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

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:51:48 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
13:51:57 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make logs world-visible
13:54:06 [sh1m]
sh1m has joined #wai-wcag
13:54:10 [sh1m]
13:54:23 [sh1m]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
13:54:23 [Zakim]
sorry, sh1m, I don't know what conference this is
13:54:24 [Zakim]
On IRC I see sh1m, RRSAgent, Zakim, wendy, sh1mmer
13:54:33 [sh1m]
Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
13:54:33 [Zakim]
ok, sh1m; I see WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
13:54:38 [sh1m]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
13:54:38 [Zakim]
sorry, sh1m, I don't know what conference this is
13:54:39 [Zakim]
On IRC I see sh1m, RRSAgent, Zakim, wendy, sh1mmer
13:54:44 [sh1m]
13:56:34 [MichaelC]
MichaelC has joined #wai-wcag
13:57:08 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has now started
13:57:14 [Zakim]
13:58:55 [Zakim]
13:59:25 [Becky]
Becky has joined #wai-wcag
13:59:35 [JimT]
JimT has joined #wai-wcag
13:59:53 [bcaldwell]
bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
14:00:08 [Zakim]
+ +1.978.399.aaaa
14:00:39 [MichaelC]
zakim, 978.399 is Becky_Gibson
14:00:39 [Zakim]
sorry, MichaelC, I do not recognize a party named '978.399'
14:00:48 [MichaelC]
zakim, +1.978.399 is Becky_Gibson
14:00:49 [Zakim]
+Becky_Gibson; got it
14:01:18 [Zakim]
14:01:31 [bcaldwell]
zakim, ??P7 is Ben_Caldwell
14:01:34 [Zakim]
+Ben_Caldwell; got it
14:01:38 [Zakim]
14:01:58 [Zakim]
14:02:02 [sh1m]
Zakim, ??P10 is Tom
14:02:12 [Zakim]
+Tom; got it
14:02:12 [sh1m]
Zakim, ??P12 is Tom
14:02:16 [Zakim]
14:02:18 [Zakim]
14:02:20 [Zakim]
+Tom; got it
14:02:23 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:02:23 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Michael_Cooper, Jim_Thatcher, Becky_Gibson, Ben_Caldwell, Tom, Tom.a, Sailesh_Panchang, Wendy
14:02:24 [sh1m]
Zakim, ??P1 is Chris_Ridpath
14:02:25 [Zakim]
I already had ??P1 as T.V.Raman, sh1m
14:02:29 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has joined #wai-wcag
14:02:30 [sh1m]
Zakim, ??P12 is Chris_Ridpath
14:02:31 [Zakim]
I already had ??P12 as Tom.a, sh1m
14:02:35 [Zakim]
14:02:36 [sh1m]
14:02:42 [sh1m]
i jsut cant type
14:02:45 [sh1m]
14:02:49 [Zakim]
14:02:53 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:03:03 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Michael_Cooper, Jim_Thatcher, Becky_Gibson, Ben_Caldwell, Tom, Tom.a, Sailesh_Panchang, Wendy, Matt, Tim_Boland
14:03:07 [sh1m]
Zakim, ??P10 is Chris_Ridpath
14:03:07 [Zakim]
I already had ??P10 as Tom, sh1m
14:03:20 [sh1m]
Zakim, ??p12 is Tom
14:03:20 [Zakim]
I already had ??P12 as Tom.a, sh1m
14:03:27 [Zakim]
14:03:32 [wendy]
zakim, Tom is Chris
14:03:32 [Zakim]
+Chris; got it
14:03:38 [wendy]
zakim, Tom.a is Tom
14:03:38 [Zakim]
+Tom; got it
14:03:43 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:03:43 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Michael_Cooper, Jim_Thatcher, Becky_Gibson, Ben_Caldwell, Chris, Tom, Sailesh_Panchang, Wendy, Matt, Tim_Boland, ??P20
14:03:51 [sh1m]
Zakim, I am Tom
14:03:51 [Zakim]
ok, sh1m, I now associate you with Tom
14:03:54 [wendy]
zakim, ??P20 is David_MacDonald
14:03:54 [Zakim]
+David_MacDonald; got it
14:06:06 [wendy]
traffic cop/relationship of documents
14:06:15 [wendy]
14:07:22 [wendy]
david's email to the list:
14:07:57 [wendy]
last week: realized gateway was serving two purposes and decided to split out the "traffic cop" funtionality
14:08:51 [wendy]
"techniques repository" - series of generated documents - one technique per document
14:09:10 [wendy]
usability findings suggest that people are confused by being dropped into a document
14:09:36 [wendy]
q+ to say, "if people knew they were being dropped into a doc, might be less confusing. also, if knew structure of relationsihps between docs"
14:09:51 [wendy]
use case 1
14:10:27 [wendy]
14:11:00 [wendy]
success criteria - these are synopses of criteria. to read whole thing, click on that link.
14:11:57 [wendy]
if click on a technique link, get a page that is just information related to this technology and this criterion
14:12:30 [wendy]
then can enter the document via, "Enter the techniques document at this point "
14:12:40 [wendy]
use case 2
14:13:08 [wendy] mock-up of guidelines
14:13:28 [wendy]
if select, "techniques for ..."
14:13:30 [wendy]
14:14:08 [wendy]
again, could end up at if check "technology independent"
14:15:43 [wendy]
14:16:22 [wendy]
(instead of checkboxes)
14:16:33 [wendy]
either menu (left hand side) or checkboxes
14:16:58 [wendy]
benefit of checkboxes - could select more than one technology
14:17:06 [wendy]
to display at the same time
14:17:23 [wendy]
explanation of use cases:
14:18:41 [wendy]
is it possible given a technique, to determine which guideliens/success criteria it applies to?
14:19:15 [wendy]
there are a couple other use cases not spelled out here
14:19:52 [wendy]
14:19:55 [wendy]
ack wendy
14:19:55 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say, "if people knew they were being dropped into a doc, might be less confusing. also, if knew structure of relationsihps between docs"
14:20:41 [sh1m]
14:21:27 [sh1m]
ack Tom
14:21:42 [wendy]
breadcrumbs - help people know where they are
14:21:47 [wendy]
in the process
14:21:51 [wendy]
also talking about checklists
14:22:00 [wendy]
checklists as process?
14:22:17 [wendy]
use checklist as way to encourage people to follow things through in a transparent way
14:22:37 [wendy]
checklist is a set of activities
14:22:58 [wendy]
guideline -> tech-indie techs -> specific tech
14:23:19 [wendy]
specific process. people can see where they are in the hierarchy and completing a task
14:24:34 [wendy]
thank you david for these!
14:24:42 [wendy]
go directly from guidelines to checklists?
14:24:52 [wendy]
will need to mock-up checklists
14:25:10 [wendy]
what will be in the checklists?
14:25:54 [JimT]
14:27:15 [MichaelC]
(original version)
14:27:17 [wendy]
14:28:12 [MichaelC]
(from Paul Bohman)
14:28:46 [wendy]
14:30:13 [MichaelC]
(Ben's rewriting as true/false statements)
14:31:36 [wendy]
currently have "tasks" but want true/false statements in a checklist
14:32:02 [wendy]
we have 2 use cases: the task that fits into the context of the technique and teh t/f statement for the checklist
14:32:08 [wendy]
relationship of checklist to traffic cop
14:32:30 [wendy]
guideline -> did you do html techs? did you do the css techs?
14:32:41 [bcaldwell]
14:32:57 [wendy]
checklist helps user check conformance
14:33:06 [wendy]
traffic cop is informative, learning, teaches how to do
14:33:13 [wendy]
one use case for traffic cop is informative
14:33:26 [wendy]
checklist - have you done it right
14:34:47 [wendy]
traffic cop asst - (use case 2) have guideline and success criteria, in that menu, could have checklist as an option
14:36:23 [wendy]
possibly have two sets of checkboxes: 1 "choose your technology" 2 choose checklist or techniques or both
14:36:47 [wendy]
checklists will reference techniques and guidelines
14:37:10 [wendy]
ben's mock-up (
14:37:21 [wendy]
complicated decision tree, for just one part of the guidelines
14:37:29 [wendy]
multiply that by 80
14:38:02 [wendy]
could split into chunks
14:38:16 [wendy]
in general, users prefer more pages than more scroll
14:38:30 [wendy]
like to see a mock-up of checklists as chunks
14:39:05 [wendy]
can't see case for linking to checklist directly from guideline
14:39:10 [wendy]
should be pushing informative information
14:40:16 [wendy]
techniques are "encyclopedia" and checklist are yes/no answer
14:41:11 [wendy]
what is the checklist item that i need?
14:41:24 [wendy]
if there is a way to split them up, "checklist items that this technique relates to"
14:42:01 [wendy]
brings up views question
14:42:08 [wendy]
in techniques, render both task and checklist item?
14:43:01 [wendy]
separate learning from evaluating?
14:43:03 [Zakim]
14:45:52 [wendy]
from checklist, "i don't understand how to get this checkbox checked" refer back to the techniques
14:46:16 [wendy]
is evaluation best left to other groups? evaluation is part of determining conformance.
14:46:32 [wendy]
sometimes have to use 3 techniques to satisfy one criterion
14:47:12 [wendy]
mock-up a checklist - irrespective of success criteria, how does it line up
14:47:37 [wendy]
use case: evaluator going through content. what are the questions that i would check off
14:47:46 [wendy]
w/out too much confusing information (about other techniques)
14:47:56 [wendy]
perhaps "perfect checklist" is not one-to-one with techniques
14:49:35 [wendy]
e.g., "are there text equivalents for all iamges"
14:49:54 [wendy]
there are 2 techniques, but i don't need two checks
14:50:21 [wendy]
the interactive checklist asked specific about uses
14:50:27 [wendy]
and transformed accordingly
14:51:57 [wendy]
are we thinking of checklist items too concretely?
14:52:01 [wendy]
too specific?
14:54:49 [wendy]
however, need to provide those details so we do not have the proliferation of interpretations that we had with WCAG 1.0
14:54:52 [wendy]
AERT was written to help with that
14:55:05 [wendy]
perhaps checklists are for humans and test suites more for tool developers
14:55:08 [sh1m]
14:55:16 [sh1m]
ack Tom
14:55:17 [wendy]
however, checklist need to definitely answer the question, "did i meet the guidelines or not?"
14:55:22 [wendy]
w/out specificity, how get there?
14:55:36 [wendy]
guidelines themselves are not specific enough
14:55:40 [wendy]
guidelines relying on checklists
14:55:55 [wendy]
after every technique, "how to evaluate"
14:56:06 [wendy]
i.e., link to checklist or test suite
14:56:19 [wendy]
test files
14:56:53 [wendy]
as was said, "how do i get this checkbox checked"
14:57:05 [wendy]
developer may want to know, "how will the content be evaluated"
14:57:29 [wendy]
if this will be dynamic, can we peel away layers?
14:58:28 [wendy]
give users control to show/hide granularity
14:58:32 [wendy]
don't force them into a particular view
14:59:20 [wendy]
new mock-up: use case 3
15:00:17 [wendy]
two options:
15:00:24 [wendy]
Do you want to see if you did this - Checklists -
15:00:41 [wendy]
Do you want to learn how to do it? goes to
15:00:53 [wendy]
concern about complexity...web application functionality
15:01:11 [wendy]
what is the print version? what information needs to be included?
15:01:56 [wendy]
build these interfaces in later?
15:02:18 [wendy]
we need to make some decision about linking between guidelines and techniques
15:02:20 [donaldfevans]
donaldfevans has joined #wai-wcag
15:03:07 [Zakim]
15:03:42 [sh1m]
15:04:42 [sh1m]
ack Tom
15:05:10 [wendy]
we've been exploring the end-to-end process
15:05:48 [wendy]
q+ to say, "at minimum, need to determine separation of tech-indie/traffic cop and linking between drafts...think june draft!!"
15:06:11 [wendy]
however, need to think of these as a suite of documents
15:06:21 [wendy]
need to decide a default view
15:06:33 [wendy]
of the static documents: what info is there, how do they relate?
15:06:47 [wendy]
from there, determine the deficiencies and fix those
15:07:05 [wendy]
make sure connections are based on success criteria
15:07:17 [wendy]
ack wendy
15:07:17 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say, "at minimum, need to determine separation of tech-indie/traffic cop and linking between drafts...think june draft!!"
15:10:18 [wendy]
the static traffic cop - useful
15:10:34 [wendy]
need to communicate to public/community what we are envisioning
15:10:45 [wendy]
at minimum, images of different use cases/paths that we've discussed
15:11:29 [wendy]
action: ben take david's static cop and rewrite it in xslt so can generate
15:11:46 [wendy]
two weeks
15:12:29 [wendy]
gateway doesn't actually have any traffic cop just the tech-indie
15:12:43 [wendy]
rename traffic cop "gateway" and rename gateway "tech-indie"
15:12:51 [wendy]
how does tech-indie relate to tech-specifics
15:12:54 [wendy]
15:13:35 [wendy]
current gateway - after read tech-indie will list tech-specific
15:14:16 [wendy]
another option posted to the list, coming from techniques get tech-indie no matter which tech-specific you chose
15:21:05 [wendy]
wac proposes that the main idea to convey from june draft is "big picture" not specifics
15:21:15 [wendy]
thus, link from guidelines to table
15:24:37 [wendy]
agreement that we need to paint big picture, but we need specifics to clearly paint
15:24:44 [wendy]
we need all pieces to show how fit together
15:25:32 [wendy]
suggest some draws a diagram that shows different ways that people could navigate through (end-to-end)
15:30:32 [wendy]
action: david, tom, wendy diagram all this stuff
15:31:02 [wendy]
action: tom add success criterion ids into the gateway
15:31:18 [wendy]
including links to tech specific in gateway?
15:31:54 [wendy]
separate xml doc and then pull in to whichever doc we want
15:33:16 [Zakim]
15:33:40 [JimT]
Have to leave for another meeting - see u later
15:33:56 [Zakim]
15:34:58 [wendy]
perhaps use "slices" ala UAAG to divvy up by guideline
15:36:29 [wendy]
next week: review navigation approaches
15:36:38 [wendy]
review gateway and html techniques
15:36:47 [wendy]
15:39:01 [Zakim]
15:39:02 [wendy]
15:40:16 [wendy]
2 hour call next week
15:40:22 [wendy]
3 hour the week after?
15:40:50 [wendy]
any other views be ready for next week?
15:40:56 [wendy]
perhaps another draft of gateway
15:41:59 [wendy]
draft of gateway/traffic cop combined?
15:42:08 [Zakim]
15:42:30 [wendy]
let sit as separate documents until have better understanding of diff views
15:43:49 [Zakim]
15:43:50 [Zakim]
15:43:51 [Zakim]
15:43:52 [Zakim]
15:43:53 [Zakim]
15:43:54 [Zakim]
15:43:55 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has ended
15:43:56 [Zakim]
Attendees were Michael_Cooper, Jim_Thatcher, +1.978.399.aaaa, Becky_Gibson, Ben_Caldwell, Sailesh_Panchang, Wendy, Matt, Tim_Boland, Chris, Tom, David_MacDonald, Don_Evans
15:44:25 [wendy]
zakim, bye
15:44:25 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
15:44:29 [wendy]
RRSAgent, bye
15:44:29 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items:
15:44:29 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ben take david's static cop and rewrite it in xslt so can generate [1]
15:44:29 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
15:44:29 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: david, tom, wendy diagram all this stuff [2]
15:44:29 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
15:44:29 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: tom add success criterion ids into the gateway [3]
15:44:29 [RRSAgent]
recorded in