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: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/tests/
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> +??P17
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_> test
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: http://tile-cridpath.atrc.utoronto.ca/acheck/servlet/ShowChecklist1
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> http://www.accessinmind.com/supportEAM/ChecklistQuestionnaire.html and http://www.accessinmind.com/supportEAM/ChecklistReport.html
15:38:49 <AliG> corrected to http://www.accessinmind.com/supportEAM/ChecklistResult.html
15:38:51 <bcaldwell> http://preview.trace.wisc.edu/test/WCAG/checklists/checklist-2-19-2003int.htm
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 (preview.trace.wisc.edu) 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> -Ken?
15:50:32 <AliG> which was the url???
15:50:45 <Zakim> +??P2
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> http://www.accessinmind.com/supportEAM/HTMLTech.html
16:00:17 <Zakim> -Lisa_Seeman
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 http://eramp.com/david/
16:09:07 <Becky> use cases: http://www.eramp.com/david/becky_use_cases.htm
16:10:48 <Michael> tom's personae http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003JulSep/att-0497/wcag-personae.pdf
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> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/07/checklist-notes.html (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> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/10/06-checklist-discussion.html - a more up to date version of proposed testable statements for 1.1 and 1.3 posted earlier
16:34:19 <Zakim> -Michael_Cooper
16:34:20 <Zakim> -Becky_Gibson
16:34:21 <Zakim> -Don_Evans
16:34:22 <Zakim> -Alistair_Garrison
16:34:22 <Zakim> -Chris
16:34:24 <Zakim> -Lisa?
16:34:26 <Zakim> -Jenae
16:34:27 <Zakim> -Ben
16:34:27 <Zakim> -David_MacDonald
16:34:28 <Zakim> -John_Slatin
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 http://www.w3.org/2004/12/01-wai-wcag-irc#T15-20-02
19:08:04 <RRSAgent> ACTION: john can start on testable statements for general techniques [2]
19:08:04 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/12/01-wai-wcag-irc#T16-30-10