IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-05-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:56:17 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
19:56:28 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make log public
19:56:34 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make log world-access
19:57:29 [nabe]
nabe has joined #wai-wcag
19:57:47 [nabe]
nabe has left #wai-wcag
19:58:07 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started
19:58:14 [Zakim]
+John_Slatin
19:58:33 [Zakim]
+Michael_Cooper
19:58:51 [nabe]
nabe has joined #wai-wcag
19:58:58 [Zakim]
+??P2
19:59:12 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, ??P2 is Tom
19:59:12 [Zakim]
+Tom; got it
19:59:13 [Zakim]
+??P3
19:59:16 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, I am Tom
19:59:16 [Zakim]
ok, sh1mmer, I now associate you with Tom
19:59:17 [sh1mmer]
mute me
19:59:25 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, mute me
19:59:25 [Zakim]
Tom should now be muted
19:59:52 [Zakim]
+??P4
19:59:55 [bengt]
zakim, ??P3 is Bengt_Farre
19:59:55 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
20:00:04 [bengt]
zakim, I am bengt_Farre
20:00:04 [Zakim]
ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
20:00:05 [Zakim]
+Sailesh_Panchang
20:00:11 [Zakim]
+??P6
20:00:12 [bengt]
zakmi, mute me
20:00:20 [Zakim]
+Wendy
20:00:21 [bengt]
zakim, mute me
20:00:21 [Zakim]
Bengt_Farre should now be muted
20:00:28 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:00:28 [Zakim]
On the phone I see John_Slatin, Michael_Cooper, Tom (muted), Bengt_Farre (muted), ??P4, Sailesh_Panchang, ??P6, Wendy
20:00:29 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, mute ??P6
20:00:29 [Becky]
Becky has joined #wai-wcag
20:00:30 [Zakim]
??P6 should now be muted
20:00:30 [Zakim]
+??P7
20:00:36 [wendy]
zakim, ??P7 is Yvette
20:00:37 [Zakim]
+Yvette; got it
20:00:47 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, unmute ??P6
20:00:47 [Zakim]
??P6 should no longer be muted
20:00:51 [Zakim]
+??P8
20:00:56 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
20:00:56 [Zakim]
Yvette should now be muted
20:00:59 [Zakim]
+Becky_Gibson
20:01:00 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
20:01:00 [Zakim]
Yvette should no longer be muted
20:01:03 [wendy]
zakim, ??P8 is Doyle
20:01:03 [Zakim]
+Doyle; got it
20:01:08 [sh1mmer]
wendy I don't know who p6 is
20:01:19 [Zakim]
+Loretta_Guarino_Reid
20:01:21 [sh1mmer]
but they are 'in the truck' to quote david
20:01:22 [Zakim]
+[IBM]
20:01:25 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
20:01:28 [Yvette]
zakim, I am Yvette_Hoitink
20:01:28 [Zakim]
sorry, Yvette, I do not see a party named 'Yvette_Hoitink'
20:01:32 [MattSEA]
MattSEA has joined #wai-wcag
20:01:34 [Yvette]
zakim, I am Yvette
20:01:34 [Zakim]
ok, Yvette, I now associate you with Yvette
20:01:37 [wendy]
zakim, [IBM] is Andi
20:01:37 [Zakim]
+Andi; got it
20:01:40 [Yvette]
zakim, I am Yvette_Hoitink
20:01:40 [Zakim]
sorry, Yvette, I do not see a party named 'Yvette_Hoitink'
20:01:44 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
20:01:46 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, mute ??P6
20:01:46 [Zakim]
??P6 should now be muted
20:01:47 [Zakim]
-Andi
20:01:47 [Yvette]
zakim, Yvette is Yvette_Hoitink
20:01:48 [Zakim]
+Yvette_Hoitink; got it
20:01:59 [Zakim]
+Matt
20:02:14 [Zakim]
+[IBM]
20:02:18 [wendy]
zakim, drop ??P6
20:02:18 [Zakim]
??P6 is being disconnected
20:02:18 [rellero]
rellero has joined #wai-wcag
20:02:19 [Zakim]
-??P6
20:02:35 [rellero]
Hi
20:02:36 [Zakim]
+Paul_Bohman
20:02:39 [nabe]
nabe has left #wai-wcag
20:02:40 [wendy]
zakim, [IBM] is Andi
20:02:40 [Zakim]
+Andi; got it
20:02:49 [rellero]
I am not at home, I follow in IRC only
20:02:55 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:02:55 [Zakim]
On the phone I see John_Slatin, Michael_Cooper, Tom (muted), Bengt_Farre (muted), ??P4, Sailesh_Panchang, Wendy, Yvette_Hoitink, Doyle, Becky_Gibson (muted), Loretta_Guarino_Reid,
20:02:56 [Yvette]
Hi Roberto
20:02:58 [Zakim]
... Matt, Andi, Paul_Bohman
20:03:01 [rellero]
:-)
20:03:15 [Zakim]
+JasonWhite
20:03:18 [wendy]
zakim, ??P4 is David_MacDonald
20:03:18 [Zakim]
+David_MacDonald; got it
20:03:28 [Zakim]
+??P13
20:03:45 [nabe]
nabe has joined #wai-wcag
20:03:47 [GVAN]
GVAN has joined #wai-wcag
20:03:48 [wendy]
zakim, ??P13 is Gregg-and-Ben
20:03:48 [Zakim]
+Gregg-and-Ben; got it
20:04:22 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:04:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see John_Slatin, Michael_Cooper, Tom (muted), Bengt_Farre (muted), David_MacDonald, Sailesh_Panchang, Wendy, Yvette_Hoitink, Doyle, Becky_Gibson (muted),
20:04:25 [Zakim]
... Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Matt, Andi, Paul_Bohman, JasonWhite, Gregg-and-Ben
20:04:33 [Yvette]
it used to recognize me until I changed my phone company
20:04:36 [sh1mmer]
what about Jason?
20:05:04 [wendy]
hmm. maybe i lied. ;)
20:05:33 [Zakim]
+??P14
20:05:56 [MattSEA]
zakim, who's cruising Lake Mead?
20:05:56 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, MattSEA.
20:06:06 [sh1mmer]
and behind door number 14 is...
20:06:13 [Yvette]
nabe, did you just mute yourself?
20:07:01 [bcaldwell]
bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
20:07:01 [wendy]
zakim, ??P14 is Takayuki_Watanabe
20:07:01 [Zakim]
+Takayuki_Watanabe; got it
20:07:38 [wendy]
agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0273.html
20:07:57 [wendy]
issue 693: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=693
20:08:11 [wendy]
proposed wording: Individuals with disabilities affecting their speech or
20:08:11 [wendy]
manual dexterity will often have a higher error rate when communicating
20:08:11 [wendy]
with speech or handwriting recognition, or typing, and therefore benefit
20:08:11 [wendy]
proportionately more from features that assist in recognizing and
20:08:11 [wendy]
correcting input errors.
20:08:18 [wendy]
==
20:08:37 [wendy]
yvette's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0296.html
20:08:55 [wendy]
john's edit of yvette's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0298.html
20:09:03 [tecks]
tecks has joined #wai-wcag
20:09:07 [wendy]
Certain disabilities make it more difficult to operate input devices,
20:09:07 [wendy]
resulting in more input errors. For example, individuals with limited
20:09:07 [wendy]
motor functions are more likely to make errors when they operate a mouse
20:09:07 [wendy]
or a keyboard. Individuals with speech disabilities are more difficult
20:09:07 [wendy]
for speech recognition systems to understand . Features that assist in
20:09:08 [wendy]
recognizing and correcting errors benefit individuals with these types
20:09:09 [wendy]
of disabilities.
20:09:12 [wendy]
==
20:09:39 [wendy]
s/speech recognition/speech-recognition
20:09:46 [wendy]
discussion?
20:10:38 [tecks]
test
20:11:38 [wendy]
propose: speech rec systems may find it more diffi to understand people w/speech dis
20:11:39 [sh1mmer]
+1
20:11:59 [wendy]
therefore, don't need hyphen (as just propsoed)
20:12:24 [wendy]
resolution: adopt as modified
20:12:57 [wendy]
===
20:12:59 [wendy]
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=774
20:13:07 [wendy]
have had some discussion on the list
20:13:33 [wendy]
suggestions:
20:13:36 [wendy]
"the content"
20:13:43 [tecks]
hand up this is Doyle
20:14:11 [sh1mmer]
tecks, say "Zakim, I am Doyle"
20:14:20 [sh1mmer]
then you can use "q+"
20:14:35 [wendy]
john recently suggested resource:
20:14:38 [tecks]
Zakim, I Am Doyle
20:14:38 [Zakim]
ok, tecks, I now associate you with Doyle
20:14:54 [wendy]
what about each new fetch from the server?
20:15:05 [wendy]
q+ doyle
20:15:37 [wendy]
suggestion on mailing list: "throughout the resource"
20:15:48 [wendy]
ack doyle
20:16:06 [wendy]
we use page and we seem to know what it means.
20:16:06 [sh1mmer]
q+
20:16:13 [wendy]
if we use it that often, why use something else?
20:16:25 [wendy]
"a single document and everything attached to it"
20:16:30 [wendy]
if we change it, could be more confusing
20:16:46 [sh1mmer]
ack MattSEA
20:16:46 [wendy]
ack matt
20:16:59 [Gian]
Gian has joined #wai-wcag
20:16:59 [wendy]
"resource" is commonly used term in w3c documents
20:17:09 [Gian]
hello - Gian here
20:17:12 [wendy]
most content aren't just "pages"
20:17:14 [wendy]
hello gian
20:17:21 [Yvette]
q+ to say "page is very HTML"
20:17:22 [Gian]
sorry I'm late
20:17:28 [Yvette]
Hi Gian
20:17:41 [wendy]
ack tom
20:17:42 [sh1mmer]
ack Tom
20:18:01 [wendy]
primary issue: pick a term and use it consistently
20:18:25 [sh1mmer]
ack Andi
20:18:26 [wendy]
q+ to say, "knee-jerk reactions to page from web app devs"
20:18:38 [sh1mmer]
ack Yvette
20:18:38 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "page is very HTML"
20:18:42 [wendy]
"page" loses meaning when talk about web apps
20:18:50 [sh1mmer]
ack John
20:18:53 [wendy]
page is html-specific go for diff term
20:19:12 [wendy]
tried 'screen' but got same response as did for 'page'
20:19:21 [wendy]
then used 'resource' since was more general
20:19:22 [wendy]
q-
20:19:24 [sh1mmer]
ack wendy
20:20:06 [wendy]
tehre may be places where page is appropriate, but tends to be too narrow
20:20:15 [sh1mmer]
q+
20:20:23 [wendy]
"throughout resource"
20:20:33 [wendy]
"context throughout resource" and "resource"
20:20:39 [wendy]
find places where 'page' is used
20:20:49 [wendy]
can we replace with "context throughout resource" and "resource"
20:20:55 [Yvette]
q+ to say "resource works for 3.2"
20:21:16 [sh1mmer]
q-
20:21:30 [sh1mmer]
ack Yvette
20:21:30 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "resource works for 3.2"
20:23:17 [wendy]
page used in several example and benefits. for success criteria: 2.4, 3.1, 3.2
20:23:31 [wendy]
ack jason
20:24:24 [wendy]
action: yvette review use of "page" in guidelines and success criteria (2.4, 3.1, 3.2). if possible, also review examples and benefits.
20:24:42 [wendy]
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=776
20:24:53 [Zakim]
+Mike_Barta
20:25:20 [sh1mmer]
Need to clarify "contracted?"
20:25:31 [sh1mmer]
Do we need to include a definition of "contracted"? Do we need an example
20:25:31 [sh1mmer]
of contracted words? Perhaps include hebrew as example in the example section?
20:26:31 [sh1mmer]
ack John
20:26:40 [wendy]
thread began on this issue: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0225.html
20:26:53 [wendy]
"contraction" is commonly used word, but given multiple languages, we should have a definition
20:27:14 [wendy]
perhaps examples could solve easiest w/examples
20:27:28 [wendy]
q+ to say, "contracted does not have exmaples for contraction"
20:27:36 [sh1mmer]
ack Loretta
20:27:41 [Zakim]
+Kerstin_Goldsmith
20:27:45 [wendy]
does hebrew fall under this criterion?
20:27:46 [sh1mmer]
ack wendy
20:27:46 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say, "contracted does not have exmaples for contraction"
20:28:41 [sh1mmer]
example for this don't exist. This is related to 3.1 which has examples which are on a seperate thread
20:28:50 [sh1mmer]
ack John
20:29:24 [wendy]
there are contractions in braille that represent multiple letters
20:29:28 [wendy]
not sure applies to hebrew
20:29:39 [wendy]
belief that anything that leaves things out is a "contraction"
20:30:13 [sh1mmer]
two issues which are related to the examples related to this point. they need people to take them on
20:30:38 [wendy]
action: john continue working on examples for level 3 of 3.1
20:31:21 [wendy]
action: kerstin propose defn of "contraction" (issue 700) - http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=700
20:31:57 [wendy]
action: john possibly also look at other examples for 3.1 (issues 381 and 702)
20:31:58 [wendy]
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=381>
20:31:58 [wendy]
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=702>
20:32:21 [wendy]
Issues 511 and 694 - Examples for Guideline 2.5
20:32:49 [Yvette]
Wendy, is the live transcription service for deaf people on?
20:32:49 [wendy]
currently only have search engine example
20:32:53 [wendy]
no
20:33:03 [Yvette]
Both Roberto Ellero and Gian are following from IRC because they can't use the phone
20:33:09 [Yvette]
too bad
20:33:40 [sh1mmer]
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=511
20:33:45 [sh1mmer]
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=694
20:33:51 [wendy]
action: doyle propose more examples for 2.5 (issues 511 and 694)
20:34:02 [wendy]
Issue 565 - What is meant by "user error"
20:34:02 [wendy]
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=565>
20:34:26 [wendy]
What types of errors is this guideline addressing? Is this something that
20:34:26 [wendy]
is a special problem for people with disabilities, or is it a usability issue
20:34:26 [wendy]
for all users? Also, using the term “graceful” is very subjective.
20:34:30 [MichaelC]
MichaelC has joined #wai-wcag
20:34:32 [wendy]
===
20:34:36 [wendy]
word "graceful" is gone
20:35:08 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
20:35:08 [Yvette]
zakim, who's making noise?
20:35:11 [Yvette]
lol
20:35:22 [MattSEA]
zakim, who's being sucked into a black hole?
20:35:22 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, MattSEA.
20:35:25 [MattSEA]
zakim, who's making noise?
20:35:26 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Michael_Cooper (10%)
20:35:37 [Zakim]
Yvette, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Loretta_Guarino_Reid (23%), Gregg-and-Ben (36%), Mike_Barta (59%)
20:35:54 [Zakim]
MattSEA, listening for 15 seconds I heard sound from the following: Gregg-and-Ben (76%)
20:36:09 [wendy]
q+ to say, "look at language of existing doc"
20:36:34 [wendy]
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#minimize-error
20:37:51 [wendy]
add a sentence in benefits, "these are usability problems that effect all users but amplified for pwd"
20:37:54 [wendy]
ack john
20:38:09 [Yvette]
q+ to say "keep filled in data for forms with errors"
20:38:35 [wendy]
action: doyle add "these are usability problems that effect all users but amplified for pwd"
20:38:46 [wendy]
ack wendy
20:38:46 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say, "look at language of existing doc"
20:38:50 [sh1mmer]
acl wendy
20:39:15 [sh1mmer]
Not totally satify the issue. The phrase 'user error' could refer to many things
20:39:27 [sh1mmer]
Make sure 'user error' is in a definition
20:39:28 [sh1mmer]
1+
20:39:30 [sh1mmer]
q+
20:40:11 [wendy]
propose that we add a definition or in some way clarify "user error"
20:41:35 [wendy]
action: tom propose definition of "user errors" to answer the question "What types of errors is this guideline addressing?"
20:41:45 [Zakim]
-Kerstin_Goldsmith
20:41:56 [wendy]
ack yvette
20:41:56 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "keep filled in data for forms with errors"
20:41:58 [sh1mmer]
q-
20:42:01 [sh1mmer]
ack Yvette
20:42:31 [wendy]
can we include something hat says, "if you fill out form and there is an error, keep info in form so that don't have to fill out again"
20:42:48 [Zakim]
+??P16
20:42:56 [sh1mmer]
q+
20:43:02 [sh1mmer]
ack Tom
20:43:05 [wendy]
zakim, ??P16 is Kerstin
20:43:05 [Zakim]
+Kerstin; got it
20:43:22 [wendy]
the extra time is exactly what this guideline is trying to address
20:43:46 [wendy]
not that it takes more time to fill out a form, but takes more time to identify what needs fixing
20:43:47 [sh1mmer]
ack John
20:43:55 [Zakim]
-Mike_Barta
20:44:07 [wendy]
that's true for people using screen readers and with low vision, but if you have limited use of your hands
20:44:29 [wendy]
it could become real barrier
20:46:07 [wendy]
if you make an error and it takes person w/out a disability to recover x time and it takes pwd 2x...
20:46:22 [Gian]
or 6x
20:47:00 [wendy]
is it really an accessibility issue if doubles time for everyone
20:47:27 [Gian]
q+
20:49:48 [Yvette]
Example: task takes 1 minute for normal person, 2,5 minutes for person with screen reader
20:49:49 [wendy]
if you do it this way it will cost everyone additional time - thus a usability issue
20:49:59 [Yvette]
But with a barrier in the page, it takes 2 minutes for normal person, 5 minutes for person with screen reader
20:50:04 [Yvette]
than the barrier is a usability issue instead of accessibility because it causes everyone to be twice as slow
20:51:02 [wendy]
other hand: if someone who is visual can correct it in 3 seconds but someone with a screen reader takes 5 minutes, that is an accessibility issue
20:52:06 [wendy]
it is purely annoying or an accessibility issue?
20:52:08 [sh1mmer]
q+
20:52:18 [wendy]
ack jason
20:52:25 [Zakim]
+Mike_Barta
20:52:37 [wendy]
make sure that whatever wording we use that it is not specific to forms and applies to user interfaces in general
20:52:42 [BeckyG]
BeckyG has joined #wai-wcag
20:52:56 [wendy]
automatic validation techniques can avoid some of these problem.
20:52:58 [sh1mmer]
To summarise Gregg: If the error correction significantly changes the porportions of time needed to fill in a form compartively from a disabled and non-disabled person
20:53:11 [sh1mmer]
then it an accessibility issue
20:53:33 [Yvette]
??? I lost my connection
20:53:38 [sh1mmer]
if the proportions remains the same its usibility, even if the time required increases
20:53:51 [sh1mmer]
ack Gian
20:53:57 [Gian]
I always thought accessibility was: A level- pwd could not access the info, AA-level- pwd could access the info but it took longer than for non-pwd, AAA-level- takes pwd & non-pwd same amount of time to access info
20:54:12 [Zakim]
+Yvette_Hoitink.a
20:54:29 [MattSEA]
q+
20:54:33 [sh1mmer]
q-
20:54:51 [wendy]
that is a misunderstanding of the levels. it is closer to the WCAG 1.0 defn.
20:55:08 [Zakim]
-Yvette_Hoitink
20:55:13 [wendy]
there was not a time equivalance
20:55:23 [Zakim]
-Michael_Cooper
20:55:25 [Gian]
that's what I meant - wcag 1.0, I don't think there should be too much difference between the two
20:55:49 [sh1mmer]
ack John
20:56:14 [sh1mmer]
q+
20:56:20 [wendy]
since gregg proposed a heuristic to determine diff betwen usability and accessibility issues, we ought to include that in the document to help other people understand
20:56:32 [wendy]
it's a rough measure, but it is useful for people to grasp the distinction
20:59:51 [sh1mmer]
ack MAtt
21:00:20 [wendy]
agree that it shouldn't be a defn. when working on html techniques, wanted to include "good ideas".
21:00:37 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
21:00:37 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink.a should now be muted
21:00:42 [wendy]
let's gather good advice, e.g., time on task is not a good measure of anything since you have a wide variance.
21:00:49 [Doyle]
brb - be right back
21:01:30 [wendy]
we need a straightforward guide to walk you through everyrthing, the "o-reilly version" of the guidelines
21:01:48 [Zakim]
+Avi
21:01:58 [wendy]
action: matt write o'reilly version of WCAG 2.0
21:02:10 [Yvette]
go matt ;-)
21:02:15 [wendy]
RRSAgent, drop action 8
21:02:22 [wendy]
action: matt propose o'reilly version of wCAG 2.0
21:02:30 [wendy]
matt waiting for more stable document before tackling
21:03:37 [sh1mmer]
ack Tom
21:03:55 [wendy]
support difference betwen usability and accssibility
21:04:19 [wendy]
understand don't want to use single heuristic. EOWG has also been discussing
21:04:52 [wendy]
need to clearly say why some of the less-technical (and more usable) aspects of accessibility have been included.
21:06:04 [wendy]
action item: issues review for guideline 2.4 (~20 issues logged)
21:06:11 [wendy]
RRSAgent, drop action 10
21:06:43 [wendy]
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/issuereports/navigation-mechanisms_issues.php
21:07:46 [wendy]
ack mike
21:08:15 [wendy]
action: mike summarize issues for 2.4 ( http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/issuereports/navigation-mechanisms_issues.php)
21:08:18 [wendy]
weeeeee!!!
21:08:57 [wendy]
===
21:09:14 [wendy]
human testability: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0187.html
21:10:55 [wendy]
sailesh's wording: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0187.html
21:11:10 [GVAN]
In the judgment of the working group members, success criteria can either be tested automatically or tested by humans in a manner that is capable of yielding consistent results among multiple knowledgeable testers.
21:11:16 [Yvette]
q+ to say "that's not Charles' comment"
21:11:31 [wendy]
s/members/participants
21:11:38 [sh1mmer]
ack Kerstin
21:11:51 [GVAN]
In the judgment of the working group participants, success criteria can either be tested automatically or tested by humans in a manner that is capable of yielding consistent results among multiple knowledgeable testers.
21:12:32 [wendy]
defn of "multiple knowledgeable testers" needed?
21:12:41 [sh1mmer]
ack Yvette
21:12:42 [Zakim]
Yvette, you wanted to say "that's not Charles' comment"
21:12:57 [wendy]
cmn said, "we don't have to say anything about automatic tests"
21:13:12 [wendy]
we have defined tests that can be tested by humans in a manner that yields consistent results
21:13:24 [wendy]
that you can also test with computers is benefit
21:13:44 [wendy]
however, that is not true. there are some criteria that are only machine-testable
21:13:54 [wendy]
e.g., epilepsy
21:14:30 [Gian]
q+ to say "well technically all you would need is a human with epilepsy to sit infront of the screen"
21:14:56 [wendy]
ack gian
21:14:56 [Zakim]
Gian, you wanted to say "well technically all you would need is a human with epilepsy to sit infront of the screen"
21:14:56 [sh1mmer]
ack Gian
21:15:27 [Gian]
q-
21:15:35 [wendy]
that's not correct - you can never test for conformance w/user testing. the fact that *a* blind person can use does not mean that all people who are blind can use.
21:15:36 [sh1mmer]
ack John
21:16:13 [sh1mmer]
q+
21:16:17 [wendy]
if there are some criteria that are only-machine testable, then "in the judgement of wg ps all are testable. some tested reliablty by humans. @@some are only tested automaticlly@@"
21:16:39 [sh1mmer]
ack Tom
21:17:05 [wendy]
few issues are dangerous for humans to test. others are impracticle for humans to test
21:17:26 [Yvette]
zakim, mute me
21:17:26 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink.a should now be muted
21:17:40 [Gian]
q+ "it depends on the site being tested"
21:17:58 [Gian]
q+ to say "it depends on the site being tested"
21:18:44 [sh1mmer]
q+
21:18:49 [wendy]
suggest that we say "either human-reliable or automatic" those that are impracical for humans we have instruments
21:19:03 [wendy]
unless you have a normalized instrument can't use in the standard
21:19:13 [wendy]
ack gian
21:19:13 [Zakim]
Gian, you wanted to say "it depends on the site being tested"
21:19:20 [Gian]
for example, testing whether alt attributes are missing is often done by an automated testing tool - but if you have a site that is 3 pages then it would be easier just to review the code instead of using a tool
21:19:41 [rellero]
rellero has joined #wai-wcag
21:19:48 [wendy]
ack tom
21:20:05 [wendy]
although there are practicalities involved in testing one way or the other, doing as gregg suggested is best plan
21:20:30 [Yvette]
zakim, unmute me
21:20:30 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink.a should no longer be muted
21:20:33 [wendy]
again ask if this ok: In the judgment of the working group participants, success criteria can either be tested automatically or tested by humans in a manner that is capable of yielding consistent results among multiple knowledgeable testers.
21:21:30 [sh1mmer]
q+
21:21:36 [sh1mmer]
ack kerstin
21:22:02 [wendy]
said don't want to define " multiple knowledgeable testers" however we're going to get that question
21:22:06 [wendy]
people will want a definition
21:22:23 [wendy]
propose "7 out of 10"
21:22:42 [wendy]
or reusing some other usability reference
21:23:01 [Yvette]
q+ to say "Formulation is too difficult"
21:23:02 [Gian]
q+ to say "is that 7 out of 10 that agree 100%? There may be differences of opinion"
21:23:02 [wendy]
have to go with test reliability literature
21:23:07 [sh1mmer]
ack Tom
21:23:40 [wendy]
have different scales for different success criteria? level 3 needs less people out of 10 (e.g.,)
21:24:03 [sh1mmer]
q+
21:24:08 [wendy]
ack andi
21:24:10 [sh1mmer]
ack Andi
21:24:20 [wendy]
if we use that level of specificity will get confused as a requirement
21:24:25 [Yvette]
q-
21:24:31 [wendy]
when do human testability have to get that many peopel to agree it conforms
21:24:56 [wendy]
we didn't make any effort to figure out if that many people would agree, it was just our judgement
21:25:01 [wendy]
ack gian
21:25:01 [Zakim]
Gian, you wanted to say "is that 7 out of 10 that agree 100%? There may be differences of opinion"
21:25:05 [Gian]
it seems quite difficult to quantify it.
21:25:29 [Gian]
what if they can't agree about anything?
21:25:38 [wendy]
it is a binary question: does it pass or does it fail?
21:25:47 [wendy]
you can't "half pass"
21:25:50 [Gian]
(like wg ps ;)
21:25:53 [wendy]
7/10 say pass or fail
21:25:55 [Doyle]
were 8 out of 10 knowledgable people to test the site, it would pass or fail
21:26:06 [wendy]
q?
21:26:11 [Gian]
then we need to say that - Satisfactory or Not Sat.
21:26:17 [sh1mmer]
ack Tom
21:26:20 [Yvette]
q+ to say "Formulation is too difficult"
21:26:43 [wendy]
necessity to make note of the fact that people using tools may need a qualified person to operate them?
21:27:10 [GVAN]
Q+
21:27:17 [wendy]
zakim, who's talking?
21:27:28 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Doyle (4%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (24%), Gregg-and-Ben (72%), Yvette_Hoitink.a (4%)
21:27:42 [wendy]
ack yvette
21:27:42 [Zakim]
Yvette, you wanted to say "Formulation is too difficult"
21:28:03 [wendy]
talking about "yielding consistent results" - difficult formulation.
21:28:24 [wendy]
non-scientific version: we have only included sc where you can objectively determine if sc fails or passes
21:28:32 [wendy]
s/objectively/??
21:28:50 [wendy]
more people will know "objectively" than "yield"
21:28:58 [wendy]
this is a defn of objective
21:29:11 [Gian]
s/objectively/accurately
21:29:13 [Doyle]
obtain?
21:29:15 [sh1mmer]
"result in"?
21:29:18 [wendy]
action: john propose simpler word for "yield"
21:29:29 [sh1mmer]
q?
21:29:32 [sh1mmer]
ack GVAN
21:29:57 [wendy]
can we agree that this proposal is better than existing text? can we capture the progress we have made
21:30:02 [wendy]
s/yield/produced?
21:30:17 [wendy]
ack jason
21:30:23 [wendy]
q+ gvan
21:30:30 [sh1mmer]
GVAN can you read it with 'produced' in pls
21:30:34 [wendy]
zakim, unmute jason
21:30:34 [Zakim]
JasonWhite was not muted, wendy
21:31:14 [wendy]
In the judgment of the working group participants, success criteria can either be tested automatically or tested by humans in a manner that is capable of producing consistent results among multiple knowledgeable testers.
21:31:32 [sh1mmer]
ack jason
21:31:41 [Zakim]
-Andi
21:31:55 [wendy]
yvette still feels it is difficult
21:32:00 [wendy]
john will continue to work on
21:32:08 [wendy]
this will pass with broad consent and not broad consent
21:32:44 [wendy]
this will pass with broad consent and not unanimous consent
21:33:23 [Zakim]
-John_Slatin
21:33:24 [Zakim]
-Kerstin
21:33:24 [Zakim]
-Paul_Bohman
21:33:25 [Zakim]
-Mike_Barta
21:33:26 [Zakim]
-Sailesh_Panchang
21:33:27 [Zakim]
-Matt
21:33:28 [Zakim]
-Tom
21:33:29 [Zakim]
-Wendy
21:33:30 [Zakim]
-Doyle
21:33:32 [Zakim]
-Loretta_Guarino_Reid
21:33:32 [rellero]
bye
21:33:34 [Zakim]
-Yvette_Hoitink.a
21:33:36 [Zakim]
-Becky_Gibson
21:33:38 [Zakim]
-Avi
21:33:40 [Zakim]
-Bengt_Farre
21:33:40 [nabe]
good bye
21:33:43 [BeckyG]
BeckyG has left #wai-wcag
21:33:46 [Gian]
bye
21:33:48 [wendy]
zakim, bye
21:33:48 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were John_Slatin, Michael_Cooper, Tom, Bengt_Farre, Sailesh_Panchang, Wendy, Becky_Gibson, Doyle, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Andi,
21:33:48 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
21:33:51 [Zakim]
... Yvette_Hoitink, Matt, Paul_Bohman, JasonWhite, David_MacDonald, Gregg-and-Ben, Takayuki_Watanabe, Mike_Barta, Kerstin_Goldsmith, Kerstin, Avi
21:34:01 [bcaldwell]
bcaldwell has left #wai-wcag
21:34:06 [wendy]
RRSAgent, bye
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]
I see 10 open action items:
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: yvette review use of "page" in guidelines and success criteria (2.4, 3.1, 3.2). if possible, also review examples and benefits. [1]
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/06-wai-wcag-irc#T20-24-24
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: john continue working on examples for level 3 of 3.1 [2]
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/06-wai-wcag-irc#T20-30-38
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: kerstin propose defn of "contraction" (issue 700) - http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=700 [3]
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/06-wai-wcag-irc#T20-31-21
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: john possibly also look at other examples for 3.1 (issues 381 and 702) [4]
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/06-wai-wcag-irc#T20-31-57
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: doyle propose more examples for 2.5 (issues 511 and 694) [5]
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/06-wai-wcag-irc#T20-33-51
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: doyle add "these are usability problems that effect all users but amplified for pwd" [6]
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/06-wai-wcag-irc#T20-38-35
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: tom propose definition of "user errors" to answer the question "What types of errors is this guideline addressing?" [7]
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/06-wai-wcag-irc#T20-41-35
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: matt propose o'reilly version of wCAG 2.0 [9]
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/06-wai-wcag-irc#T21-02-22
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: mike summarize issues for 2.4 ( http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/issuereports/navigation-mechanisms_issues.php) [11]
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/06-wai-wcag-irc#T21-08-15
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: john propose simpler word for "yield" [12]
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/06-wai-wcag-irc#T21-29-18
21:34:12 [Gian]
and me!!