IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-11-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:56:04 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
14:58:49 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:17 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has now started
15:01:20 [Zakim]
15:01:27 [Zakim]
15:01:42 [wendy]
wendy has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:51 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:01:51 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Wendy, Michael_Cooper
15:02:27 [Zakim]
15:02:44 [wendy]
zakim, ??P28 is Chris
15:02:44 [Zakim]
+Chris; got it
15:02:46 [Zakim]
15:03:38 [ken]
ken has joined #wai-wcag
15:03:44 [Zakim]
15:08:58 [Michael]
Requirements for WCAG 2.0 Checklists and Techniques:
15:12:56 [wendy]
Requirements for UAAG 1.0 test suite (not sure the latest)
15:13:47 [AliG]
AliG has joined #wai-wcag
15:14:14 [wendy]
Earlier draft of Tim's document: Accessibility Testing Technical Documentation (Draft) - 18 Mar 03
15:14:54 [AliG]
Having a problems with my phone will try to join the call in a few minutes.
15:16:41 [wendy]
AliG? what is the error message that you hear?
15:17:44 [AliG]
None, the Skype software I am using cannot connect to its proxy server.
15:19:28 [wendy]
sounds like it's a skype issue. Chris had trouble using skype as well.
15:19:36 [Zakim]
15:19:55 [wendy]
zakim, ??P36 is Lisa_Seeman
15:19:55 [Zakim]
+Lisa_Seeman; got it
15:19:57 [DonFEvans]
DonFEvans has joined #wai-wcag
15:20:26 [Zakim]
15:20:40 [wendy]
zakim, ??P37 is Alistair
15:20:40 [Zakim]
+Alistair; got it
15:24:59 [wendy]
tb test suites for best practice? break into best practice and conformance.
15:25:06 [wendy]
mc perhaps best practice better accounted in examples
15:25:32 [wendy]
mc examples should be the same throughout the document, become more detailed further into materials you get
15:25:40 [wendy]
tb test suites designed to demonstrate conformance
15:25:43 [wendy]
ag yes
15:25:59 [wendy]
ag should be used to determine if the tasks have been achieved.
15:26:16 [wendy]
ag not all tests are automatable
15:28:47 [wendy]
ls instead of a test with a pass/fail, if they were educational tools. "do you have less than 3 words? if so, check that alt-text is in fact short and not adding unnecessary, additional time to surf the page" then would be less worried about them being water tight in every situation.
15:29:27 [Zakim]
15:29:28 [wendy]
cr when writing them, my focus was testing conformance and that rationale would be in other documents. wasn't thinking about best practices.
15:30:54 [Zakim]
15:31:57 [Michael]
need to present this idea to the Thursday call to make sure we all agree
15:32:05 [Michael]
15:32:28 [wendy]
wac speculating that next public drafts are in february/march. will be pushing for 1st public WDs of checklists and test suites.
15:37:40 [Michael]
wac overview of process to get to Recommendation
15:37:49 [Michael]
wac test suites don't count as implementation experience
15:38:24 [Michael]
wac evaluation tools that meet test suite could count, but that wasn't originally planned, instead we just expected to have Web sites that meet WCAG
15:38:43 [Michael]
wac but so many types of sites, would we have to have examples of each type, and different languages etc.?
15:42:27 [Michael]
mc do we need test suites for more technologies than HTML to fit requirements?
15:42:53 [Michael]
ag need to prove backwards compatibility w/ WCAG 1.0
15:43:28 [Michael]
ag including css, html, image, etc., anything covered in WCAG 1.0
15:44:01 [Michael]
wac test cases specific to WCAG 1.0 to demonstrate changes, or test cases that help determine if WCAG 1.0 conformant site passes 2.0?
15:44:33 [Michael]
ag select test cases so we don't need for technologies like PDF that weren't in WCAG 1.0 scope
15:46:07 [wendy]
mc w/out a script test suite, how validate that wcag 2.0 applies to dynamic technologies?
15:46:15 [wendy]
what about DOM test suite?
15:47:15 [wendy]
15:48:28 [Zakim]
15:50:29 [Michael]
15:52:06 [wendy]
wac how create a test suite for scripting w/out requiring usability testing?
15:52:27 [wendy]
mc are test suites defining what evaluation tools should be looking for or are they modeling what wcag 2.0 conformant code should look like or ??
15:52:40 [wendy]
ag shouldn't they test whether someone has implemented the code properly?
15:53:13 [wendy]
ag techniques show best practice in hope that people start using.
15:54:40 [wendy]
ag test files must support tasks
15:54:51 [wendy]
mc saw last week that test files are more detailed than techniques
15:55:06 [wendy]
ag that's the overlap between the top-down and bottom-up approach
15:56:06 [wendy]
ag remove limiting # of chars from test file (b/c of the overlap between top-down and bottom-up approaches)
15:57:30 [wendy]
kk tools have 3 levels: errors, manual, etc.
15:57:46 [wendy]
ag need to idnetify the type ofimage
15:58:05 [wendy]
mc length can be a clue, to trigger a closer look.
15:58:42 [wendy]
mc trigger closer look when using the eval tool not be a required test for the tool developer to implmeent
15:59:11 [wendy]
ls we're making classifications for other parts of the page, why not images as well?
16:00:38 [wendy]
ag my comments based on work from TF3 in euroaccessibility
16:01:21 [AliG]
take a look at (its a very rough draft)...
16:04:43 [wendy]
16:06:20 [AliG]
16:16:35 [Michael]
wac add section to requirements for test suites, and another section for relation among techniques, checklists, test suites
16:17:24 [Michael]
wac other W3C requirements documents have test suite requirements, we can use as models
16:17:32 [Michael]
e.g., UAAG
16:17:59 [Michael]
ag difference between methodology & test suite
16:21:55 [Michael]
wac/ag: test suite tasks for evaluators, techniques tasks for authors
16:22:13 [Michael]
wac open questions:
16:22:28 [Michael]
relationships between documents
16:23:08 [wendy]
audience of different resources
16:23:33 [wendy]
checklist as set of tasks? if a dev task and need more resources, go to techniques. if eval, to test suite.
16:26:10 [wendy]
action: michael, ben, chris, gregg, alistair, wendy work on draft of requirements for techs, checklists, and test suite
16:26:27 [wendy]
action: jenae, tim, ken, etc. thoroughly review draft once it is sent to the list
16:27:48 [wendy]
perhaps section 6: test suite and 7 relationship between techniques, checklists, and test suites
16:27:54 [wendy]
audience of checklists vs test suites
16:29:11 [wendy]
action: michael, chris, alistair meet friday to begin discussion
16:30:10 [Michael]
wac potential concern about use of term "test suite" because of what we mean vs. what other W3C specs mean
16:30:40 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make log world
16:31:50 [Zakim]
16:36:06 [wendy]
ag some of the tasks have both evaluation and repair info in the same task. e.g., task should be "dont' use font element" repair is "use css instead"
16:37:22 [wendy]
action: ag, wac, bc to get alistair set up and using bugzilla
16:38:22 [Zakim]
16:38:23 [Zakim]
16:38:23 [Zakim]
16:38:24 [Zakim]
16:38:25 [Zakim]
16:38:26 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has left #wai-wcag
16:38:26 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has ended
16:38:27 [Zakim]
Attendees were Wendy, Michael_Cooper, Chris, Tim_Boland, Ken_Kipnes, Lisa_Seeman, Alistair, Alistair_Garrison
16:38:32 [Michael]
rrsagent, bye
16:38:32 [RRSAgent]
I see 4 open action items:
16:38:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: michael, ben, chris, gregg, alistair, wendy work on draft of requirements for techs, checklists, and test suite [1]
16:38:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:38:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jenae, tim, ken, etc. thoroughly review draft once it is sent to the list [2]
16:38:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:38:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: michael, chris, alistair meet friday to begin discussion [3]
16:38:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:38:32 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ag, wac, bc to get alistair set up and using bugzilla [4]
16:38:32 [RRSAgent]
recorded in