IRC log of bpwg on 2008-02-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

09:10:35 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #bpwg
09:10:35 [RRSAgent]
logging to
09:11:03 [PhilA]
Meeting: mobileOK Pro Task Force Face to Face Day 1
09:11:51 [PhilA]
Present: KaiS, AdamC, AlanC, PaulW, PhilA, DanA
09:11:55 [PhilA]
Chair: Kai
09:12:59 [PhilA]
09:13:43 [PhilA]
rrsagent, make logs public-visible
09:13:51 [PhilA]
rrsagent, draft minutes
09:13:51 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate PhilA
09:14:58 [PhilA]
ScribeNick: PhilA
09:15:01 [PhilA]
SCribe: PhilA
09:16:09 [PhilA]
Paul: I have to step out in 20 minutes or so
09:17:16 [PhilA]
Kai: Does anyone have anything more to add to the agenda?
09:17:26 [adam]
adam has joined #bpwg
09:17:33 [PhilA]
... I think we'll take the BPs and bang out tests that are not covered
09:17:37 [PhilA]
DKA: I agree
09:18:05 [PhilA]
DKA: Let's get the draft ready rather than worry about some of the process issues at this stage
09:18:12 [PhilA]
... we may find obstcles on the way
09:18:30 [PhilA]
Kai: In terms of expectation management - the results of the tests will not be 100% objective
09:18:51 [PhilA]
... We can bracket the tests to help different evaluators to come up with differing answers
09:19:08 [PhilA]
... Some answers will be subjective - is this OK?
09:19:33 [DKA]
DKA has joined #bpwg
09:19:42 [PhilA]
Paul: A conformance company can't afford to assert conformance if they're not deterministic
09:20:06 [PhilA]
Paul: To a degree, every test is ambiguous, but it needs to be very limited
09:20:22 [PhilA]
Kai: Take no. links on a page - it depends what the page is for. A sitemap is nothing but links
09:20:43 [PhilA]
Paul: There may be some but not that many
09:20:55 [PhilA]
Adam: How are these things to be asserted?
09:21:08 [PhilA]
... is it self-certification? External?
09:21:37 [PhilA]
Paul: That's a different discussion. A content provider may make the claim themselves or they may want to farm it out to rubber stamp them...
09:21:57 [PhilA]
Adam: The amibiguity depends how the tests are being carried out
09:22:24 [PhilA]
Paul: It might become a legal requirement to be mobileOK due to the accessibility issue
09:22:54 [PhilA]
Adam: So we need a rule of thumb to decide whether tests are going to be carried out by the CP or an independent
09:23:37 [PhilA]
Paul: I think... "It is not necessary to seek independent verification for any type of assertion" - it's up to a CP to decide whether they want such independent verification
09:24:13 [PhilA]
Kai: A well known company's claim might be believed, but it may want to seek third party verification - it changes from a claim to trustmark in that situation.
09:24:35 [PhilA]
Paul: I'm hoping we can avoid getting bogged down in these issues
09:25:14 [PhilA]
Paul: How we make the assertion, POWDER or otherwise, and so on - that's not for now
09:25:47 [PhilA]
Kai: I want to talk about bracketing. We created the DDC - we can also set certain values that bracket the tests. This gives us something that can be worked on
09:26:00 [PhilA]
Kai: Unless we put down the brackets, we'll have too subjective a test
09:26:59 [PhilA]
Paul: We have machine testable, we have deterministic human tests, then we have the ones that are too ambiguous to ever come up with an agreement, but there are others that specialists could make a judgement call upon
09:27:33 [PhilA]
Kai: I would suggest that we move on and not turn in circles
09:27:49 [PhilA]
Kai: So let's address the issues the group has presented
09:27:57 [PhilA]
rrsagent, draft minutes
09:27:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate PhilA
09:29:53 [PhilA]
Note message from Jo:
09:30:15 [Paul]
Paul has joined #bpwg
09:32:03 [achuter]
achuter has joined #bpwg
09:33:03 [Kai]
Kai has joined #bpwg
09:33:41 [adam]
adam has joined #bpwg
09:41:33 [PhilA]
Kai: Goes through the e-mail from Jo, who is now present
09:41:49 [PhilA]
Present+ Jo, DaveR
09:42:02 [PhilA]
Kai: Jo - your view is that we shouldn't be doing this?
09:42:26 [PhilA]
Jo: No - I am not sure that NOW is the time to do it and I'm not sure that you, Kai, have time to do it
09:42:49 [PhilA]
Kai: We're focussing on the tests today and tomorrow. We want to be done with it as quickly as we can
09:43:09 [PhilA]
Jo: You're asked to come back to the Group as a whole with a charter
09:43:30 [PhilA]
... that means deciding to create a doc by the end of the year
09:43:48 [PhilA]
... so there are questions to answer other than come up with tests
09:44:01 [PhilA]
Kai: I don't think it's up to us to determine the public interest in MOK
09:44:15 [PhilA]
Jo: But you're asking the group to support this
09:45:25 [PhilA]
Jo: The questions are meant to be hard, but not unhelpful
09:45:51 [PhilA]
... the WG doesn't want to annoy everyone and doesn't want the TF to spend time on something it can't support
09:46:19 [PhilA]
... there are serious doubts that it is achievable
09:46:27 [PhilA]
Paul: It's not 'them and us'
09:46:44 [PhilA]
... it seems a watse of time to write a charter when the people in the room are willing to do the job
09:46:59 [PhilA]
... I thought the only argument against it was the use of the WG's time
09:47:10 [PhilA]
Kai: We have to take the concerns seriously
09:47:21 [PhilA]
Paul: Can't we just write the spec and get it done
09:47:36 [PhilA]
... it's a case of documenting the test cases
09:49:10 [PhilA]
Alan: How much feedback was there on the Basic tests?
09:49:27 [PhilA]
Jo: On the one hand there were quite a few, on the other there were not enough
09:49:48 [PhilA]
Jo: The worst thing that can happen is that you don't get any comments
09:50:02 [PhilA]
Alan: in WCAG 2 the time has been taken up by handling all the comments
09:50:25 [PhilA]
Jo: If you don't get any commetns that means no one has read it. Lost of comments means lots of works
09:50:37 [PhilA]
Alan: And what has been the feedback and/or implementation
09:51:03 [PhilA]
Jo: It's been largely internal - me, Sean, CTIC etc. We're criticising our own work a lot of the time
09:51:24 [PhilA]
Jo: We've had 3 Last Calls on it - so an extreme lavel of detail
09:51:49 [PhilA]
... it took 18 months so you could argue that each test takes 2 weeks
09:51:58 [PhilA]
Alan: What about the label?
09:52:20 [PhilA]
Jo: I've tried not to drag that into the discussion. We have a logo that will be shown next week at mobile world
09:52:26 [PhilA]
Jo: We havn't done the labelling side
09:52:40 [PhilA]
Jo: we're unclear what the labelling paradigm will be
09:53:06 [PhilA]
Kai:Does the WG have any +ve proof that what we're doing that what we're doing is undesirable?
09:53:10 [PhilA]
Jo: I don't think we know
09:53:25 [PhilA]
Jo: People are using the Basic Checker and we're getting bug reports
09:53:54 [PhilA]
Jo: What's less encouraging is the crawls of various TLDs and there are very few mOK Basic sites
09:54:21 [PhilA]
Kai: I think the achivability is there given the people around the room
09:54:40 [PhilA]
Jo: Then I think the point to make is that neitehr Sean nor I think it is achivable
09:54:53 [PhilA]
Kai: Desirability - that's hard to judge
09:55:02 [PhilA]
Jo: I have no view about its desirability
09:55:09 [PhilA]
Kai: I think most people think it's desirable
09:55:29 [PhilA]
... I remember at FT Boston there seemed to be support
09:55:32 [PhilA]
Jo: Minds can change
09:56:03 [PhilA]
Kai: Utility to the community at large? This TF thinks its quite large. mOK makes no sense without mOK Pro - it's not complete without it
09:56:27 [PhilA]
kai: But that's an opinion at the table. The same could be said for the BPWG in the first place?
09:56:38 [PhilA]
Kai: Does that naswer the concerns, even though it may not be satisfactory?
09:56:50 [PhilA]
Jo: It's not my call, it's the group's call
09:57:23 [PhilA]
Jo: The TF can't decide to do something off its own bat - it need agreement from the WG as a whole
09:57:31 [PhilA]
Alan: The time available is?
09:58:10 [PhilA]
Jo: If the TF is going to produce a Rec or a Note? If Rec Track it needs to be in CR around October
09:58:45 [PhilA]
Jo: If the process is not complete by the end of the BPWG charter (Dec 08) then it looks bad.
09:59:03 [PhilA]
Alan: I assume that these tests will be more complex and more controversial than machine tests
09:59:11 [PhilA]
Alan: My enthusiasm is waning
09:59:38 [PhilA]
Jo: I suggest you come up with a timetable to suggest
10:00:20 [Kai]
ACTION: Kai to put together a reasonble time table for completion of mobileOK Pro by the end of BPWG
10:00:20 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-636 - Put together a reasonble time table for completion of mobileOK Pro by the end of BPWG [on Kai Scheppe - due 2008-02-12].
10:00:30 [PhilA]
rrsagent, draft minutes
10:00:30 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate PhilA
10:00:50 [PhilA]
Kai: Point 2 in Jo's mail - the lack of compliance with mOK Basic
10:01:22 [PhilA]
... Basic is a pre-requisite for Pro. We have no implementation experience of the easy bit before we start on the hard bit
10:01:45 [PhilA]
Kai: It's half the battle. We don't have any experience - but that doesn't invalidate the existence of Basic
10:02:01 [PhilA]
Jo: repeats his argument
10:02:41 [Kai]
Phil: I very much disagree with your point
10:02:57 [Kai]
Jo: Ideally one would wait
10:03:04 [Kai]
Phil: that is what I disagree with
10:04:13 [Kai]
...until the full picture is there, a complete system with all the bits and pieces, then it makes sense. It has no legs
10:04:52 [PhilA]
DKA: Can I suggest that we focus on the content? We're here to get the tests done, so let's get on with it
10:05:20 [PhilA]
... I'm actually neutral on whether we do this or not. We're talking in the abstract - we need something concrete to work om
10:05:35 [PhilA]
Kai: But we have these concerns to answer
10:05:49 [PhilA]
Jo: And the WG has asked for the charter to be elaborated upon
10:05:57 [PhilA]
DKA: We can't spend to days on the charter
10:06:05 [PhilA]
Jo: Yes, but the charter as drafted has not been aceepted
10:06:18 [PhilA]
Kai: It was modelled on the CT TF
10:06:30 [PhilA]
Jo: It needs to clarify what the deliverables are?
10:06:33 [PhilA]
Kai: A timetable
10:06:42 [PhilA]
Kai: Deliverables and scope will be determiend today
10:06:46 [PhilA]
Jo: I believe that will be fine
10:06:59 [PhilA]
Kai: Point 3 - consumer pull
10:07:05 [PhilA]
Jo: I think we've covreed that
10:07:16 [PhilA]
Kai: Deterministic tests?
10:07:32 [PhilA]
Kai: I think this is covered by bracketing - assigining value ranges to subjective tests
10:08:20 [PhilA]
Jo: There are things in WCAG 1 that have been dropped because they are not subject to repeatable tests
10:08:30 [PhilA]
Kai: Yes, we're in dangerous territory
10:08:57 [PhilA]
... Do we think that the subjectivity of these tests, with bracketing, makes them unworkable
10:09:04 [PhilA]
Dave: It's an issue
10:09:20 [PhilA]
Alan: I don't think we have to test 100% of the BPs - just go furtehr than Basic
10:09:38 [PhilA]
Kai: We have a variety of tools available - the question being asked is still valuable
10:10:06 [PhilA]
Dave: I think we might have to introduce a warn
10:10:33 [PhilA]
Kai: But the consensus is that there will be tests that we cannot apply because they are intrinsically not repeatable
10:10:53 [PhilA]
Jo: I suggest you take note of Alan's points about WCAG 1 tests being dropped for non-repeatability
10:11:25 [achuter]
ACTION: Alan to check on which WCAG 1.0 checkpoints were dropped in 2.0 due to untestability.
10:11:26 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Alan
10:11:26 [trackbot-ng]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. achuter, atai)
10:11:30 [PhilA]
Kai: Point 5 - we've covered
10:11:38 [achuter]
ACTION: achuter to check on which WCAG 1.0 checkpoints were dropped in 2.0 due to untestability.
10:11:39 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-637 - Check on which WCAG 1.0 checkpoints were dropped in 2.0 due to untestability. [on Alan Chuter - due 2008-02-12].
10:12:26 [PhilA]
Dom says that the implication is that testing should be carried out on the DDC - but is that clear?
10:12:33 [PhilA]
Jo: That would be my expectation
10:12:58 [PhilA]
Kai: It seems to me that the BPs we're talking about are the way content is presented so that's outside the DDC?
10:13:21 [PhilA]
Jo: Eitehr you're going to test all possible experiences or you're going to limit to a single environment
10:13:34 [PhilA]
Kai: I think the tests are expected to work on any device, including the DDC
10:13:55 [PhilA]
Jo: But you need to be clear that you're testing the mobile experience, not the desktop, for example
10:14:30 [PhilA]
10:15:22 [PhilA]
Jo: Imagine a site has 3 completely separate representations - Basic, iPhone and desktop
10:15:35 [PhilA]
... you need to specify which you're testing or you test them all
10:15:57 [PhilA]
Kai: I think we're testing a mobile environment
10:16:05 [PhilA]
Jo: Basic only covers the DDC
10:17:04 [PhilA]
Jo: So if I have those 3 representations, can I calim mOK Pro for all three?
10:21:35 [Kai]
ISSUE: Does the TF need to create device which emulates the DDC for testing?
10:21:50 [PhilA]
Issue surrounding testing environment. Since DDC doesn't exist, how can a human carry out tests using it
10:21:54 [PhilA]
Jo offers
10:23:43 [Kai]
ACTION: Kai to raise an issue on ISSUE: Does the TF need to create device which emulates the DDC for testing?
10:23:43 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-638 - Raise an issue on ISSUE: Does the TF need to create device which emulates the DDC for testing? [on Kai Scheppe - due 2008-02-12].
10:26:35 [Kai2]
Kai2 has joined #bpwg
10:28:15 [Kai2]
ACTION: Kai to create a more elaborate charter with times, deliverables
10:28:15 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-639 - Create a more elaborate charter with times, deliverables [on Kai Scheppe - due 2008-02-12].
10:28:43 [PhilA]
PhilA: Is there a Test Suite for Basic?
10:28:50 [PhilA]
Jo: Yes - part of the checker
10:30:21 [achuter]
scribenick achuter
10:30:26 [achuter]
scribenick: achuter
10:31:08 [achuter]
topic: Deliverables
10:31:46 [achuter]
Kai: At least we know that we can follow the model of the MOK Basic tests.
10:32:22 [achuter]
Jo: It contains the subset of aspects that are machine-testable.
10:32:34 [achuter]
Kai: So we're extending MOK basic.
10:32:58 [achuter]
Kai: We need to go through all the BPs in Basic and add what's missing.
10:33:24 [achuter]
[On screen all see thre format agreed in Boston meeting]
10:34:42 [achuter]
Jo: Basic used a kind of pseudocode if-then pass/warn/fail.
10:34:54 [achuter]
Kai: We can modify that.
10:35:14 [achuter]
Kai: It's not so easy because we are going to bracket some aspects.
10:35:39 [achuter]
Phil: We should give examples if we can.
10:36:11 [achuter]
Kai: Test questions, then yes or no.
10:37:00 [achuter]
Jo: In Basic we provided [IDs] for the fail or warns so tools can link to them.
10:37:19 [achuter]
Jo: If you aggregate results this is not possible.
10:38:04 [achuter]
Jo: You can decide if a test is failed because because one fail fails the whole test.
10:38:51 [achuter]
Phile: Testing is only for failures.
10:39:07 [achuter]
Jo: Checker shouldn't stop.
10:39:25 [achuter]
Jo: ... on fail.
10:40:22 [achuter]
Phil: We should test for fail. Just extend the Basic tests.
10:41:19 [PhilA]
RESOLUTION: A deliverable will be the mobileOK Pro tests document
10:45:39 [achuter]
Phil: We should provide test suite.
10:45:54 [achuter]
Phil: I am prepared to do it if necessary.
10:46:34 [achuter]
Phil: These are individual pages linked from an [index] page.
10:47:18 [achuter]
Kai: Do we all agree it is necessary?
10:47:40 [achuter]
Adam: For some it would not be necessary.
10:48:37 [achuter]
Kai: Perhaps they should only be for tests that are otherwise ambiguous.
10:49:03 [achuter]
Kai: There's a danger that it could be interpreted as limiting the applicability of the tests.
10:50:53 [achuter]
Kai: Have reservations about test cases.
10:51:14 [achuter]
Dan: This looks like it could be more than the task force can handle.
10:51:37 [achuter]
Dan: We should just facilitate creation of these test cases by the community.
10:52:26 [achuter]
Dan: Do we want to limit the interpretations?
10:52:44 [achuter]
Phil: Yes, we do, for example, to mobile context.
10:53:34 [achuter]
Phil: A test suite would make it easier to write the tests.
10:54:08 [achuter]
Kai: It would be better not to include test suite in deliverables, but allow others to do so.
10:55:17 [PhilA]
action: Phil to draft test suite document to complement Test Document - such a draft may or may not be completed depending on its usefulness in the Test Document creation process
10:55:17 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-640 - Draft test suite document to complement Test Document - such a draft may or may not be completed depending on its usefulness in the Test Document creation process [on Phil Archer - due 2008-02-12].
10:57:51 [achuter]
RESOLUTION: Pro document scope is all tests not covered by MOK Basic, against the default delivery context (DDC).
11:01:44 [achuter]
Phil: We need an implementation of the DDC for the human tester to use.
11:02:07 [achuter]
Jo: I did an implementation of the DDC, which the TF can use.
11:03:29 [achuter]
[discuss whether emulator should be a deliverable]
11:03:50 [achuter]
Dave: We have some people who could do it.
11:05:16 [achuter]
RESOLUTION: Jo will donate emulator code, to be tweaked by TF and become a deliverable.
11:05:48 [Kai2]
ACTION: Dave to ask Paul if Segala can tweak Jo's emulator
11:05:48 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-641 - Ask Paul if Segala can tweak Jo's emulator [on Dave Roberts - due 2008-02-12].
11:06:51 [Kai2]
11:06:51 [trackbot-ng]
ACTION-641 Ask Paul if Segala can tweak Jo's emulator closed
11:07:17 [Kai2]
ACTION: Rooks to ask Paul if Segala can tweak Jo's emulator
11:07:17 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-642 - Ask Paul if Segala can tweak Jo's emulator [on David Rooks - due 2008-02-12].
11:08:45 [achuter]
Kai: We need to avoid [scope creep].
11:11:27 [achuter]
Jo: [about template] Problem description would repeat the BP.
11:12:33 [achuter]
Jo: Is a prescriptive document, not explanatory or tutorial.
11:18:59 [achuter]
Kai: We shouldn't quote or adapt the description of the BP. Danger of confilcting version.
11:19:45 [achuter]
Alan: Danger that document will be unreadable, as it links to at least two others.
11:21:54 [achuter]
Kai: This is a web document, we need to use hyperlinks rather than duplicating content.
11:22:14 [achuter]
Alan: Users can adapt the content and merge it if they want to.
11:22:55 [achuter]
Kai: Should we go on to evaulate Pro if Basic is failed.
11:23:54 [achuter]
Kai: Passing basic test is a prerequisite.
11:24:05 [achuter]
Jo: Don't have to run basic first.
11:24:30 [achuter]
Dave: Have to pass basic test first.
11:26:46 [achuter]
Jo: It's unlikely that people will do pro without running basic first.
11:28:40 [achuter]
Jo: We need to reward not to punish.
11:29:27 [achuter]
Jo: Should provide helpful results.
11:31:17 [achuter]
Jo: Structure should be as granular as possible, provide most helpful feedback possible.
11:32:14 [achuter]
Kai: Should parameterise the tests.
11:32:49 [achuter]
Kai: To make them less subjective.
11:34:33 [achuter]
11:39:38 [achuter]
Alan: Would like to see XPath expressions of applicability criteria.
11:39:53 [achuter]
Kai: Yes, but can do that later.
11:40:05 [achuter]
Jo: Better no to be so precise at this stage.
11:43:56 [achuter]
Jo: Warn should not be on cannot be determined, only on dodgy content.
11:45:02 [achuter]
Kai: Test is passed unless there is an explicity fail. Warn for things that author needs to look at.
11:47:03 [achuter]
Phil: Should avoid warnings, and aim to have none by completion.
11:49:45 [Kai2]
ACTION: Kai to post the test format to the list
11:49:45 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-643 - Post the test format to the list [on Kai Scheppe - due 2008-02-12].
11:52:50 [achuter]
Dave: Where we find machine-testable things we should provide feedback to checker group.
12:00:56 [achuter]
Alan: We must avoid adding new requirements not in the BPs.
13:11:35 [adam]
adam has joined #bpwg
13:14:52 [Paul]
Paul has joined #bpwg
13:15:17 [Kai]
Kai has joined #bpwg
13:16:03 [Kai]
Kai has joined #bpwg
13:19:30 [DKA]
scribenick: DKA
13:19:35 [PhilA]
PhilA has joined #bpwg
13:19:43 [DKA]
scribe: Dan
13:19:50 [DKA]
13:21:05 [DKA]
Kai: we left off with access key test. We provided a format: a link to the best practice, a statement , a link to bp, pseudocode (optional) and pass/fail/warn criteria.
13:21:05 [PhilA]
rrsagent, draft minutes
13:21:06 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate PhilA
13:21:46 [DKA]
Kai: First thing we noticed in accesskey is that in the BP we didn't see any list of access keys.
13:22:38 [DKA]
Kai: [taking through earlier attept of test written in an earlier document]
13:23:02 [DKA]
Adam: re-word that to say "usage of access keys should be consistent across the site".
13:23:46 [DKA]
Phil: explaining how decoration consistent with access key annotation doesn't necesarily mean link decoration.
13:24:07 [DKA]
Phil: ...should include 2 examples of how to do it and 1 of how not to do it.
13:26:00 [DKA]
Kai: Should we write the examples in here? If so should they be prose, pictures?
13:26:10 [DKA]
Dave: I think it should be prose.
13:26:12 [DKA]
13:26:41 [DKA]
Phil: I like the idea of examples. Especially in this soft area of human tests. If we can think of examples of what we mean other people will better be able to understand...
13:27:17 [DKA]
Kai: [adds examples section to template]
13:29:15 [DKA]
[contuing to edit access keys test]
13:30:39 [DKA]
Kai, Phil: [discussion of numeric vs. alpha access keys and whether we should strongly encourage numeric ones]
13:33:24 [DKA]
Dan: We shouldn't try to refine the BP -- this might get into that territory -- we should just note the ambiguity.
13:33:33 [DKA]
Paul: I think it's reasonable to do some clarification.
13:33:45 [DKA]
Kai: I'd like to pound these out and note the open points.
13:33:51 [DKA]
Kai: [agreeing with Dan]
13:34:13 [DKA]
Kai: Should access keys be numeric? Should we take a stand here?
13:34:16 [DKA]
Dave: No
13:34:20 [DKA]
Dan: No
13:34:36 [DKA]
Paul: We should mark it as something we might want to come back to.
13:34:44 [DKA]
Kai: Yes.
13:35:14 [DKA]
Paul: If it's a slightly ambiguous assertion then we could give an example, as specialists, of what that might mean.
13:35:17 [PhilA]
PROPOSED EXAMPLE: Hyperlinks may be easily decorated with access keys by presenting them in an ordered list where the access code is equivalent to the list position (and is usually numeric).
13:35:25 [DKA]
Phil: I think producing an example helps to define the test.
13:35:33 [DKA]
Phil: [pastes example]
13:36:06 [DKA]
Phil: by putting it in brackets it becomes a should not a must, but strongly recommends a certain approach.
13:36:17 [DKA]
Kai: should we paste it in?
13:36:25 [DKA]
13:36:32 [Paul]
13:37:56 [DKA]
Kai: What are we writing here? It doesn't fit into our format. Is it pseudocode?
13:38:08 [DKA]
Phil: [suggests some pseudo-code]
13:38:47 [DKA]
Dave: Suggest we don't do it right now.
13:39:29 [DKA]
Adam: Is it a given it should be pseudo-code? Because the way it is now appears clearer to me than the pseudocode [as used in MOK Basic document]
13:39:52 [DKA]
Kai: If we use pseudocode then we know what results in pass/fail/warn.
13:42:16 [DKA]
Dan: suggests we note the tests now and decide on whether it's to be worded in pseudocode later. Prose may be more appropriate for human-verifiable tests.
13:42:44 [DKA]
Dave: our first question should be: are there any access keys defined?
13:43:07 [DKA]
Alan: First question should be: are there any items on the page for which accesskeys are appriate?
13:43:15 [DKA]
Kai: Agree.
13:43:29 [DKA]
Kai: We need to guide people towards correct usage.
13:43:41 [DKA]
Alan: It's not only links, it's form controls as well.
13:43:58 [DKA]
Kai: so "are there elements that require access keys"?
13:45:10 [DKA]
[discussion on wording of tests for access keys]
13:51:41 [DKA]
Kai: Any other discussion on access keys?
13:54:59 [DKA]
Dave: What about multiple access keys with same value on the same page?
13:55:15 [PhilA]
action: me to test assumption that access key assignments must be unique in a given HTML instance
13:55:15 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-644 - Test assumption that access key assignments must be unique in a given HTML instance [on Marcos Eguillor Fernandez - due 2008-02-12].
13:55:15 [DKA]
Kai: that's it for access keys.
13:55:27 [PhilA]
close action 644
13:55:32 [DKA]
Topic: [auto-refresh]
13:55:52 [DKA]
13:56:24 [DKA]
Kai: a human test is noted in the best practice.
13:56:42 [DKA]
Kai: Can we think of any limitations to this test?
13:58:05 [DKA]
[documenting difference to MobileOK Basic test]
13:59:42 [DKA]
[waiting for microsoft word to respond to a paste command]
14:01:41 [DKA]
[going over the already written test in previous draft version]
14:03:40 [DKA]
Kai: [getting on to writing pseudo-code for this test]
14:05:49 [DKA]
Adam: Finding the structure of the sentences confusing.
14:06:05 [DKA]
Dan: it should be "if not, [fail]" instead of "[fail]"
14:06:13 [DKA]
Kai: [implements]
14:06:19 [DKA]
Dan: I have added value here today.
14:06:46 [DKA]
14:07:48 [DKA]
Dan: Because it's an "avoid" does that mean we can't "fail"?
14:08:32 [DKA]
Kai: One example would be zip codes. You can encode it as a list of zip codes, but this doesn't make sense any more because there are too many to put in a drop-down.
14:08:46 [DKA]
Kai: Should we codify that?
14:09:11 [DKA]
Dave: This isn't just about lists though -- it's also about things like firstname, surname which migth be populated automatically.
14:09:32 [DKA]
Kai: In particular intsnaces, where info about the user is know you could require that but this would be a small number of cases.
14:09:58 [DKA]
Phil: this would be an easy way to determine if they've passed (if they have default text).
14:10:16 [DKA]
Kai: If they don't have default text then you need to look at why they don't - which can be subjective.
14:10:31 [DKA]
Kai: My example was about a numerical line [for lists
14:11:02 [DKA]
Kai: ] where if you are under that, you fail if you don't use a menu instead of a free text.
14:11:17 [DKA]
[formulating that into a test]
14:13:38 [DKA]
[discussion on when you can have legit free text entry vs. should have a picklist]
14:15:22 [PhilA]
Suggestion that if there is a finite number of possible values for a text input and if that number is <= 20 then a pick list is reasonable
14:19:51 [PhilA]
Ended up with suggesting a limit of x selection box options and y radio buttons/check boxes
14:22:08 [PhilA]
Also noting the option to pre-fill forms with data alraedy known to website
14:23:15 [PhilA]
Examples noted: selecting Zip codes in a limited geographical area
14:23:35 [PhilA]
Offering predetermined values and an 'other' option with free text field
14:24:39 [PhilA]
14:25:49 [PhilA]
Is there a test for colour contrast?
14:25:56 [PhilA]
Alan: Yes - from WCAG
14:26:02 [PhilA]
Paul: It's very harsh
14:26:23 [PhilA]
Kai: Do we need to specifically talk about colour blindness?
14:26:48 [PhilA]
Paul: I don't think we should deal with the issue of disabled users
14:27:09 [PhilA]
Kai: SO the human test just says "test the readability"
14:27:32 [PhilA]
Kai: The most common case is a flowery background and a fancy-coloured font
14:27:58 [PhilA]
Kai: We could just say "it must be readable" and then link to WCAG for those points
14:28:06 [PhilA]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:28:06 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate PhilA
14:28:56 [PhilA]
PhilA: We should also refer to lighting conditions, especially outdoor lighting
14:31:35 [PhilA]
Checking - DDC does appear to support background images since it's in CSS level 1
14:34:02 [PhilA]
Adam: I think this is a case where an example would be useful
14:35:10 [PhilA]
... we shouldn't squeeze objectivity in too far
14:35:19 [PhilA]
Kai: Yes, but we should provide brackets
14:37:11 [PhilA]
Add in some examples - maybe a floral background with a yellow font
14:39:48 [DKA]
scribenick: DKA
14:39:50 [DKA]
scribe: Dan
14:40:02 [DKA]
Topic: [BALANCE]
14:40:29 [DKA]
Kai: 20 links, warn; 30 links fail
14:41:01 [DKA]
Phil: Site maps have lots of links, home pages have lots of links...
14:41:15 [DKA]
Kai: Not home pages on the mobile side.
14:41:33 [DKA]
Adam: These numbers are going to be arbitrary... Do we need some explanatory text?
14:45:45 [DKA]
[discussion on tests]
14:46:31 [DKA]
Phil: "For general content" there should be no more than 30 links per page.
14:50:20 [matt]
matt has joined #bpwg
14:53:27 [DKA]
DKA: We need to consider this in the context of a device where one press down on the rocker-switch means moving from one link to the next link (rather than thinking about more advanced devices).
14:53:36 [DKA]
14:54:00 [DKA]
Kai: This point is about not using the DDC.
14:54:14 [DKA]
Alan: You can't test on every last device...
14:54:45 [DKA]
Kai: This is a big can of worms. Every signal device has some limitations. You can't exploit the capabilities of every device fully.
14:55:16 [DKA]
Phil: You could test if you get something different on a higher-spec device than in the DDC. SO test it on the emulator, and test it on the N-70 and test if it's different.
14:55:32 [DKA]
Adam: Don't think that does it because it's about user experience.
14:58:14 [DKA]
Kai: [writes out test for Capabilities - not meaningfully testable]
15:01:21 [DKA]
Dan: I think we should try to do more here - and particularly focus on scripting, for example for form input controls.
15:02:13 [DKA]
[discussion on the merits of javascript]
15:02:55 [Andrew]
Andrew has joined #bpwg
15:03:39 [DKA]
Kai: basic functionality of the page should be usable without scripting.
15:03:40 [SeanP]
SeanP has joined #bpwg
15:04:16 [DKA]
Dan: Split this up into a few capability areas: scripting one of them...
15:05:42 [hgerlach]
hgerlach has joined #bpwg
15:05:55 [Bryan]
Bryan has joined #bpwg
15:11:05 [DKA]
Dan: We need to take into account a more subjective evaluation of the content and whether it has effectively adapted to advanced capabilities of the device. For example, does it use scripting to provide a nice UI on the N95 - does it fill the screen and detect orientation-change on the iPhone? These are subjective measures but important and should be taken int account.
15:11:32 [DKA]
Kai: [writes a pseudo-code statement to cover this and writes a few examples]
15:18:42 [DKA]
15:19:53 [DKA]
15:28:45 [DKA]
Topic: [CLARITY]
15:29:31 [DKA]
Phil: You can do deterministic tests on clarity but they don't take into account the audience.
15:29:48 [DKA]
Kai: if you bother the user with extra stuff they didn't ask for then you fail this best practice
15:33:02 [DKA]
[discussion on what constitutes clarity]
15:36:00 [DKA]
Kai: easiest part to deal with is [limited]...
15:37:41 [DKA]
Phil: if you ask for a time of a show - you get some specific information back - curtain up time, etc...
15:39:49 [DKA]
[working out tests]
15:42:06 [DKA]
Dan: should we consider evaluating the content by N human readers each of which could give a score?
15:42:37 [DKA]
Phil: We could use the "FOG" index which can be calculated by machines.
15:43:24 [DKA]
Phil: Mumbles something about algorithms...
15:44:09 [PhilA]
I was mumbling about a Fog Index:
15:44:24 [PhilA]
Alan notes that this applies to English
15:46:56 [DKA]
[discussion on cultural differences to clarity of language]
15:48:15 [DKA]
Dan: Suggest we drop this one.
15:48:20 [DKA]
Dave: +1
15:48:31 [DKA]
Paul: +1 it was dropped from WCAG
15:49:34 [DKA]
[some continued discussion on the wording of the potential pseudo-code]
15:49:44 [DKA]
Paul: I don't think it should be a pass or a fail.
15:49:56 [DKA]
Kai: Could be a warn.
15:50:27 [DKA]
[re-writes test accordingly]
15:52:31 [DKA]
15:54:27 [DKA]
Paul: there are specific success criteria for this in WCAG. We could use the same or similar. Then we could use the same or modified tools.
15:55:01 [DKA]
Kai: should we make use of this tool?
15:55:38 [DKA]
Alan: The tool hasn't been produced by W3C - the algorithm has been produced by W3C.
15:56:28 [Kai]
15:57:20 [DKA]
Kai: Current test (5 to 1 contrast) is based on the WCAG technique.
15:58:40 [DKA]
Dan: Is it the right WCAG version?
15:58:43 [DKA]
Kai: yes.
15:59:16 [Kai]
16:01:15 [adam]
ScribeNick: adam
16:01:22 [PhilA]
scribeNick: ADam
16:02:48 [adam]
[references WCAG luminosity test]
16:03:04 [adam]
16:05:13 [adam]
Phil: This is machine testable test but not in basic.
16:05:41 [adam]
Phil: We will define human test that could be feasibly automated.
16:09:09 [adam]
Paul: Concerned that DDC doesn't appear to support png.
16:14:41 [adam]
Kai: Should be consider devices that support other formats?
16:14:48 [adam]
Phil: No.
16:16:31 [adam]
[ some confusion between PREFERRED and SUPPORT ]
16:24:46 [adam]
Phil: The Content Format Preferred BP says that content should be sent in preferred format "where possible".
16:24:53 [adam]
[ discussion on how to formulate this into a test ]
16:38:34 [adam]
16:49:49 [PhilA]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:49:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate PhilA
16:50:31 [adam]
16:51:04 [adam]
Kai: Current wording is too prescriptive, can envision cases where you would want to do something different.
16:53:58 [adam]
[ Group support to reword the test to capture the need for labels to be positioned appropriately to the form elements without actually specifying their relative positions. ]
16:58:56 [adam]
Phil: Do we need to explicitly forbid positioning using absolute css positioning which wouldn't be supported by the DDC?
16:59:01 [adam]
Kai: Feels wrong.
16:59:57 [adam]
Kai: Added this point to the test requirements, and explicitly explained it in test limitations.
17:00:03 [adam]
17:09:26 [adam]
17:13:23 [PhilA]
rrsagent, generate minutes
17:13:23 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate PhilA
17:13:44 [PhilA]
This is a difficult one. Meeting adjourned to the Porterhouse
17:13:54 [PhilA]
Tune in tomorrow
17:13:59 [PhilA]
rrsagent, generate minutes
17:13:59 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate PhilA
17:15:03 [PhilA]
PhilA has left #bpwg
18:42:24 [matt]
matt has joined #bpwg