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