See also: IRC log
For web-based tools, the user agent's undo function(s) may be utilized.
<jeanne> AL: add text to clarify that the web based authoring tool can use the user agent undo function
<jeanne> JR: this has changed substantially from the initial survey.
Examine the authoring tool (including in the documentation) for mechanisms to change any preference settings within that authoring tool user interface. If there are none, then select SKIP.
<jeanne> AL: include documentation for mechanisms
<jeanne> ... if not, select Skip
<jeanne> AL: Are we asking people to do exhaustive testing? Or generally for things to work?
<jeanne> ... for example, if they have many settings, and one passes, do we assume all pass?
<jeanne> JR: What if we had an e.g. for a settings tab?
<jeanne> JT: It would be bad design for User experience to have hundreds of mechanisms or preference settings on a tab.
<jeanne> AL: there could be 3 layers of settings, if it is web based. If it is inclusive, it is a lot of settings.
<jeanne> JR: I think 2 levels, where there is a settings session and perhaps a zoom control on the toolbar.
<jeanne> ... I wouldn't want to put a settings control with 20 items to loop 20 times.
<jeanne> JS: SHouldn't we be leaving this to the discretion of the tester? We are telling them to test them, and let them decide what is the best way to test it.
<jeanne> JT: it also depends on the definition of a mechanism and how much to include? Whether you need a representative set, and assume that what works in one setting will work with others.
<jeanne> AL: Look at samples vs. exhaustive. DIfference in different environments.
<jeanne> JR: I will add an example of a user settings dialog
<jeanne> AL: accept A. 4.1.3
<jeanne> JR: 7 accepts and a typo to fix
<jeanne> AL: This would be a tremendous amount of work
<jeanne> JS: Wouldn't this already documented for MS products?
<jeanne> AL: Yes, but not from an ATAG perspective. It would be very difficult to guarentee 100%.
<jeanne> JR: In the beginning, yes, but in the future, it would be part of standard bug checking.
zakkim, aaaa is really Sueann
<jeanne> AL: If you have 100's of features and you have to check every one.
JR: I agree that we need to have a statement about sampling methodology at the top
<jeanne> JR: It's the same with WCAG testing, you have 100,000's of pages and you need to have some kind of sampling.
<jeanne> TB: The Evaluation Task Force has issues with Sampling and they are discussing them.
<jeanne> JR: Please go back to them and ask them to look at representative sampling.
<jeanne> JT: There are many strategies for representative sampling, please ask them to look at it.
<jeanne> TB: There are ways the statistical sampling can be written into the requirements.
<jeanne> JR: If anyone has links to sampling apps, please send it to the list.
<jeanne> JT: Once you have the parameters set out, then you can apply the methods used in any sampling of a data set.
<jeanne> JR: The apps usually have a structure of things always used, down to things used less and less.
<jeanne> JT: That would be the parameter for the sampling.
<jeanne> JR: I would use that as information to put in a introduction to sampling.
<jeanne> TB: One of the NIST statisticians has done work in this area for a project similar to WCAG.
<jeanne> JT: In the area of software quality assurance, there is a lot of work that has been done.
<jeanne> AL: accepts
<jeanne> JR: All accepted in the survey
<jeanne> AL: Wording seems "squishy" uses "try"
<jeanne> JR: Instead of adding content where the author may have introduced error.
<jeanne> AL: then shouldn't it be static test.
<jeanne> JR: We have talked about this before, it could be an empty string, or it could be a pdf.
<jeanne> AL: I'm ok with it.
<scribe> Scribe: Jan
JS: Our WG has a charter
Last chartered 2010
Expires June 30
We need to have a new first draft by Mar 15
The most important thing we need to do as a group is to set the miletsones
As you can see last time the milestones were way off
We had expected a LC in 2010
I would like everyone to please look at what it will take
Once we finiosh these tests and exit criteria we are then into CR
To get into PR we will need 2 products that demonstrate the overall feasibility...we are talking about multiple products in 6 different categories
And write a report...
How long will it take us?
JT: Are you thinking we should come up with those today?
JS: No but I'd like any of the major vendors considering submitting products to consider how long
JT: Should we do this with a survey?
<jeanne> ACTION: Jeanne to create a survey to ask the group the milestones for CR? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/02/25-au-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-384 - Create a survey to ask the group the milestones for CR? [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2013-03-04].
TB: Do we need different types of prooducts?
JS: Maybe we can discuss next
... We need to have overall examples
... WCAG just had to find 2 different sites for each level
... More complicated for authoring tools....
... So perhaps...example of a blog, example of a translation toll, etc.
JT: Can this be articulated in a
... OK, we have reached top of the hour
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137 of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/JS/JT/ Found Scribe: Jan Inferring ScribeNick: Jan Default Present: Jeanne, Jan, Cherie, Alex, [IPcaller], Tim_Boland, +1.561.582.aaaa, Sueann Present: Jeanne Jan Cherie Alex [IPcaller] Tim_Boland +1.561.582.aaaa Sueann Regrets: Sueanne_N. Tim_B. Greg_P. Sueann Greg Tim Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2013JanMar/0039.html Got date from IRC log name: 25 Feb 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/02/25-au-minutes.html People with action items: jeanne WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]