19 Mar 2008


See also: IRC log


Shadi, CarlosI, Johannes, CarlosV


Comments on WCAG 2.0 by CarlosI

RESOLUTION: CarlosI lets the group know about the follow-up on his comments.

saz: are there any more comments on WCAG 2?

ci: some measures in the guidelines should go to techniques, as the values may change over time
... e.g. 200% zoom

saz: there's already a comment sent to WCAG group

WCAG 2.0 conformance section

saz: last week's action items on commenting on conformance section

cv: postpone the issue to net week

saz: I still not really understand the issue.
... several axes: 1. developing content, 2. testing after/while development, 3. third party testing

ci: definition of Web Page contains more than traditionally belongs to the Web page
... more the user's view of web content

saz: on the web nowadays, what is a web page?

ci: what you first load from URI is th web page

saz: different state of web page?
... former terminology: Web Unit
... nobody understood "web unit"
... so they went back to call it "web page" but defined it like a web unit

ci: different things require different ways of testing
... current testing procedure only apply to traditional web pages
... how to predict every way of interacting with an application front-end?

saz: it's more software testing than traditional web page testing

ci: no matter what you already tested, there will always be some bugs (accessibility problems) not found

saz: every technical spec has a conformance section

ci: traditionally accessible means 100% perfect, but there's no perfection in reality
... you can't claim AA compliance when you have not tested every page in every state; that's impossible

cv: UWEM approach is to test reasonable amount of resources

jk: testing states of a web page is somehow subjective (creating sample of states); someone else may test another sample and so claims non-conformance for the same web page

saz: it depends on testing methodology

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/

saz: possible solution: technical spec defines absolute conformance; evaluation procedure (to be updated) may include tolerance and process issues

ci: maybe create a task force for creating evaluation methodology

saz: evaluation guidance to be updated, interested parties e.g. in Europe/USA

ci: is the conformance model necessary in the WCAG guidelines themselves?

saz: every technical spec should have one

Recording "Web Page" and state

saz: is serializing DOM and putting intoXMLContent sufficient for now?

Progressing ERT documents

saz: several open action items
... editing/reviewing documents

cv: namespace for Content document?

saz: I will request it for publication
... publish both Content and HTTP together

cv: waiting for pointers to be finalized

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/03/20 08:51:11 $