IRC log of au on 2004-03-29
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 21:01:24 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #au
- 21:01:52 [Zakim]
- +Greg_Pisocky
- 21:02:29 [Zakim]
- +??P7
- 21:02:44 [MattSEA]
- zakim, ??P7 is Jan_Richards
- 21:02:44 [Zakim]
- +Jan_Richards; got it
- 21:02:55 [MattSEA]
- rrsagent, make log public
- 21:03:11 [MattSEA]
- rrsagent, make log world
- 21:13:38 [MattSEA]
- jr: I have suggested that we organize the techniques in order of success criteria.
- 21:17:41 [MattSEA]
- Working on criteria for GL 4.
- 21:19:09 [MattSEA]
- For example, in 4.4.1 etc., I split it into 4 categories of functionality (prompting, checking, repair, docs), and 4 categories of tool (code-level, wysiwyg, object-oriented, and indirect)
- 21:19:31 [MattSEA]
- Plus four categories of similarity. So a matrix of 64 items.
- 21:21:28 [MattSEA]
- We could show 1 comparable function, 1 good example, and 1 not to do, and repeat it for each type.
- 21:22:32 [MattSEA]
- mm: would suggest making one document for each type of tool.
- 21:24:43 [MattSEA]
- jr: We could simplify this by choosing a subset of these (prompting in a code-level tool) and get an example that shows similarity and get screenshots that show several items.
- 21:28:06 [MattSEA]
- Each of these types of division has its weakness. For example, checking vs. repair. Hard to tease out.
- 21:30:24 [MattSEA]
- gp: In each system, you have to provide checking at code or wysiwyg level, etc. And instead of anticipating all possible outcomes, argue by example. At code-level, checking means this, etc.
- 21:32:30 [MattSEA]
- jr: We need to define when we consider something integrated.
- 21:33:15 [MattSEA]
- gp: Four levels of similarity to comparable functions...
- 21:34:01 [MattSEA]
- jr: I'm now thinking we have one section broken out into the four types of tools.
- 21:34:13 [MattSEA]
- And explain how two things might be similar.
- 21:35:04 [MattSEA]
- gp: I can see that.
- 21:36:37 [MattSEA]
- jr: Documentation, I think, shoudl be similar across the four.
- 21:42:26 [MattSEA]
- We should suggest the document remove the documentation from the guides.
- 21:43:09 [MattSEA]
- or, have techniques for each, prompting, checking, etc.
- 21:45:27 [MattSEA]
- we have this term prominence.
- 21:46:07 [MattSEA]
- gp: What's an example of an implementation that doesn't meet WCAG?
- 21:46:37 [MattSEA]
- jr: Bold using <font> rather than style or semantics.
- 21:53:11 [MattSEA]
- 4.3, first couple criteria are clear-cut.
- 21:56:38 [MattSEA]
- jr: Geoff Deering's comments. He seems to acknowledge that things are ok.
- 21:57:16 [MattSEA]
- mm: I would say that we need to make one change to G 1 to say Web based interfaces conform to WCAG, not ISO 16071.
- 21:58:02 [MattSEA]
- jr: He had an issue with WCAG's conformance levels re JavaScript, but that should be taken up with WCAG.
- 21:58:36 [MattSEA]
- jr: Next f2f? A little early to discuss. The dates will be in mid-July.
- 21:58:46 [MattSEA]
- mm: Next meeting after that?
- 21:58:54 [MattSEA]
- jr: Maybe in September?
- 22:01:04 [MattSEA]
- jr: Schedule: go back to every other Monday?
- 22:01:22 [MattSEA]
- mm: ok.
- 22:01:48 [Zakim]
- -Matt
- 22:01:49 [Zakim]
- -Greg_Pisocky
- 22:01:49 [Zakim]
- -Jan_Richards
- 22:01:50 [Zakim]
- WAI_AUWG()4:00PM has ended
- 22:01:51 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Matt, Greg_Pisocky, Jan_Richards
- 23:33:56 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #au