WCAG Techniques 03 August 2005 -- 3 Aug 2005

<DonFEvans> hello

TTF Work Statement

<Michael> scribe: David

mc: objectives (reading it)

bc: we are not doing technology specific checklists any more

b: we are not doing technology specific checkpoints any more, see bcelow

<Christophe> link to charter: http://www.w3.org/2004/04/wcag-charter

bc: "... technology-specific techniques, tests and advisory information that support the requirements..."
... communications

mc: communications
... looking for comments

BG: do we need to say something for F2F?

mc: yes
... anything else under communication....personally I think we can take out "or every other week"
... PARTICPATION: good standing, good ability, good participation
... good standing meains 75% of telecons, and 4 hrs. / wk of and sending regrets...task force hours counts
... very important because people not in good standing ask old questions
... Team leadership, Wendy is the Boss :-)

Testing

mc: TIm not here let's go to next item
... test cases reviews, there are 3 that made it to the list, wendy ben and becky
... wendy's tests are pretty straight forward, pwd, radio button, wendy says its not necessary to have the label near these items ... do we accept this
... her proposal is to delete the tests

bg: there was discussion on the list that labaels should be fairly cose to non-screen reader users

acr: let's keep the tests, cognitive difficulties....so labels should be close...let's modify tests to define what "close" is

cr: let's keep the tests, cognitive difficulties....so labels should be close...let's modify tests to define what "close" is
... I have question about our process... isn't this just to see if tests are ok then to polling

mc: we have been a bit vague about what to look for in reviews

cr: i think there is merit to the tests, but need to be fixed up to define what close is

mc: the technique would need to be fixed also

cr: can we ask wendy to fix up the tests to define what "close" is

bg: it should be on the right or left

bc: if there is a 2 sentence descriptioin in a label element with a link it can be troublesome

<leasa> sorry I just rejioned

<DonFEvans> bye

mc: thoughts about a definition of close that relates to test cases and techniques , CHris says we could give it to Wendy, Lisa and Beckly have ideas, can one of you make a proposal

ls: I'll type it in

<leasa> suggestion: a lable is close to the control if they are not seperated content from an unrelated consept (such as a lable from a diffrent form control)

<Michael> ACTION: wendy review test cases in light of discussion and Lisa's proposal in minutes; affects technique [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/03-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]

bc: magnification and cognitive affected so we should keep tests

mc: ben's batch
... title stuff

bc: suggest moving everything but #50 to general techniques

mc: I agree
... separate general technique that requires title (#50) eerything else

bc: propose deletion of 150 characters, #52
... an achedemic title might exceed 150 characters, sometimes authors adon't have control of this

mc: the title element is distinct for H1 (paper's title) so I'm not sure I agree

cr: let's say 150 max characters unless author says its ok

bc: what's the downside to a long title?
... you can skip it in jaws...

cr: if title is that long perhaps something has gone wrong, a machine rattled off a bunch of stuff by error

mc: what about chris's idea, ..is this a component of meaningful

cr: let's say 150 max characters unless author says its meaningful

ls: we need to ask if its appropriate

cs: it's language dependent (e.g. English vs Chinese)

mc: localizing it would localizing the value

bg: my suggestion was rejected, alt less than 100 characters, is this not the same thing? can we work the length into the test

cr: we have 2 tests, 1)short, 2) meaningful

mc: would it make sense to say that we should do to this test case what we did to the alt text test case

bc: I'm ok with chris's proposal

mc: I'm ok with that

<Michael> resolution: test 52 - title length - should have a "...or author has checked that it needs to be long"

mc: let's go to the end section

bc: inclusion of priority level...
... at the test level you would look at the test to see if you need to use it. it seems it says all the tests listed below don't have to be done "there is no requirement that these tests be performed"

cr: i wouldn't know what else to say
... I can dump the sentence "there is no requirement that these tests be performed" and say " the following tests are related to these tests"

bc: the tests are twice removed from the SC...when we say a test has a priority1 relationship guidelines will run into problems like the last item "150 characters", concerned about implying that a list of all level one tests means conformance and that is our message

cr: I disagree, if you pass the test you conform

ls: I don't think you guarantee that if you fail a test that you failed the SC
... If you fail the test you need a human to test it....not that you failed

cr: half tests are human tests

bc: need to go to a Thursday call

<Michael> ACTION: Michael propose agendum for a Thursday call re what goes in test suites, what guidelines should cover [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/03-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]

<Michael> ACTION: Michael propose agendum for Thursday call about "standard and supported manner" being necessary for conformance (under debate) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/03-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action03]

mc: close off discussion on ben's test cases review...deffered some issues to later (see action)
... let's go to Becky

<ben> discussing: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JulSep/0197.html

bg: input elements ...we accepted this test ealier and I have no comments on it....let's accept
... that was #58
... #193 this has been accpted I recommend including actual images
... accept # 59

mc: I'm ok with these

bg the other 3, I propose rejection (less than 100 characters)

bg: the other 3, I propose rejection (less than 100 characters)

mc: this is a completely different element...implying same requirments on images and input elements...they have different functions

<Yvette> * waves to everyone

bg: procedure reads (100 characters) test

mc: I withdraw objection

cr: I can go with that too

bg: remove #126
... let's a least say ists not required

bc: its only required test if you use that technique to claim conformance
... if you use the technique that is dprecated then here's how to test it

tb: what does deprecated mean, are we encouraging people to continue it by having a test
... can a depricated technique be used in conformance claim?

bc: yup, if you have baseline with old technology

mc: we decided this was a "recommended against" technique but didn't have that category...let's make that category now.

yh: what's difference between that and "negative technique"

mc: I propose keep t4est case and we will figure out what to do with the technique

<Michael> ACTION: Michael figure out how to categorize the form placeholder text technique [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/03-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action04]

<Michael> resolution: keep test 126

bg: controvercial #192 no "submit" on buttons
... lot's of discussion for and against on list...this is redundant, screen readers already say submit without that on the button

<Michael> resolution: recommend removal of test 192

<Michael> ACTION: Wendy create polls for the three batches of test cases reviewed today [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/03-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action05]

- DRAFT -

WCAG Techniques 03 August 2005

3 Aug 2005

Attendees

Contents

TTF Work Statement

Testing

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output