IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-12-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:07:06 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
15:07:11 [bcaldwell]
zakim, who is here?
15:07:11 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Chris, Becky_Gibson, Ken?, +000012aaaa, ??P6, Don_Evans, Jenae, Ben, Michael_Cooper, John_Slatin
15:07:13 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Michael, AliG, Zakim, ken, Becky, ChrisR, bcaldwell
15:07:33 [bcaldwell]
zakim, ??P6 may be Lisa
15:07:33 [Zakim]
+Lisa?; got it
15:09:48 [DonFEvans]
DonFEvans has joined #wai-wcag
15:12:19 [ChrisR]
test suite:
15:16:24 [Michael]
cr need straw poll to include rationale for tests and level
15:16:52 [Michael]
cr will send thoughts on tests to list
15:20:02 [Michael]
action: everyone please complete straw poll for next Wednesday meeting
15:20:13 [Zakim]
15:22:35 [Michael]
cr to start posting messages on list re test suites to get discussion
15:22:47 [Michael]
would like to have 2 iterations - one before and one after guidelines released
15:23:00 [Michael]
ja start tracking test issues in Bugzilla
15:23:19 [David_]
David_ has joined #wai-wcag
15:23:27 [David_]
15:24:19 [Michael]
mc we have until Feb or Mar to feel pretty complete about test suite
15:25:38 [Michael]
ja to start updating end to ends
15:25:44 [Michael]
to see where we're missing test cases
15:28:13 [Michael]
dmd are checklists distinct from test suites?
15:28:22 [Michael]
bc no idea - a couple approaches
15:28:29 [Michael]
could have one test for every required item in checklist
15:28:45 [Michael]
or could include tests for every possible thing but not strongly tied to checklist
15:29:03 [Michael]
dmd don't want to duplicate effort
15:29:25 [Michael]
bc they do need to be tied together but unclear how extensive tests should be
15:29:42 [Michael]
dmd have tests sitting somewhere to be pulled in as needed
15:29:47 [Michael]
cr part of existing design
15:29:56 [Michael]
bc need to include tests for other technologies than html
15:29:57 [ChrisR]
checklist? chunks from WCAG, techs and test suite:
15:30:16 [Michael]
can't have checklist that's html only
15:30:21 [Michael]
cr checklist per technology?
15:30:37 [Michael]
bc no - have to include General with any tech, so at minimum it's a tech and general
15:31:17 [Michael]
mc haven't answered whether we would also combine other technologies into single checklists
15:32:20 [Michael]
bc risk with a single technology checklist is author doesn't realize they can't fully meet wcag because the tech (e.g., css) doesn't have necessary features
15:32:33 [Michael]
therefore create combination checklist
15:33:06 [Michael]
mc how do we handle that with arbitrary combinations?
15:34:27 [Michael]
cr we'd have to have techniques and test suites for every technology
15:34:37 [Michael]
mc at least the ones we're doing
15:34:54 [Michael]
cr need checklist per technology
15:35:05 [Michael]
bc need them per tech but not presented as standalone checklist
15:35:49 [Michael]
because they have to understand they can't meet guidelines using just that technology
15:36:40 [AliG] and
15:38:49 [AliG]
corrected to
15:38:51 [bcaldwell]
15:42:30 [Michael]
bc vision was that checklists would be application like
15:43:00 [Michael]
flow-chart process, walk through each criterion, decision tree about techniques to meet that criterion
15:43:17 [Michael]
if you meet techniques you meet criterion; if you don't you can document what alternate method you used
15:43:57 [Michael]
example above ( shows items disappearing based on answers to what is used
15:44:32 [Michael]
is feature used, checklist items for that appear; or you can indicate that you did something else
15:44:44 [Michael]
the trick is figuring out how to put this all together - more complex than a tax form now
15:45:03 [Michael]
we need a "kitchen sink" printable version to start, and later develop a more interactive tool
15:45:37 [Michael]
would also like to generate an EARL statement, to apply as metadata or generate a human-readable accessibility statement
15:46:24 [Michael]
ag similar approach, select technology using
15:46:37 [Michael]
grouped into categories - technology, content, presentation....
15:48:19 [Michael]
complete form, then generate results page indicating all the tasks you need to undertake according to your questionnaire results
15:48:32 [Michael]
grouped by technology
15:49:46 [Zakim]
15:50:32 [AliG]
which was the url???
15:50:45 [Zakim]
15:51:02 [Michael]
cr went through principle, guideline, success criterion, technique (task), and test suite
15:51:48 [Michael]
bc will discover we need user testing and to make decisions about process
15:52:06 [Michael]
overwhelming to ask author to make a decision about each and every thing, but that creates a more efficient checklist
15:52:45 [Michael]
cr do we have checklist document?
15:52:55 [Michael]
ack lisa
15:52:59 [Michael]
ack ??P2
15:53:40 [Michael]
ls likes alistair's checklist, but would like entry page to indicate what combination of technologies to start with, or "typical" or "all"
15:54:16 [Michael]
also likes layout
15:54:51 [Michael]
and to call it "tests"
15:55:32 [Michael]
sp test/task
15:56:06 [Michael]
bc task was originally considered a checklist item
15:56:18 [Michael]
there is a proposal to be strict about making those true/false statements
15:57:02 [Michael]
maybe even go back to considering those checklist items
15:57:16 [Michael]
maybe make difference between testable items (checklist items) and advisory (tasks)
15:57:45 [Michael]
ag test should support tasks
15:57:59 [Michael]
w/ failiure statements
15:58:07 [AliG]
16:00:17 [Zakim]
16:01:38 [Michael]
ag indicate conditions for applicability and conditions for failure
16:01:56 [Michael]
bc those are scoping questions that may affect which techniques or checklist items you're presented with
16:02:13 [Michael]
ag run applicability tests first, then decide which tasks relevant, then run failure conditions
16:03:26 [Michael]
mc use cases - which ones are we trying to meet here and which via other resources
16:03:37 [Michael]
bc also general question of audience
16:04:31 [Michael]
ag 3 types of users - author, editor, assessor
16:04:36 [Michael]
checklist mainly for author
16:08:41 [Michael]
Some use case stuff was posted at
16:09:07 [Becky]
use cases:
16:10:48 [Michael]
tom's personae
16:14:21 [Michael]
bc an early piece of work is to make sure tasks are all true/false statements
16:14:42 [Michael]
need to decide also whether tasks are actually checklist items or we need checklist items in addition
16:14:50 [Michael]
ag we need to split up into more granular statements
16:15:01 [Michael]
bc maybe a series of checklist items apply to each technique/task
16:16:06 [Michael]
mc the test files are a kind of break-down like this, do we use that?
16:16:55 [Michael]
ag need to break down tasks more granular and tests are under each of those
16:17:33 [Michael]
cr in test suite we have statements, but sounds like we want a question
16:17:43 [Michael]
ag something that ends in true/false
16:18:14 [bcaldwell] (includes true/false statements for guideline 1.1 and 1.3)
16:18:15 [Michael]
e.g., "each image is expected to contain an alt attribute" becomes "each image has an alt attribute"
16:18:51 [Michael]
cr if change wording of test suite statements, would it make our checklist?
16:19:26 [Michael]
wording in Ben's doc above seems good
16:21:41 [Michael]
mc would this get applied to test suite or checklist items in techniques doc?
16:21:54 [Michael]
ag advantage of putting in techniques doc helps us to see where we're missing tests
16:24:01 [Michael]
mc maybe doing as checklist items makes requirements more clear
16:24:27 [Michael]
bc depends on scope of test suite - do they include only what is necessary & sufficient, or do they include extra advice?
16:24:40 [Michael]
ag if they include extra advice that could get to be a lot
16:26:23 [Michael]
mc propose we decide test suite will only be what is necessary & sufficient
16:26:35 [Michael]
bc can help focus us - we can "table" some of the other things
16:27:41 [Michael]
resolved: test suites are only what is necessary & sufficient
16:28:53 [Michael]
mc if we a) make test suite language t/f and b) adopt above resolution, can checklist be driven by test suite?
16:29:28 [Michael]
resolved: checklists can be driven by test suite given above assumptions
16:29:38 [Michael]
bc test suites will need to expand to include general and other technologies
16:29:49 [Michael]
not sure anybody's working on that yet
16:30:10 [Michael]
action: john can start on testable statements for general techniques
16:30:23 [Michael]
ag break each task down into testable statements
16:32:29 [Michael]
ag example in task should be a pass example
16:33:44 [bcaldwell] - a more up to date version of proposed testable statements for 1.1 and 1.3 posted earlier
16:34:19 [Zakim]
16:34:20 [Zakim]
16:34:21 [Zakim]
16:34:22 [Zakim]
16:34:22 [Zakim]
16:34:24 [Zakim]
16:34:26 [Zakim]
16:34:27 [Zakim]
16:34:27 [Zakim]
16:34:28 [Zakim]
16:34:30 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has ended
16:34:30 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has left #wai-wcag
16:34:32 [Zakim]
Attendees were Becky_Gibson, +000012aaaa, Don_Evans, Ben, Michael_Cooper, Jenae, John_Slatin, Chris, Ken?, Lisa?, Alistair_Garrison, David_MacDonald, Lisa_Seeman
16:42:31 [AliG]
AliG has left #wai-wcag
16:59:17 [Michael]
Michael has joined #wai-wcag
18:05:04 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
19:08:04 [Michael]
rrsagent, bye
19:08:04 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items:
19:08:04 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: everyone please complete straw poll for next Wednesday meeting [1]
19:08:04 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
19:08:04 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: john can start on testable statements for general techniques [2]
19:08:04 [RRSAgent]
recorded in