See also: IRC log
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
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
saz: is serializing DOM and putting intoXMLContent sufficient for now?
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