IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-03-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

08:09:23 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
08:09:31 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #wai-wcag
08:09:33 [wendy]: present:
08:09:36 [wendy]: michael cooper, watchfire
08:09:45 [MattNCE]: MattNCE has joined #wai-wcag
08:09:52 [wendy]: jose, spanish office
08:10:06 [wendy]: andrew arch, natl info lib service
08:10:10 [wendy]: shawn henry, w3c
08:10:18 [wendy]: allistair garrison, accessinmind
08:10:23 [wendy]: judy brewer, w3c
08:10:26 [wendy]: matt may, w3c
08:10:44 [wendy]: helle bjarno,
08:10:49 [wendy]: wendy buckley, amadeus
08:11:03 [wendy]: henk, bartimeus
08:11:10 [wendy]: eric, bartimeus
08:11:21 [wendy]: tom croucher, university of sunderland
08:11:27 [wendy]: ben caldwell, trace r&d
08:11:37 [wendy]: wendy chisholm, w3c
08:11:44 [wendy]: natasha lipkina, hp
08:12:25 [JoseA]: JoseA has joined #wai-wcag
08:12:58 [Andrew]: Andrew has joined #wai-wcag
08:13:03 [wendy]: agenda+ wcag wg ttf look at updated eowg deliverables
08:13:40 [wendy]: :)
08:15:06 [sh1m|cannes]: sh1m|cannes has joined #wai-wcag
08:17:11 [judy_float]: judy_float has joined #wai-wcag
08:17:18 [shawn]: shawn has joined #wai-wcag
08:17:48 [judy_wcag]: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/EO-Deliverables.html
08:20:31 [wendy]: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/EO-Deliverables.html#20042q
08:20:43 [wendy]: flag: Evaluation Resource Suite as coord point
08:21:14 [wendy]: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/EO-Deliverables.html#20043q
08:21:24 [wendy]: flag: faq
08:21:58 [wendy]: web site redesign has several tasks that people want to complete that we'll design for (task force)
08:22:09 [wendy]: general questions
08:22:23 [shawn]: task list: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/UCD/tasks
08:23:30 [wendy]: this task list goes out for review next week
08:23:42 [wendy]: add: if i conform to wcag 1.0, what do i do differently for 2.0
08:24:58 [shawn]: *me notes changes to deliverables page go to judy (not shawn)
08:25:13 [wendy]: 4th 1/4 link also goes to jigteam
08:27:58 [wendy]: wcag 2.0 techniques: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag20.html#techs
08:28:22 [wendy]: michael shows gateway: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-GATEWAY-20031205.html
08:28:40 [wendy]: tom shows more current version (on his desktop)
08:29:02 [wendy]: agenda+ show html techs to give better idea
08:29:22 [wendy]: 4th 1/4: revise curriculum. coord point
08:30:49 [wendy]: gallery: coord point. issues w/pointing to live sites.
08:31:28 [wendy]: 4th 1/4: quick tips revision
08:31:35 [wendy]: (previous points, 3rd 1/4)
08:33:46 [wendy]: add eowg to wcag wg timeline
08:34:40 [wendy]: rationale document (research behind flicker/flash, db audio levels) - related to curriculum?
08:35:23 [wendy]: faq - loose coord
08:35:29 [wendy]: quicktips - close coord
08:35:32 [sh1m|cannes]: sh1m|cannes has joined #wai-wcag
08:35:32 [wendy]: eval - loose
08:35:52 [wendy]: tutorials/templates - medium (wcag could provide resources)
08:36:07 [wendy]: wcag has examples that could be used in curriculum
08:36:19 [wendy]: curriculum - similar to tutorials
08:38:39 [wendy]: flow between less technical and more technical
08:40:31 [wendy]: coord w/site redesign
08:41:37 [wendy]: april-ish - plans for how info would be available, queried, presented, chunks
08:42:51 [wendy]: priorities?
08:43:28 [wendy]: what's missing?
08:43:36 [wendy]: implementing techniques w/out understanding technical details
08:43:45 [wendy]: curriculum? eval resource suite?
08:46:49 [wendy]: have a lot of potential information, careful not to overwhelm people.
08:46:51 [wendy]: how coordinate?
08:47:08 [wendy]: 1/2 hour joint meeting once a month?
08:48:38 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/query.cgi
08:50:47 [shawn]: wac: maybe do project review WCAG for all WAI groups
08:50:49 [JoseA]: JoseA has joined #wai-wcag
08:51:17 [MattNovoiCE]: The issue with ATAG is that it is tied most closely to WCAG 1 and 2. ATAG conformance is based on the output conforming to a version of WCAG. (more)
08:51:50 [shadi]: shadi has joined #wai-wcag
08:51:56 [wendy]: action: shawn and judy coord w/wcag every x meetings
08:52:05 [wendy]: a regularly scheduled time would be easier to remember
08:52:27 [Andrew]: and a regular date can always be cancelled if not needed
08:52:34 [MattNovoiCE]: The more WCAG matures, the better it is for all involved to stay up to date. It will also keep the document from casing other docs that depend on it (like ATAG) from falling apart.
08:57:58 [wendy]: wcag 1.0 revised edition: issues for wcag (revised techniques?) issues for eo: how impact deliverables
08:58:30 [judy]: judy has left #wai-wcag
09:04:23 [shawn]: natasha: question about revised version
09:04:31 [shawn]: andrew support revised 1.0
09:05:30 [shawn]: wac: alistair writing material based on 1.0 and needs to know current thinking of WCAG
09:07:22 [wendy]: tool developers need to clearly nkow how to interpret
09:07:32 [wendy]: some people not adopt 2.0 right away, therefore revised, good idea
09:11:26 [Andrew]: uri please?
09:12:13 [sh1m|cannes]: www.w3.org/2003/12/wcag-10-errata-table.html
09:17:02 [shawn]: action: shawn talk to judy about discussing WCAG 1.0 errata & revised version in EOWG
09:17:08 [wendy]: 1.0 revised - cause another fork in the road?
09:19:10 [wendy]: provide clarification that people need in a way that is simpler and doesn't need as much time as revised 1.0
09:23:15 [wendy]: http://www.w3.org/WAI/Resources/WAI-UA-Support
09:23:16 [Andrew]: http://www.w3.org/WAI/Resources/WAI-UA-Support
09:23:30 [shawn]: action: shawn take to wai site task force: 1. tasks about transition 1.0 to 2.0, 2. about user agent clause (from errata table "user agent support for accessibility")
09:31:44 [shawn]: wac reviews timeline
09:32:07 [ben]: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/TECHS-SUBMIT/
09:40:32 [wendy]: eo component in bugzilla to track coord issues
09:42:03 [wendy]: break
10:12:02 [wendy]: back
10:13:56 [wendy]: errata
10:14:00 [wendy]: do we publish errata?
10:14:12 [wendy]: s/errata/revised edition
10:14:22 [wendy]: if so, what's the timeline?
10:14:33 [sh1m|cannes]: of WCAG
10:14:40 [wendy]: if so, what do we do about techniques? revise as well?
10:16:10 [wendy]: do we have errata serious enough to publish a revised version?
10:16:46 [wendy]: fairly clear that have issues with time constraints
10:17:00 [wendy]: willingness of a few people to work exclusively on revised version
10:17:50 [wendy]: task force to work solely on revised version?
10:19:31 [wendy]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JanMar/att-0365/testcases.html
10:20:44 [wendy]: chris also has test files
10:21:28 [wendy]: yesterday, discussed matrix of possible platforms to test on (and configurations of browsers/ats)
10:22:32 [RylaDog]: RylaDog has joined #wai-wcag
10:23:28 [wendy]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JanMar/att-0365/testcases.html
10:23:53 [wendy]: task force make recommendations about table of errata
10:24:01 [wendy]: http://www.w3.org/2003/12/wcag10-errata-table.html
10:24:56 [wendy]: q+ to say "not onloy technological, need to gain community consensus that can deprecate. industry and disability community"
10:25:35 [wendy]: q-
10:25:51 [wendy]: impact on laws - some point to wcag 1.0
10:26:50 [wendy]: some incorporate checkpoints into laws
10:30:55 [wendy]: past-proofing and future-proofing
10:32:28 [wendy]: some places can use revision immediately.
10:32:32 [wendy]: others, provide a pathway
10:33:20 [wendy]: anticipated impact of revision
10:33:44 [wendy]: why we made the change, what the impact will be on accessibility, impact on existing laws
10:33:56 [wendy]: wcag focus on technical aspects (getting them right), eo focusing on policy
10:34:22 [wendy]: have to do that anyway with 2.0
10:36:13 [wendy]: @@add 5.3 to list of possible errata
10:36:36 [wendy]: in html specification, comment that says "table should not be used for layout"
10:37:32 [wendy]: user agent support page: would the w3c make a definitive statement of what is not covered by certain user agents?
10:37:56 [wendy]: eval tool dev: selling point "we follow guidelines as precisely as possible"
10:38:24 [wendy]: if we update the until user agents page, and don't update recommendation, have to follow recommendation not user agents support page.
10:39:02 [wendy]: sometimes more accessible to not follow conformance
10:40:22 [wendy]: wcag 1.0 techniques: wrap with label (instead of "for")
10:40:28 [wendy]: difference with 2.0 technqieus
10:40:58 [wendy]: techniques documents?
10:41:22 [wendy]: additional effort. related to wcag 2.0 techniques.
10:42:05 [wendy]: in 2.0 may say "don't do x" whereas in 1.0 says "x"
10:42:27 [wendy]: usually a case of no longer recommending do something, that had been a until user agent stop gap
10:53:31 [Andrew]: tf - a) imact assessment; b) proposals
10:55:21 [Andrew]: tf would start work with no guarantee of going ahaed with task
10:55:54 [Andrew]: tf - step 0) is tf work statement - goes to approval
11:02:51 [Andrew]: tf - need to include community discusion/consultation on impact of deprecation
11:04:02 [wendy]: what suggesting deprecate?
11:04:11 [wendy]: release to public - get feedback. good reasons not to, let us know.
11:04:22 [wendy]: put the impact assessment under that - get the info for that
11:04:35 [wendy]: helps lawmakers see, no reasonto have point 1, 2, 3 no longer in law
11:04:52 [wendy]: 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5
11:04:58 [wendy]: rest, not sure about
11:06:46 [RylaDog]: q+
11:09:48 [wendy]: propose that the task force goes through all of these and makes proposals for how to handle.
11:10:38 [wendy]: have 2 primary places for wide community feedback: impact assessment and request for review of draft. so even if we make a draft, if people yell loudly enough we might not actually publish it as a revised recommendation.
11:15:50 [wendy]: action: andrew, allistair, eric?, (recruit others?) impact assessment, community discussion, and proposals for wcag 1.0 revised edition, present at 15 April WCAG WG telecon
11:16:31 [wendy]: 1 impact assesment, community discussion
11:16:35 [wendy]: 2. proposals
11:16:39 [wendy]: 3 task force work statement
11:16:42 [wendy]: 4 test uua
11:17:01 [wendy]: 5 revise wcag 1.0
11:17:05 [wendy]: 6 revise techs
11:17:35 [wendy]: possible solution for techniques: statement at top of techniques that link to wcag 2.0 techniques. deprecate some of them.
11:17:39 [wendy]: editorial notes, etc.
11:20:50 [ben]: HTML Techs. Issues LIst: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/issuereports/xhtml_issues.php
12:29:02 [JoseA]: JoseA has joined #wai-wcag
12:31:55 [sh1m|cannes]: sh1m|cannes has joined #wai-wcag
12:34:22 [wendy]: back after lunch
12:34:44 [wendy]: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20040301.html
12:37:16 [wendy]: conformance
12:37:29 [wendy]: open issue: should checklists be normative?
12:38:26 [wendy]: techniques need to be flexible
12:38:42 [wendy]: however, success criteria being testable linked to techniques
12:39:55 [wendy]: pros and cons
12:40:05 [wendy]: if checklists were normative - pros
12:40:19 [wendy]: pro - conformance to guidelines would be clear
12:40:50 [wendy]: con - there is only one definition of accessibility, as new techs invented or new capabilities adopted (in the tech), not able to adopt and conform, unless also do the checklist item
12:41:28 [wendy]: con - implementation is too complex. (@@getr more)
12:41:33 [wendy]: con - limit future expansion
12:42:26 [wendy]: if checklists not normative, how solve testability issue?
12:42:39 [wendy]: guidelines intended to be flexible in order for multipe ways to conform
12:42:53 [wendy]: purpose of techniques is to create suggestions for ways to meet the guidelines
12:43:28 [wendy]: if someone developed a technique that is not part of our set, will it be as well-vetted as our work?
12:43:54 [wendy]: informal document - here's the criteria that we have (explain the HIRR testing that we're using0
12:44:07 [wendy]: === our criteria for determining if a techniques fulfills a success cfriterion.
12:44:14 [wendy]: methodology for creating new tec hniques
12:45:05 [wendy]: if going to submit a technique...this be a supplementary document to this.
12:46:02 [wendy]: some people may not submit clarifications/interpretations to us, but use them anyway. would need way to document why and how they diverged (only via techniques, not at guideline level)
12:46:24 [wendy]: leaving room in the checklist for author's to create/use own techniques.
12:46:30 [wendy]: (so, address that issue)
12:47:38 [wendy]: proposal? normative statement in guidelines - you have followed validated techniques for conforming. guidelines normatively saying to follow "a" checklist of techniqeus. we've provided a set for you, if you choose to follow another set, here are thef eatures.
12:56:36 [wendy]: problem with revised wcag 1.0 comes up with techniques (when we want to update them)
13:00:26 [wendy]: normative statement about passing test sutie?
13:01:40 [wendy]: wcag is written to apply to variety of technologies and some not avaialble today, don't have test suites.
13:02:19 [wendy]: implication: force people who develop technologies to develop test suites for their technology
13:02:29 [wendy]: (test suite in this case === evaluation methodology?)
13:10:45 [wendy]: people should be able to create new techniques and conform to the guidelines
13:14:49 [wendy]: action: tom and michael send a proposal to the mailing list contains: proposed statement, where in the doc it would appear, pros and cons (re: normative requirement for a process to evaluate techniques used)
13:15:21 [sh1m|cannes]: sh1m|cannes has joined #wai-wcag
13:16:36 [wendy]: normative checklist means that these techniqeus are required for conformance.
13:17:14 [wendy]: even if there is an "other" - that is then too open for conformance unless there is a normative process to use to validate that the "alternative" techniques are as rigorous as those we've documented (via checklists)
13:18:12 [wendy]: engineering solution is to create an audit trail, but do we have the authority to require/validate a process?
13:18:36 [wendy]: this gets into certification, which we do not have the authority to do.
13:21:39 [wendy]: audit trail is conformance claim, making the conformance claim is part of the process.
13:21:55 [wendy]: "audit trail" is very rigorous conformance claim and process.
13:22:51 [wendy]: "equivalent facilitation" - if claim that, have user testing data?
13:26:16 [wendy]: sufficient, normative
13:27:43 [wendy]: deadline for action item: 12 march
13:31:40 [wendy]: diff levels of conformance: do we define a, a+, aa?
13:31:49 [wendy]: need impact assessment to make that decision.
13:32:07 [wendy]: icnreases the complexity of checklists
13:34:14 [wendy]: action: wendy (and coerce john, andi, gregg, jason, and other austinites) to write impact assessment of conformance levels for discussion at f2f (send to list by 12 march)
13:34:18 [wendy]: contrasting use cases:
13:34:23 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #wai-wcag
13:34:31 [wendy]: a site policy for a govnt web site
13:34:36 [wendy]: homework tailoring for student
13:35:12 [wendy]: govnt: many subcontractors, policy has to simple.
13:36:22 [wendy]: ===
13:36:50 [wendy]: html techniques - these are the issues we want to address before our next TR draft
13:39:07 [wendy]: 178: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=178
13:39:40 [wendy]: not crucial for next tr
13:40:36 [wendy]: 180 - not crucial to next tr
13:40:42 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=184
13:41:25 [wendy]: publish link to mimasa's dtd that mixes svg, mathml, etc.
13:44:17 [wendy]: michael suggests adding x-ref to issue. wendy has action to talk w/judy about refs to trace for bugs
13:44:21 [wendy]: 185 - yes
13:44:51 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=186 - yes
13:45:02 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=187 - no
13:45:44 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=194 - close. done. everything moved to bugzilla
13:45:50 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=224
13:46:20 [wendy]: no
13:47:21 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=225 editorial note: confounded w/wcag 1.0 errata work
13:48:46 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=226 yes. try to get something, if not. ednote
13:49:24 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=227 xml support?
13:49:55 [sh1m|cannes]: sh1m|cannes has joined #wai-wcag
13:50:09 [wendy]: heading on examples
13:50:52 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=228
13:50:59 [wendy]: (227 - yes)
13:51:17 [wendy]: 228 - yes
13:51:50 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=229 yes
13:52:32 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=230
13:52:39 [wendy]: pf says accesskey needs to be reengineered.
13:52:44 [wendy]: in the format
13:53:14 [wendy]: there are 2 verbs used: focus and fire. in the future, likely to be two separate things.
13:53:27 [wendy]: create a chain.
13:53:58 [wendy]: editorial note
13:54:08 [wendy]: not ready for next draft
13:54:42 [wendy]: 234, 235, 236, 237, 238 - skip these since all about accesskey
13:54:49 [wendy]: thread on xtech that should be looked at when consider accesskey
13:55:04 [wendy]: -238 from previous list
13:55:17 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=238 enough info in bug to address?
13:56:38 [wendy]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20031209/#a-accesskey
13:57:02 [wendy]: not currently rendering ua issues, thus no.
13:57:12 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=239
13:58:06 [MattNovoiCE]: MattNovoiCE has joined #wai-wcag
13:58:38 [wendy]: action: wendy propose
13:58:47 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=240
13:59:16 [wendy]: yes
13:59:35 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=241
13:59:36 [wendy]: yes
13:59:49 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=242 no
13:59:59 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=243
14:00:38 [wendy]: yes
14:00:57 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=246
14:00:58 [wendy]: yes
14:01:23 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=248
14:02:13 [wendy]: result of discussion needs to be incorporated
14:02:25 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=249
14:03:15 [wendy]: reference the article
14:03:15 [wendy]: http://www.mcu.org.uk/articles/tables.html
14:03:40 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=251 yes
14:04:00 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=252
14:04:53 [wendy]: server-side image map are less of an issue these days (b/c of use of client-side). not priority for this draft.
14:05:09 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=254
14:05:17 [wendy]: also server-side, not high priority
14:06:29 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=255
14:06:46 [wendy]: action: wendy ping martin on language
14:07:47 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=257
14:08:00 [wendy]: placeholder for scripting techniques - list of references
14:09:14 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=265
14:10:15 [wendy]: yes
14:10:24 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=272
14:10:52 [wendy]: placeholder for scripting tehcniuqesw
14:10:59 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=273
14:11:00 [wendy]: yes
14:11:10 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=293
14:11:38 [wendy]: yes. ednote - specific to get review and comment from community
14:11:48 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=294
14:11:49 [wendy]: yes. ednote - specific to get review and comment from community
14:11:58 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=295
14:12:18 [wendy]: summary of recent discussion - even if just summary of issues, ought to be included in next draft
14:12:30 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=296
14:13:01 [wendy]: no
14:13:29 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=297 deprecated
14:13:48 [wendy]: @@ - need to check that don't wrap label element wrapped, suggest label for
14:14:11 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=299
14:14:18 [wendy]: ednote: here's some results. still open issue.
14:14:25 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=300
14:15:10 [wendy]: need to say something in next draft, but probaly not completely worked technique
14:15:20 [wendy]: ++ednote about testing of techniques happening in the future
14:15:30 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=490
14:15:51 [wendy]: placeholder for scripting techniques - list of references
14:16:12 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=525
14:16:16 [Al]: Al has joined #wai-wcag
14:16:22 [wendy]: yes
14:16:32 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=575 wait
14:17:11 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=578 yes
14:17:24 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=579
14:17:31 [wendy]: yes
14:17:52 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=580
14:18:08 [wendy]: yes
14:18:16 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=652
14:18:31 [wendy]: yes
14:18:59 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=653
14:19:00 [wendy]: yes
14:19:08 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=654
14:19:54 [wendy]: yes
14:19:59 [wendy]: (at minimum an ednote)
14:20:06 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=655
14:20:22 [wendy]: at least placeholder
14:20:29 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=656
14:20:40 [wendy]: yes
14:46:00 [eaon]: eaon has joined #wai-wcag
14:49:27 [wendy]: back from break
14:49:37 [wendy]: janina and katie describe voicexml issues
14:53:01 [wendy]: likely find that vxml does not meet many requirements in wcag 2.0.
14:53:13 [wendy]: primarily, b/c aimed at a particular kind of interaction.
14:53:56 [wendy]: ivr - inter-active voice response
14:54:34 [wendy]: vxml wg: wanted to create lang that could create set of applications could work if you change platforms
14:55:04 [wendy]: platform-independence from vxml 1 and 2
14:56:00 [wendy]: appendix h of vxml are accessibility guidelines, highlight the accessibility issues
14:56:43 [wendy]: janina went through wcag and said "met, not met"
14:57:44 [wendy]: 1.1
14:57:54 [wendy]: 12 guidelines in vxml
15:00:47 [wendy]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PR-voicexml20-20040203/#dmlAAccessibility
15:04:43 [wendy]: (doesn't have allof the accessibility guidelines that were proposed)
15:05:04 [wendy]: some of guidelines work for principle 2 overall but not specific to any guideline
15:11:13 [wendy]: action: janina and katie - finish work on report of voicexml and wcag 2.0, look at next public draft success criteria. present report mid-april (before next WD) to WCAG WG.
15:11:43 [wendy]: recommendation: recruit from deaf, hard-of-hearing, speech, and mobility communities
15:15:53 [wendy]: ===
15:15:56 [wendy]: test suite
15:20:31 [wendy]: QA received feedback in CR (operational guidelines and spec guidelines)
15:21:00 [wendy]: documents are complex and authoritarian
15:21:11 [wendy]: at mtgs this week, decided to take step back.
15:21:22 [wendy]: concluded "had gone too far" to make documents testable
15:21:52 [wendy]: trying to cover all situations
15:22:44 [wendy]: want to rewrite with more informal style that is less legalistic
15:23:38 [wendy]: focus on characteristics of the result
15:24:06 [wendy]: comes back to definition of testability
15:24:41 [wendy]: testability depends on context
15:28:25 [dom]: dom has joined #wai-wcag
15:28:32 [olivier]: olivier has joined #wai-wcag
15:28:40 [lofton]: lofton has joined #wai-wcag
15:29:00 [dom]: http://esw.w3.org/topic/TestableOrNot
15:32:03 [wendy]: some are machine-testable. Others require human judgment. Success criteria that require human testing yield consistent results among multiple testers.
15:32:16 [wendy]: (latest wcag 2.0 draft: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20040301.html)
15:33:11 [wendy]: context
15:36:00 [wendy]: how make test cases from spec. more testable spec, easier to create tests.
15:36:12 [wendy]: recommend testable assertions in the spec.
15:36:51 [wendy]: can have a broad testable assertion and very specific test cases
15:37:34 [wendy]: color contrast - do we need to be that specific in spec or could include specifics in test?
15:37:44 [wendy]: in this situation...need this contrast....here is how you assess contrast.
15:38:13 [wendy]: if you reach that degree of contrast, your readability will be x
15:38:23 [wendy]: principle: have contrast between text and background
15:38:35 [wendy]: question - how precise do you need to be in guidelines. need precise value?
15:38:48 [wendy]: "enough contrast" too vague
15:39:06 [wendy]: ave web author won't be able to use math algorithm to determine
15:39:10 [wendy]: necessitates a tool
15:39:51 [wendy]: qa came up with other methods to address: tools, templates. other ways to provide guidance.
15:40:09 [wendy]: an assertion is testable if you can create test cases for it.
15:40:53 [wendy]: how many of your test assertions have you created test cases for.
15:40:59 [wendy]: how many can you create test cases for.
15:41:26 [olivier]: (+ how much of your assertions are covered by your test cases)
15:42:09 [wendy]: have to be able to arrive at "true" or "false" from test case (or test assertion?)
15:42:23 [olivier]: wendy : case
15:42:31 [wendy]: thx
15:44:14 [wendy]: coverage: can do by inspection
15:44:20 [wendy]: if fail test case, fail succcess criteria
15:44:30 [wendy]: (however, if pass...could still fail criteria?)
15:44:57 [wendy]: repeatability of results...think of precision and accuracy.
15:46:00 [wendy]: testability, precision, accuracy
15:49:46 [wendy]: thought process: have people create test suites and see differences in them to determien testability of success criteria
15:50:14 [wendy]: level 1 criteria for 1.1:
15:50:38 [wendy]: each of these corresponds to 'conformance requirements' in qa documents
15:50:39 [olivier]: olivier has joined #wai-wcag
15:50:58 [wendy]: it's a statement about a piece of wcag content that has a true/false answer
15:51:09 [wendy]: 1.1 assertion 2: it's about as atomic as it coudl be
15:51:20 [wendy]: from qa: atomic assertion that would lead to test case
15:52:13 [wendy]: this assertion is represetned in different technologies
15:52:38 [wendy]: in html, have about 10 technqiues that map to that assertion
15:52:52 [wendy]: had a checklist item that was specific to techniques, but the t/f statement didn't fit well in techniqeus.
15:52:54 [wendy]: fits in checklsits.
15:53:10 [wendy]: need to create list of checklist items
15:53:31 [wendy]: in the testing process, as groups develop test suites, either do they come up with same sets. are these technqieus sufficient?
15:53:35 [wendy]: do groups come up with same tests?
15:54:13 [wendy]: have 2 types of case: 1. something implementedin the technology (e.g., form elements must have a label)
15:54:44 [wendy]: 2. quality of what is in the attribute - have techniques, but technqiues/ only way is inter-rater reliability
15:58:39 [wendy]: techniques, informative: if you do this way, we're pretty sure your results will be accessible.
15:58:51 [wendy]: if you don't, we have provided this framework to tset if this techiques qill be accessible.
15:58:54 [wendy]: s/qill/will
15:59:41 [wendy]: people donm't like processes, they like results. therefore, not suggesting make processes normative.
16:00:07 [wendy]: guidelines for techniques producing
16:00:20 [wendy]: needs to be separate from producing guidelines for producing content
16:00:29 [wendy]: (brining up proposal from earlier today)
16:00:54 [wendy]: create another normative document that says, here are the current wcag wg processes to create techniques)
16:00:59 [wendy]: (proposal)
16:01:52 [wendy]: don't put process for including new test cases, therefore don't put process for creating techniques
16:02:19 [wendy]: only useful if have certification process.
16:05:02 [wendy]: talking more along hte lines of an ISO process. if normative have to go on rec track. not worth the effort.
16:05:12 [wendy]: (tom and michael still have action to make proposal)
16:06:39 [wendy]: discussion of use cases. each time create new guideline, assess if you have addressed the given problems in one of the documents.
16:06:49 [wendy]: i.e., find documents that are not accessible. write guidelines to addres sthose issues.
16:07:01 [wendy]: go back to them from time to time to make sure what have addressed or not
16:07:12 [wendy]: create criteria to detremine if something too costly to include
16:07:26 [wendy]: un taxonomy of functional conditions.
16:07:44 [wendy]: one useful taxonomy. testing do on paper via inspection
16:07:48 [wendy]: use data, do the sweep
16:07:56 [wendy]: e-ramp developed a set of personas
16:08:09 [wendy]: useful to collect a reference list - bibliography - tha tpeople have created.
16:08:22 [wendy]: industry canada used e-ramp work
16:08:38 [wendy]: are they available online?
16:08:50 [wendy]: multimodal interaction dadtabase of use cases
16:09:09 [wendy]: theory: get that populate dwith use cases, so their design work is sensitive to diff usage patterns
16:09:13 [olivier]: olivier has joined #wai-wcag
16:13:59 [wendy]: define in CR exit criteria - what is good criteria
16:15:03 [wendy]: need to find web site a and b that have characteristics that define in guidelines and claim to be accessible (or community claims that they are)
16:15:22 [wendy]: if techniques are informative, don't need to prove they have been implemented.
16:16:15 [wendy]: however, techniques demonstrate that can implement normative criteira
16:16:44 [wendy]: document useful and usable
16:17:30 [wendy]: potential exit criteria: if have technique for every gudieline, each technique has been used successfully to make content accessible. and it is usable. if give technique to author can apply it.
16:17:48 [wendy]: (these are just suggestions...could be setting too high of a bar...too difficult)
16:18:04 [wendy]: make cr exit criteria more concrete.
16:18:18 [wendy]: to show that techniques are usable, make exit cretira: we can point to live web site that passes wcag 2.0
16:18:24 [wendy]: and it uses this techniquee and is a viable web site
16:20:24 [wendy]: test suite: series of tests and procedures that person can follow to evaluate their web site
16:21:09 [wendy]: need to define process for how to evaluate content
16:21:18 [wendy]: test case to evaluate content not tester
16:21:31 [olivier]: olivier has joined #wai-wcag
16:22:07 [wendy]: related to EOWG review teams
16:22:08 [wendy]: ?
16:24:23 [wendy]: gathering data related to voicexml tod etermine if should exclude from scope of guidelines or maybe just some guidelines.
16:24:53 [wendy]: combinations of technologies and techniques
16:34:45 [wendolyn]: wendolyn has joined #wai-wcag
16:35:13 [sh1mmer|cannes]: sh1mmer|cannes has joined #wai-wcag
16:35:19 [wendolyn]: RRSAgent, make log public-visible
16:35:36 [wendolyn]: RRSAgent, make log world-access
16:35:42 [wendolyn]: RRSAgent, bye
16:35:42 [RRSAgent]: I see 9 open action items:
16:35:42 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: shawn and judy coord w/wcag every x meetings [1]
16:35:42 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/03/05-wai-wcag-irc#T08-51-56
16:35:42 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: shawn talk to judy about discussing WCAG 1.0 errata & revised version in EOWG [2]
16:35:42 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/03/05-wai-wcag-irc#T09-17-02
16:35:42 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: shawn take to wai site task force: 1. tasks about transition 1.0 to 2.0, 2. about user agent clause (from errata table "user agent support for accessibility") [3]
16:35:42 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/03/05-wai-wcag-irc#T09-23-30
16:35:42 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: andrew, allistair, eric?, (recruit others?) impact assessment, community discussion, and proposals for wcag 1.0 revised edition, present at 15 April WCAG WG telecon [4]
16:35:42 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/03/05-wai-wcag-irc#T11-15-50
16:35:42 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: tom and michael send a proposal to the mailing list contains: proposed statement, where in the doc it would appear, pros and cons (re: normative requirement for a process to evaluate techniques used) [5]
16:35:42 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/03/05-wai-wcag-irc#T13-14-49
16:35:42 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: wendy (and coerce john, andi, gregg, jason, and other austinites) to write impact assessment of conformance levels for discussion at f2f (send to list by 12 march) [6]
16:35:42 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/03/05-wai-wcag-irc#T13-34-14
16:35:42 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: wendy propose [7]
16:35:42 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/03/05-wai-wcag-irc#T13-58-38
16:35:42 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: wendy ping martin on language [8]
16:35:42 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/03/05-wai-wcag-irc#T14-06-46
16:35:42 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: janina and katie - finish work on report of voicexml and wcag 2.0, look at next public draft success criteria. present report mid-april (before next WD) to WCAG WG. [9]
16:35:42 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/03/05-wai-wcag-irc#T15-11-13