy]
07:47:17 [wendy]
q+ lisa
07:47:57 [wendy]
not sure that conformance will have a "+" or a "+n"
07:48:13 [wendy]
07:48:44 [wendy]
ack wendy
07:49:16 [wendy]
ack lisa
07:51:14 [wendy]
+Giorgio Brajnik, Enrico Scoda
07:51:46 [wendy]
in Israel, concern about workload.
07:52:15 [rscano]
rscano has joined #wai-wcag
07:52:25 [wendy]
Requirement for valid markup, is a lot of work. i.e., didactic marks
07:52:29 [wendy]
q+ marc
07:52:37 [m3mVCE]
07:52:46 [wendy]
07:53:00 [wendy]
not just question of pluggin into Tidy.
07:53:06 [wendy]
q+ Ian
07:53:17 [wendy]
how does markup cause to look funny?
07:53:25 [wendy]
tidy -> xhtml, it looks different.
07:54:07 [wendy]
nested tables, automated tool often puts in wrong place. getting rid of deprecated, can make look different.
07:54:26 [wendy]
an important checkpoint, but no discussion about existing sites and redoing them.
07:54:27 [wendy]
07:54:33 [wendy]
ack marc
07:55:00 [wendy]
important to look into European situation. EC says if comply w/highest priority (of 1.0, p1)
07:55:08 [wendy]
go beyond, should go to AA.
07:55:38 [wendy]
in 2.0, with Core we can Standardize among diff institutions idea of "minimum level"
07:55:53 [wendy]
new CMS to use across institutions, discussions about how to use.
07:56:01 [wendy]
b/c diff in "min level."
07:56:22 [wendy]
in future, say let's make CMS comply at least with core level. then look at specific needs of institution for extended part.
07:56:43 [wendy]
just the highest priority (p1) is not enough for several types of disabilities.
07:56:56 [wendy]
related: problem working in 20 languages.
07:57:15 [wendy]
can the CMS manage all of the languages? different levels of support?
07:57:22 [wendy]
in May, new countries join EU.
07:57:35 [wendy]
what about screen readers in those countries?
07:58:22 [chaalsVCE]
CMN: Sidar also feels that the current level-A isn't really sufficient for a base level.
07:58:52 [wendy]
point of clarification: core/extended made it easier. because single core and a flexible set beyond that?
07:59:22 [wendy]
yes. w/needs and preferences can add additional from extended.
07:59:40 [wendy]
there is a piece we haven't addressed, we have core and extended, required and best practice.
07:59:51 [wendy]
people may find in implementation that they want flexibility again.
08:00:01 [wendy]
current extended set is 9 checkpoints.
08:00:27 [wendy]
some of the extended, there may be things in best practice that they want to require.
08:00:34 [wendy]
if in best practice, there is no way to acknowledge it.
08:01:43 [wendy]
08:02:08 [wendy]
agenda+ valid markup
08:03:07 [wendy]
ack Ian
08:03:44 [wendy]
making existing sites accessible takes work, especially if not valid. starting from scratch can be easier.
08:03:58 [wendy]
when forsee guidelines implemented in testing tools.
08:04:13 [wendy]
08:04:21 [wendy]
q+ giorgio
08:04:25 [wendy]
q+ tomas
08:04:29 [wendy]
q+ katie
08:05:18 [wendy]
q+ cynthia
08:05:37 [wendy]
hard to educate testers. rely on testing tools.
08:06:01 [wendy]
1.0 to 2.0 transition not only the difference in requirements but availability of tools.;
08:06:16 [wendy]
08:06:24 [wendy]
ack giorgio
08:07:06 [wendy]
(usablenet) will move to 2.0 when it is out. 2 problems: 1. converting the tool so covers new guidelines. 2. converting the current customers and helping them understand differences.
08:07:21 [wendy]
that will take longer (educating customers)
08:07:32 [wendy]
will the position of goverments affect the 2nd point?
08:07:46 [wendy]
if country adopts 2.0, becomes more obvious to customer.
08:08:22 [wendy]
1. push customer to adopt new guidelines 2. make it easy to adopt.
08:08:24 [wendy]
ack tomas
08:08:32 [wendy]
at 2.0, append to EU regulation?
08:08:59 [wendy]
not possible at German level. German govnt can take something published by NGO, it must be translated to lawyer.
08:09:01 [wendy]
q+ cmn
08:09:11 [wendy]
1.0 was easier to convert to "lawyer-speak"
08:09:45 [wendy]
2.0 can not be translated into a legal text. the examples will not find themselves into german legislation.
08:10:00 [wendy]
current provisions, are retranslation of 1.0.
08:10:43 [wendy]
1.0 translated b/c simple statements. in 2.0 ... core/required also looks like that?
08:11:00 [wendy]
everything that is machine testable, yes. everything that is not, is fuzzy. (best practices)
08:11:07 [wendy]
best practices are too indefinite.
08:11:30 [wendy]
fuzzy hard to measure not understand. the testability will make it or not.
08:12:17 [wendy]
current (german regulation) is must and should. can be sued. thus people often do the should because they want it to be water proof.
08:12:26 [wendy]
best practices not likely make it.
08:12:44 [wendy]
there is no EU law. it published recommendation and describes what they would like to achieve.
08:13:06 [wendy]
not law or obligation. on national level it is different.
08:13:12 [wendy]
08:13:42 [wendy]
key issue about adoption: anything not testable difficult to adopt.
08:13:47 [wendy]
ack katie
08:14:25 [wendy]
1. implementation in tools first, good competitive edge. that makes the testability happen.
08:14:55 [wendy]
2. legislative pov, u.s. has 508 and have said wouldn't change for several years. however, realizing there are some places to clean up.
08:15:36 [wendy]
ack cynthia
08:15:54 [wendy]
best practices are bp b/c they are not testable.
08:16:25 [wendy]
expecting that required will be adopted, not expecting best practice to be. good info to have, but not required.
08:16:52 [wendy]
an attempt to keep those things so that the info is available but not required.
08:16:55 [wendy]
q+ gv
08:17:08 [wendy]
testability and machine testability are not the same. we're going for testability n ot machine testable.
08:17:13 [wendy]
some things won't be testable by machine.
08:17:29 [wendy]
big diff is that 2.0 is more about what the end user gets than about what the code looks like.
08:17:47 [wendy]
that is harder to machine test but often easy to human test. testing, "does it work" not "where are the angle brackets"
08:17:49 [wendy]
ack cmn
08:17:52 [daniela]
daniela has joined #WAI-WCAG
08:18:12 [wendy]
in contrast to german situation, in australia, 2.0 will likely be recognized immediately as best practice.
08:18:36 [wendy]
law says, "you must be accessible." then "don't know what that means until we find a problem, best way to avoid problems is to implement WCAG"
08:19:41 [wendy]
SIDAR is working on Spanish standards. i.e., what metadata should you add (ala WCAG 1.0)
08:19:56 [wendy]
we are trying to blend stuff from WCAG 1.0 and 2.0. don't expect 2.0 to be taken up on day of publication (in Spain)
08:20:12 [wendy]
are there things that are clearer in 2.0 that we should push for now? should we wait for 2.0 and do best job on 1.0?
08:20:22 [wendy]
q+ lisa
08:20:34 [wendy]
keep a running diff between 1.0 and 2.0?
08:20:58 [wendy]
if see overlap, confident about keeping w/1.0? see something in 2.0 that encourages them to consider sooner?
08:21:22 [wendy]
ack gv
08:21:53 [wendy]
in u.s. law, have "advisory" that are not required. best practices fall into that. equivalent in german law?
08:22:16 [wendy]
like an appendix to style guide (in germany)
08:23:03 [wendy]
simple set of core (that can be easily translated). then german govnt could easily plug-in 2.0.
08:23:38 [wendy]
ack lisa
08:23:45 [wendy]
q+ gv
08:24:51 [wendy]
should this be 2.0 or 1.1? perhaps b/c future vision (ala gv proposal from march), then this be a subtle difference whereas 2.0 is fundamental difference.
08:26:04 [wendy]
q+ cynthia
08:27:02 [wendy]
ack gv
08:27:48 [wendy]
(have worked on 2.0 for long enough, confusing to go back to 1.0 at this point. also, diff enough that decided when went on this path to call 2.0 not 1.1)
08:28:47 [wendy]
does it have to be machine-testable for it to be adopted? or just good enough for HIRR
08:29:00 [wendy]
if not machine-testable, don't want to throw them out.
08:29:24 [wendy]
e.g., can machine that there is alt-text, but not that it is good. but can write a test case to determine if it is ok or not bad.
08:29:31 [wendy]
q+ giorgio
08:29:49 [wendy]
a human who understands guidelines could determine if good alt-text or not.
08:29:58 [wendy]
important that we make that clear.
08:30:42 [wendy]
ack chaals
08:31:22 [wendy]
SIDAR would not like to see these guidelines become 1.1. separate issue: should there be a 1.1. SIDAR would like to see that but understands resources needed to make that happen.
08:31:28 [wendy]
ack cynthia
08:32:17 [wendy]
from technical standpoint, diff enough that 1.1 would be confusing and soft devs 1.1 would imply "spit and polish" (bug fix) and people not look at.
08:32:27 [wendy]
ack giorgio
08:32:58 [wendy]
accessibility is a property of the software. not inside the system. can't determine by looking at system alone.
08:33:18 [wendy]
have to qualify which user you are refering to. which context. makes usability statement accurate.
08:33:41 [wendy]
if want to get testability for accessibility guidelines, consider user using jaws using ie on x website trying to do task y.
08:33:56 [wendy]
that is the context. then the success criteria are clear and testable.
08:33:58 [wendy]
08:34:00 [wendy]
q+ gv
08:34:03 [wendy]
ack cynthia
08:34:21 [wendy]
write supporting material for writing test cases to test each guideline.
08:34:28 [wendy]
something like that for machine tools (AERT?)
08:34:44 [wendy]
examples: how take this site and write test cases. pick which test cases to execute.
08:34:51 [wendy]
whole field of s/w testing that deals with this.
08:35:00 [wendy]
perhaps get help from QA Activity at w3c.
08:35:23 [wendy]
guidelines aren't that, but will be used by test spec for an org.
08:35:31 [wendy]
08:35:42 [wendy]
ack gv
08:35:47 [wendy]
summary comments:
08:36:29 [wendy]
accessibility can only be defined by the context of a single individual in a single environment using a single task.
08:36:53 [wendy]
not making guidelines to determine if sites are accessible, we are creating guidelines for minimum things that should be done to enhance accessibility.
08:37:07 [wendy]
if you do all of the best practice, some people will still not be able to use the site.
08:37:48 [wendy]
e.g., ramp. accessible vs follow min. accessibility standards.
08:38:02 [wendy]
test cases are ok for checking guidelines but not checking accessibility.
08:38:24 [wendy]
we should do the test cases to determine what the rules are.
08:38:28 [wendy]
q+ cynthia
08:38:35 [wendy]
min set has to stand alone
08:39:50 [chaalsVCE]
ack chaalsVCE
08:39:50 [Zakim]
chaalsVCE, you wanted to say we should work with QA activity on test cases
08:41:01 [wendy]
ack cynthia
08:41:35 [wendy]
not that we need to write test cases for every machine, but to write guidance for how people will write test cases to help them verify if they've met a guideline.
08:42:01 [wendy]
help them define the tasks on their site, and then how to test them.
08:42:38 [wendy]
test procedures, test cases
08:42:54 [wendy]
test case for our guidelines vs test cases for sites trying to imply our guideliens
08:43:01 [wendy]
q+ lisa
08:43:06 [wendy]
q+ patrizia
08:43:47 [wendy]
ack lisa
08:44:49 [wendy]
2 suggestions for agenda: where should rdf techniques should sit (separate or integrated into other techs)? work on alternative to checkpoint on robust technologies (previous guideline 5).
08:44:59 [wendy]
ack patrizia
08:45:23 [wendy]
should require user testing, conformance is not enough.
08:45:52 [wendy]
develop a methodology that is standardized way to test sites.
08:46:22 [wendy]
thus, if i use jaws but know about the site, then i'm effectively testing it.
08:46:47 [wendy]
need more disabled people involved to help make sure we are learning all that we can.
08:47:00 [wendy]
need to ask them their opinion.
08:47:34 [wendy]
gets back to accessibility vs conformance to standards/guidelines.
08:48:54 [wendy]
perhaps in testing, same thing that used in guidelines: you must do xy testing steps. not involve human testing w/pwd, but best practice state that need pwd.
08:49:47 [silvia]
silvia has joined #wai-wcag
08:52:05 [lloydi]
lloydi has joined #wai-wcag
09:22:12 [wendy]
09:24:48 [wendy]
back after break
09:24:50 [wendy]
09:24:51 [wendy]
09:25:07 [wendy]
1. after we publish WCAG 2.0, people test to see if they conform to WCAG 2.0
09:25:20 [daniela]
daniela has joined #wai-wcag
09:25:22 [wendy]
09:26:00 [wendy]
3. we test WCAG 2.0 to make sure it is possible to test for conformance and that the content produced is accessible for people with disabilities. also test if can be applied to different technologies, translated to diff languages,
09:26:50 [wendy]
discuss tomorrow. get feedback. type 3 testing will be done by all of us.
09:27:32 [wendy]
e.g., in Israel common to drop vowels. need to create something that makes sense for each culture.
09:27:57 [wendy]
make sure get same effect in each culture/country/language/technology
09:28:47 [wendy]
what are the procedures that we go through. our success criteria need to be clear. these are how to test.
09:29:16 [wendy]
1.0 -> 2.0 mapping. need to track as we make changes.
09:29:31 [chaalsVCE]
q+ to ask about automatically reading the mapping
09:29:41 [wendy]
mapping automatcially generated
09:30:14 [wendy]
09:30:51 [wendy]
we have a large contigent of people here today who work with cognitive disabilities, therefore perhaps talk about it today (previous 4.1). current: 3.3
09:31:49 [wendy]
09:31:57 [wendy]
right here. :)
09:32:45 [wendy]
break 3.3 [previously 4.1] into core and extended?
09:33:29 [wendy]
checkpoint mapping
09:33:47 [wendy]
would like to take list of 1.0 checkpoints, find out where they went.
09:34:09 [wendy]
(i.e., ordered by 1.0 checkpoints)
09:34:40 [wendy]
use tools to map tests from 1.0 to 2.0. thus seeing the machinery under the mapping that tools could use to map test from 1.0 to 2.0
09:36:03 [rscanoII]
rscanoII has joined #wai-wcag
09:37:33 [wendy]
provide pointer to xslt.
09:38:27 [chaalsVCE]
does anyone mind if we have a photo of each person on the Web so we can check?
09:38:41 [chaalsVCE]
... check the name and face.
09:39:16 [wendy]
i'll ask when i introduce myself
09:43:51 [wendy]
round of intros for new folks
09:45:09 [wendy]
09:45:16 [wendy]
(who involved)
09:45:39 [wendy]
a couple. not many people very aware.
09:46:07 [wendy]
consortium. goal: create a European testing process for certifying accessibility evaluation. work closely with WAI.
09:46:24 [wendy]
make sure that what we're saying is what the working group thinks should be done.
09:46:45 [wendy]
preparing technical work items to develop the methodology. result (hopeful) a standard methodology that people can use
09:47:06 [wendy]
such that if someone in Finland does a test, will get same results as someone in Spain.
09:47:20 [wendy]
Expect will involve work in WCAG WG as well as other groups.
09:47:51 [wendy]
created in April. expect a presentation of who we are in sept. do technical work openly.
09:47:57 [wendy]
similar to how WAI operates (publicly)
09:48:12 [wendy]
why Euro testing and not international?
09:48:45 [wendy]
b/c that is the scope that we set up. we're working with the EC. hopefully other orgs could do something similar.
09:48:52 [wendy]
SIDAR is interested in doing similar work in S. America.
09:49:25 [wendy]
mechanism to build towards international, since such a diverse sampling of language, culture, etc.
09:49:52 [wendy]
who involved?
09:50:37 [wendy]
09:50:41 [wendy]
any right to left languages?
09:50:44 [wendy]
none in europe.
09:52:34 [wendy]
could source for testing methods.
09:52:55 [silvia]
silvia has joined #wai-wcag
09:54:17 [wendy]
action plan europe 2002 - looking at technological development and economy, 10 year program to bring economic and technological change to europe.
09:54:27 [wendy]
10 point plant. point 2c (7) asks for accessibility.
09:54:37 [wendy]
09:55:10 [wendy]
some countries have something. raised awareness about accessibility.
09:55:41 [wendy]
european policy about europe and society. EuroAccessibility is about particular pieces of work related to the action plan (one area it discusses).
09:55:58 [wendy]
yes, there is collaboration w/the Union.
09:56:21 [wendy]
current, working on testing for 1.0
09:56:32 [wendy]
work out how to make the transition to 2.0
09:56:43 [wendy]
09:56:45 [wendy]
09:56:47 [wendy]
q+ lisa
09:57:00 [wendy]
valuable to have analysis of 2.0 wrt testability.
09:57:22 [wendy]
currently have 24 orgs who have agreed to do the work.
09:57:33 [wendy]
09:59:13 [wendy]
ack wendy
10:00:02 [wendy]
each org has set of testable criteria and process. one method to build consensus, agree on which criteria all agree on. inc into wcag 2.0 techniques, e.g., most of work is html techniques.
10:00:07 [chaalsVCE]
ack chaalsVCE
10:00:07 [Zakim]
chaalsVCE, you wanted to ask about automatically reading the mapping
10:00:30 [wendy]
each technique has a testable criteria.
10:01:08 [wendy]
not only consensus on what the methods should be, but first gather what they all are.
10:01:18 [wendy]
see differences and similarities.
10:01:27 [wendy]
10:01:59 [wendy]
ack lisa
10:02:35 [wendy]
testability: machine and human. we have simulators that can help with human testing.
10:02:56 [wendy]
perhaps a cheaper way for people who can not include pwd in testing.
10:03:10 [wendy]
test scenarios and simulations.
10:03:39 [wendy]
when talk about testing methods, talk about testing w and w/out tools. list of tools.
10:03:41 [wendy]
q+ cmn
10:04:00 [wendy]
one method run w/simulator. careful not make tools part of method, but resource for it.
10:04:07 [wendy]
q+ charmaine
10:04:25 [wendy]
what tools do we want to see?
10:05:00 [wendy]
if only method is by tool, but tool doesn't exist, can't label as testable today.
10:05:30 [wendy]
e.g. flicker. current in core, but if no tool, not testable.
10:05:35 [wendy]
ack cmn
10:06:05 [wendy]
assumption: euroaccessibility will not say "this is the tool to use" can outline the tools use today. methodology: here's how you inc tools into the testing process.
10:06:18 [wendy]
if have new tool, compare how work.
10:06:33 [wendy]
tools described generically in process, list some specific ones that meet the description
10:07:02 [wendy]
ack charmaine
10:07:25 [wendy]
what about tools that automatically repair? a retest to make sure that the repair is correct?
10:07:42 [wendy]
conformance means test and pass. if test after repair, then ensure.
10:07:45 [wendy]
q+ cynthia
10:07:57 [wendy]
perhaps not person there to ensure that the repair is correct.
10:08:08 [wendy]
ack cynthia
10:08:32 [wendy]
even if use a tool, still need to have human check. especially if tool has automatically done something.
10:08:58 [wendy]
crucial that make clear that human has to test.
10:09:00 [wendy]
q+ matt
10:09:06 [wendy]
it's the human who actually determines if accessible or not.
10:09:16 [wendy]
list methods not tools. tool described w/in a method.
10:09:20 [wendy]
q+ giorgio
10:09:47 [wendy]
10:10:14 [wendy]
ack matt
10:10:22 [wendy]
accessibility is a process not a product
10:10:34 [wendy]
if give someone a fish...
10:11:03 [wendy]
need to influence the process of creating content.
10:11:28 [wendy]
more important to have users see the tests as part of accessible process not final exam of doc.
10:11:38 [GVAN]
10:11:47 [wendy]
q+ gv
10:11:53 [wendy]
q+ cynthia
10:11:59 [wendy]
ack giorgio
10:12:33 [wendy]
accessibility is a process not target. e.g., like cleaning a house. have to decide where to start, what is the level of cleanliness.
10:13:07 [wendy]
to address site, which resources more important, costs. all has to go into quality assurance/testing methodology,.
10:13:14 [wendy]
might include guideliines as a tool. perhaps automatic tools.
10:13:30 [wendy]
10:13:46 [wendy]
guidelines are just one ingredient, one piece of big picture
10:14:11 [wendy]
ackg v
10:14:12 [wendy]
ack gv
10:14:26 [wendy]
"accessibility vs conformance" section into guidelines.
10:14:35 [wendy]
conformance is rigid. accessibility is broader.
10:14:41 [wendy]
guidelines are about min set - conformance.
10:14:43 [m3mVCE]
q+ to take action item
10:14:49 [wendy]
accessibility - requires more (best practice)
10:15:03 [wendy]
old type of quality control: manufacture test at end, if fail throw away.
10:15:16 [wendy]
today: don't wait until done, build into process.
10:15:34 [wendy]
q+ tomas
10:15:38 [wendy]
ack cynthia
10:15:54 [wendy]
test cases give way to get snapshot during the process. conformance - the test cases pass.
10:16:15 [wendy]
snapshot of what trying to do. when you pass what trying to do, have conformance. is not accessibility, but can be a product.
10:16:19 [wendy]
accessibility is not a product.
10:16:33 [wendy]
series of snapshots of how close you are to conformance.
10:16:39 [wendy]
ack m3m
10:16:39 [Zakim]
m3mVCE, you wanted to take action item
10:16:54 [wendy]
action: matt write "accessibility vs conformance" sectcion
10:16:57 [wendy]
ack tomas
10:17:28 [wendy]
example of quality assurance for new sites, legal requirement in germany that sites need to be accessible by 2005 or gone.
10:17:35 [wendy]
navigation path as well as document.
10:17:49 [wendy]
thus, all content from 1990s has to be updated.
10:17:56 [wendy]
need tools to automate parts of the process.
10:18:01 [wendy]
q+ patrizia
10:18:42 [wendy]
ack patrizia
10:19:14 [wendy]
since accessibility a process, every time make a change on the site can effect accessibility.
10:19:50 [wendy]
matt then andi
10:20:19 [wendy]
adjourned for lunch
10:20:20 [wendy]
12:15:08 [rscano]
rscano has joined #wai-wcag
12:43:59 [wendy]
12:44:05 [wendy]
are you scribing first or is andi?
12:46:27 [rscano_]
rscano_ has joined #wai-wcag
12:47:34 [silvia]
silvia has joined #wai-wcag
12:48:03 [wendy]
lisa demonstrates UB access.
12:48:15 [wendy]
if you make an rdf page that resolves ambiguities, e.g. "david"
12:48:15 [daniela]
daniela has joined #wai-wcag
12:48:24 [wendy]
mapping concepts.
12:48:30 [rscano_]
rscano_ has joined #wai-wcag
12:48:41 [wendy]
the user could see the same page, but w/out the ambiguities.
12:50:12 [wendy]
annotations that people don't see that can be used by a server to make changes to content w/out affecting the original view of the site.
12:50:26 [wendy]
if use alt-tag in rdf, can use different phrases that have meaning.
12:51:23 [rscano_]
q+ cmn
12:51:43 [wendy]
have to go to proxy page.
12:51:50 [wendy]
ack cmn
12:52:04 [wendy]
rdf is working on annotea, a server to store comments about a page.
12:52:36 [wendy]
like smart tags?
12:52:44 [wendy]
similar but open.
12:53:19 [wendy]
matt? are you able to scribe or could you lean over and ask andi if she is?
14:49:49 [wendy]
wendy has joined #wai-wcag
14:50:09 [wendy]
== reports from groups
14:50:49 [wendy]
group 1 - charles, patrizia, lisa, bengt, daniela (?)
14:51:04 [silvia]
silvia has joined #wai-wcag
14:51:05 [wendy]
group 2 - andy, maurizio, wendy, charmaine, roberto ellero
14:51:32 [wendy]
group 3 - giorgio, ??, tomas, cynthia, andi
14:52:34 [wendy]
group 4 - marc, daniela, roberto scano, ian, ??
14:52:38 [daniela]
daniela has joined #wai-wcag
14:52:49 [wendy]
group 4 + giuseppe
14:53:11 [wendy]
silvia group 1
14:53:24 [wendy]
group 5 - elena, rudy, gregg, matt, alessandro
14:54:01 [wendy]
group 3+ ??= enrico
14:54:20 [wendy]
question 1: how is wcag 1.0 used in your org or country?
14:54:46 [wendy]
zakim, set timer at 5 minutes
14:54:46 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'set timer at 5 minutes', wendy
14:54:53 [wendy]
zakim, give each speaker 5 minutes
14:54:53 [Zakim]
ok, wendy
14:55:00 [wendy]
zakim, give each speaker 3 minutes
14:55:00 [Zakim]
ok, wendy
14:55:07 [m3mVCE]
cmn - In Australia, much of items have to be accessible, including private entities. We are active in accessibility groups.
14:55:21 [m3mVCE]
cmn In Spain, accessibility is mostly WCAG 1-based.
14:55:46 [lloydi]
lloydi has joined #wai-wcag
14:56:04 [wendy]
q+ cmn
14:56:08 [wendy]
ack cmn
14:56:25 [wendy]
q+ group2, group3, group4, group5
14:56:45 [m3mVCE]
a bit of a culture gap: hard to read, not sure about its usefulness.
14:57:22 [m3mVCE]
Israel: No legal accessibility requirements. Some issues in general: lack of tools, multilingualism. There is a Hebrew translation of WCAG 1.
14:58:30 [m3mVCE]
Sweden: not a strong orientation towards WCAG. Some looking at/advocating it.
14:58:54 [wendy]
ack group2
15:01:33 [wendy]
scotland - legislation since 1999, just now getting some enforcement.
15:01:51 [wendy]
not aware of anyone being sued in UK.
15:02:05 [wendy]
people interested in test cases, but have not been launched
15:02:28 [GVAN]
GVAN has joined #wai-wcag
15:03:08 [wendy]
USA - Rehab act (1973) not enforceable. revision (1991?) makes it enforceable.
15:03:25 [wendy]
15:04:39 [wendy]
ack group3
15:04:50 [wendy]
italy and germany in our group.
15:05:09 [wendy]
italy - a number of proposals, expecting something to be approved by end of year. one most likely call for AA conformance.
15:05:24 [wendy]
apply to public sites: government, school, or public interest (e.g., transportation)
15:05:29 [wendy]
enforcement is a fine.
15:05:53 [wendy]
germany - national law, regulations happen at state level.
15:06:07 [wendy]
school regulated at local level.
15:06:20 [wendy]
thus, for it to apply to schools, need a regulation at the local level, the federal law will not apply.
15:06:54 [wendy]
biggest problem seems to be educating web developers.
15:07:01 [wendy]
ack group4
15:07:16 [wendy]
italy - wcag is used little if at all. some orgs thinking about accessibility.
15:07:37 [wendy]
currently 12 proposals in italian legislature. a govnt minister proposing own standard.
15:07:47 [wendy]
like 508 with a label to point out accessibility features.
15:07:59 [wendy]
not general awareness of w3c standards.
15:08:13 [wendy]
(awareness by the country.)
15:08:26 [wendy]
minister of innovation and technology is making this proposal.
15:08:59 [wendy]
ack group5
15:09:33 [wendy]
belgium - not a law, although some sites are incorporating conformance to WCAG 1.0.
15:10:04 [wendy]
aim for minimum of p1. encourage further conformance, and AA or AAA, use sound files of screen readers to hear how it sounds.
15:10:22 [wendy]
this is level A, but this is how it sounds. you could go further. this seems to convince people to do more work.
15:10:54 [wendy]
Italy - number of reports about adminstration/public sites. tested about 100. only 1 or 2 had reached level A.
15:11:07 [wendy]
aside from 1.0 guidelines, she has devised a point system that gives diff points to diff sites.
15:11:37 [wendy]
some are rated 1-4. adds up to total of 94. best score of sites achieved was 64.
15:12:04 [wendy]
ISO 16071
15:12:35 [wendy]
references WCAG 1.0
15:13:09 [wendy]
uri from gl discussion:
15:13:41 [wendy]
zakim, who's here?
15:13:41 [Zakim]
sorry, wendy, I don't know what conference this is
15:13:42 [Zakim]
On IRC I see GVAN, lloydi, daniela, silvia, wendy, rscano_, Zakim, m3mVCE, bengt, chaalsVCE, rellero, RRSAgent
15:14:24 [rellero]
15:14:24 [rellero]
Ergonomics of human-system interaction -- Guidance on accessibility for human-computer interfaces
15:14:24 [rellero]
15:14:24 [rellero]
15:14:43 [wendy]
general feeling in UK only a matter of time until a case.
15:14:56 [wendy]
the disabilities research council plans to assess the accessibility of 1,000 sites.
15:15:12 [wendy]
using tools, take top bunch and investigate further (with disabled users)
15:15:28 [wendy]
when that was announced, many companies concerned about the possible legal ramifications.
15:15:39 [wendy]
it's a hot topic.
15:16:31 [wendy]
some people feel that the researchers should "point the finger" to "name and shame" them into action.
15:20:15 [wendy]
15:20:19 [wendy]
structure of wcag conformance?
15:20:30 [wendy]
zakim, set timer at 1 minute
15:20:30 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'set timer at 1 minute', wendy
15:20:36 [wendy]
zakim, give each speaker 1 minute
15:20:36 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'give each speaker 1 minute', wendy
15:20:39 [wendy]
zakim, give each speaker 1 minutes
15:20:39 [Zakim]
ok, wendy
15:20:42 [wendy]
15:20:55 [wendy]
q+ matt
15:20:58 [wendy]
ack matt
15:21:12 [wendy]
2.0 can be more objective, will alleviate problem of people who trust their tools too much.
15:21:36 [wendy]
zakim isn't used to people speaking for only 1 minute :)
15:21:40 [wendy]
q+ ian
15:21:41 [wendy]
ack ian
15:22:17 [wendy]
" I would like to see a real minimum that covers a maximum of abilities that is easy to test." Marc
15:22:27 [wendy]
minimum must be easy to enforce
15:22:38 [wendy]
like idea of bonus points
15:22:56 [wendy]
q+ cmn
15:22:58 [wendy]
ack cmn
15:23:06 [wendy]
want conformance levels based on user impact.
15:23:18 [wendy]
want for any conformance, want testable requirement but also examples of what does and does not conform.
15:24:50 [wendy]
not too many checkpoints
15:25:20 [wendy]
"really nice that didn't have so many checkpoints, but harder to understand especially people who are basic technologists, since so high level."
15:25:26 [wendy]
thus, talked about checklists.
15:26:41 [wendy]
in next WCAG 2.0 WD, helpful to provide an example of the technology checklists to help give people an idea of what they will look like.
15:26:58 [wendy]
user judgements an issue: so many of them, everyone has a different judgement. thus reliable testing criteria is needed.
15:28:47 [wendy]
that's the idea behind providing examples. helps give people idea of what talking about as well as shed light on how to make decisions/judgements.
15:29:11 [wendy]
extended might not be best name.
15:29:33 [wendy]
things put in extended can't happen on all sites
15:30:43 [wendy]
q+ ian
15:30:59 [wendy]
ack ian
15:31:03 [wendy]
zakim, don't time speakers
15:31:03 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'don't time speakers', wendy
15:31:07 [wendy]
zakim, no timer
15:31:07 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'no timer', wendy
15:31:41 [wendy]
zakim, stop timing
15:31:41 [Zakim]
ok, wendy
15:32:28 [wendy]
danger if italy defines law as core+5 and germany does core+4 (two different sets), it becomes hard for industry to determine what to do.
15:32:37 [wendy]
if none conflict, could you do the sum of the 2?
15:33:04 [wendy]
difference between conflicting or different.
15:33:23 [wendy]
because the core is defined as applicable to all sites and are testable, then want to encourage policy makers that goes beyond core.
15:34:21 [wendy]
tomorrow a.m. reconvene to finish this discussion.
15:34:41 [wendy]
conformance and conformance claims different topics, both large.
15:35:01 [wendy]
in all of what we've discussed, no way of getting any acknowledgement for any best practice.
15:35:30 [wendy]
concern that huge amount of info might not have any incentive.
15:35:45 [wendy]
then head into some of the heavier topics.
15:36:21 [wendy]
same restuarant pizza. 8:30.
15:36:36 [wendy]
where we had lunch.
15:36:47 [wendy]
15:36:50 [wendy]
ciao for the night
15:39:51 [bengt]
15:40:26 [bengt]
15:40:40 [rscano_]
rscano_ has left #wai-wcag
15:46:27 [chaalsVCE]
rrsagent, pointer?
15:46:27 [RRSAgent]
15:46:53 [chaalsVCE]
lloydi, just drop the fragment reference to get to the start of the log...
15:47:08 [chaalsVCE]
the pointer command gets RRSAgent to give a pointer to a particular spot.
17:00:41 [m3mVCE]
m3mVCE has joined #wai-wcag
17:33:10 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
18:00:49 [rellero]
rellero has joined #wai-wcag
18:01:10 [rellero]
rellero has left #wai-wcag
19:43:01 [COOH]
COOH has joined #wai-wcag
20:55:14 [m3mVCE]
m3mVCE has joined #wai-wcag