IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-05-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:56:17 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
19:56:28 [wendy]: RRSAgent, make log public
19:56:34 [wendy]: RRSAgent, make log world-access
19:57:29 [nabe]: nabe has joined #wai-wcag
19:57:47 [nabe]: nabe has left #wai-wcag
19:58:07 [Zakim]: WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started
19:58:14 [Zakim]: +John_Slatin
19:58:33 [Zakim]: +Michael_Cooper
19:58:51 [nabe]: nabe has joined #wai-wcag
19:58:58 [Zakim]: +??P2
19:59:12 [sh1mmer]: Zakim, ??P2 is Tom
19:59:12 [Zakim]: +Tom; got it
19:59:13 [Zakim]: +??P3
19:59:16 [sh1mmer]: Zakim, I am Tom
19:59:16 [Zakim]: ok, sh1mmer, I now associate you with Tom
19:59:17 [sh1mmer]: mute me
19:59:25 [sh1mmer]: Zakim, mute me
19:59:25 [Zakim]: Tom should now be muted
19:59:52 [Zakim]: +??P4
19:59:55 [bengt]: zakim, ??P3 is Bengt_Farre
19:59:55 [Zakim]: +Bengt_Farre; got it
20:00:04 [bengt]: zakim, I am bengt_Farre
20:00:04 [Zakim]: ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
20:00:05 [Zakim]: +Sailesh_Panchang
20:00:11 [Zakim]: +??P6
20:00:12 [bengt]: zakmi, mute me
20:00:20 [Zakim]: +Wendy
20:00:21 [bengt]: zakim, mute me
20:00:21 [Zakim]: Bengt_Farre should now be muted
20:00:28 [wendy]: zakim, who's on the phone?
20:00:28 [Zakim]: On the phone I see John_Slatin, Michael_Cooper, Tom (muted), Bengt_Farre (muted), ??P4, Sailesh_Panchang, ??P6, Wendy
20:00:29 [sh1mmer]: Zakim, mute ??P6
20:00:29 [Becky]: Becky has joined #wai-wcag
20:00:30 [Zakim]: ??P6 should now be muted
20:00:30 [Zakim]: +??P7
20:00:36 [wendy]: zakim, ??P7 is Yvette
20:00:37 [Zakim]: +Yvette; got it
20:00:47 [sh1mmer]: Zakim, unmute ??P6
20:00:47 [Zakim]: ??P6 should no longer be muted
20:00:51 [Zakim]: +??P8
20:00:56 [Yvette]: zakim, mute me
20:00:56 [Zakim]: Yvette should now be muted
20:00:59 [Zakim]: +Becky_Gibson
20:01:00 [Yvette]: zakim, unmute me
20:01:00 [Zakim]: Yvette should no longer be muted
20:01:03 [wendy]: zakim, ??P8 is Doyle
20:01:03 [Zakim]: +Doyle; got it
20:01:08 [sh1mmer]: wendy I don't know who p6 is
20:01:19 [Zakim]: +Loretta_Guarino_Reid
20:01:21 [sh1mmer]: but they are 'in the truck' to quote david
20:01:22 [Zakim]: +[IBM]
20:01:25 [wendy]: zakim, who's making noise?
20:01:28 [Yvette]: zakim, I am Yvette_Hoitink
20:01:28 [Zakim]: sorry, Yvette, I do not see a party named 'Yvette_Hoitink'
20:01:32 [MattSEA]: MattSEA has joined #wai-wcag
20:01:34 [Yvette]: zakim, I am Yvette
20:01:34 [Zakim]: ok, Yvette, I now associate you with Yvette
20:01:37 [wendy]: zakim, [IBM] is Andi
20:01:37 [Zakim]: +Andi; got it
20:01:40 [Yvette]: zakim, I am Yvette_Hoitink
20:01:40 [Zakim]: sorry, Yvette, I do not see a party named 'Yvette_Hoitink'
20:01:44 [Zakim]: wendy, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
20:01:46 [sh1mmer]: Zakim, mute ??P6
20:01:46 [Zakim]: ??P6 should now be muted
20:01:47 [Zakim]: -Andi
20:01:47 [Yvette]: zakim, Yvette is Yvette_Hoitink
20:01:48 [Zakim]: +Yvette_Hoitink; got it
20:01:59 [Zakim]: +Matt
20:02:14 [Zakim]: +[IBM]
20:02:18 [wendy]: zakim, drop ??P6
20:02:18 [Zakim]: ??P6 is being disconnected
20:02:18 [rellero]: rellero has joined #wai-wcag
20:02:19 [Zakim]: -??P6
20:02:35 [rellero]: Hi
20:02:36 [Zakim]: +Paul_Bohman
20:02:39 [nabe]: nabe has left #wai-wcag
20:02:40 [wendy]: zakim, [IBM] is Andi
20:02:40 [Zakim]: +Andi; got it
20:02:49 [rellero]: I am not at home, I follow in IRC only
20:02:55 [wendy]: zakim, who's on the phone?
20:02:55 [Zakim]: On the phone I see John_Slatin, Michael_Cooper, Tom (muted), Bengt_Farre (muted), ??P4, Sailesh_Panchang, Wendy, Yvette_Hoitink, Doyle, Becky_Gibson (muted), Loretta_Guarino_Reid,
20:02:56 [Yvette]: Hi Roberto
20:02:58 [Zakim]: ... Matt, Andi, Paul_Bohman
20:03:01 [rellero]: :-)
20:03:15 [Zakim]: +JasonWhite
20:03:18 [wendy]: zakim, ??P4 is David_MacDonald
20:03:18 [Zakim]: +David_MacDonald; got it
20:03:28 [Zakim]: +??P13
20:03:45 [nabe]: nabe has joined #wai-wcag
20:03:47 [GVAN]: GVAN has joined #wai-wcag
20:03:48 [wendy]: zakim, ??P13 is Gregg-and-Ben
20:03:48 [Zakim]: +Gregg-and-Ben; got it
20:04:22 [wendy]: zakim, who's on the phone?
20:04:22 [Zakim]: On the phone I see John_Slatin, Michael_Cooper, Tom (muted), Bengt_Farre (muted), David_MacDonald, Sailesh_Panchang, Wendy, Yvette_Hoitink, Doyle, Becky_Gibson (muted),
20:04:25 [Zakim]: ... Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Matt, Andi, Paul_Bohman, JasonWhite, Gregg-and-Ben
20:04:33 [Yvette]: it used to recognize me until I changed my phone company
20:04:36 [sh1mmer]: what about Jason?
20:05:04 [wendy]: hmm. maybe i lied. ;)
20:05:33 [Zakim]: +??P14
20:05:56 [MattSEA]: zakim, who's cruising Lake Mead?
20:05:56 [Zakim]: I don't understand your question, MattSEA.
20:06:06 [sh1mmer]: and behind door number 14 is...
20:06:13 [Yvette]: nabe, did you just mute yourself?
20:07:01 [bcaldwell]: bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
20:07:01 [wendy]: zakim, ??P14 is Takayuki_Watanabe
20:07:01 [Zakim]: +Takayuki_Watanabe; got it
20:07:38 [wendy]: agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0273.html
20:07:57 [wendy]: issue 693: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=693
20:08:11 [wendy]: proposed wording: Individuals with disabilities affecting their speech or
20:08:11 [wendy]: manual dexterity will often have a higher error rate when communicating
20:08:11 [wendy]: with speech or handwriting recognition, or typing, and therefore benefit
20:08:11 [wendy]: proportionately more from features that assist in recognizing and
20:08:11 [wendy]: correcting input errors.
20:08:18 [wendy]: ==
20:08:37 [wendy]: yvette's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0296.html
20:08:55 [wendy]: john's edit of yvette's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0298.html
20:09:03 [tecks]: tecks has joined #wai-wcag
20:09:07 [wendy]: Certain disabilities make it more difficult to operate input devices,
20:09:07 [wendy]: resulting in more input errors. For example, individuals with limited
20:09:07 [wendy]: motor functions are more likely to make errors when they operate a mouse
20:09:07 [wendy]: or a keyboard. Individuals with speech disabilities are more difficult
20:09:07 [wendy]: for speech recognition systems to understand . Features that assist in
20:09:08 [wendy]: recognizing and correcting errors benefit individuals with these types
20:09:09 [wendy]: of disabilities.
20:09:12 [wendy]: ==
20:09:39 [wendy]: s/speech recognition/speech-recognition
20:09:46 [wendy]: discussion?
20:10:38 [tecks]: test
20:11:38 [wendy]: propose: speech rec systems may find it more diffi to understand people w/speech dis
20:11:39 [sh1mmer]: +1
20:11:59 [wendy]: therefore, don't need hyphen (as just propsoed)
20:12:24 [wendy]: resolution: adopt as modified
20:12:57 [wendy]: ===
20:12:59 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=774
20:13:07 [wendy]: have had some discussion on the list
20:13:33 [wendy]: suggestions:
20:13:36 [wendy]: "the content"
20:13:43 [tecks]: hand up this is Doyle
20:14:11 [sh1mmer]: tecks, say "Zakim, I am Doyle"
20:14:20 [sh1mmer]: then you can use "q+"
20:14:35 [wendy]: john recently suggested resource:
20:14:38 [tecks]: Zakim, I Am Doyle
20:14:38 [Zakim]: ok, tecks, I now associate you with Doyle
20:14:54 [wendy]: what about each new fetch from the server?
20:15:05 [wendy]: q+ doyle
20:15:37 [wendy]: suggestion on mailing list: "throughout the resource"
20:15:48 [wendy]: ack doyle
20:16:06 [wendy]: we use page and we seem to know what it means.
20:16:06 [sh1mmer]: q+
20:16:13 [wendy]: if we use it that often, why use something else?
20:16:25 [wendy]: "a single document and everything attached to it"
20:16:30 [wendy]: if we change it, could be more confusing
20:16:46 [sh1mmer]: ack MattSEA
20:16:46 [wendy]: ack matt
20:16:59 [Gian]: Gian has joined #wai-wcag
20:16:59 [wendy]: "resource" is commonly used term in w3c documents
20:17:09 [Gian]: hello - Gian here
20:17:12 [wendy]: most content aren't just "pages"
20:17:14 [wendy]: hello gian
20:17:21 [Yvette]: q+ to say "page is very HTML"
20:17:22 [Gian]: sorry I'm late
20:17:28 [Yvette]: Hi Gian
20:17:41 [wendy]: ack tom
20:17:42 [sh1mmer]: ack Tom
20:18:01 [wendy]: primary issue: pick a term and use it consistently
20:18:25 [sh1mmer]: ack Andi
20:18:26 [wendy]: q+ to say, "knee-jerk reactions to page from web app devs"
20:18:38 [sh1mmer]: ack Yvette
20:18:38 [Zakim]: Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "page is very HTML"
20:18:42 [wendy]: "page" loses meaning when talk about web apps
20:18:50 [sh1mmer]: ack John
20:18:53 [wendy]: page is html-specific go for diff term
20:19:12 [wendy]: tried 'screen' but got same response as did for 'page'
20:19:21 [wendy]: then used 'resource' since was more general
20:19:22 [wendy]: q-
20:19:24 [sh1mmer]: ack wendy
20:20:06 [wendy]: tehre may be places where page is appropriate, but tends to be too narrow
20:20:15 [sh1mmer]: q+
20:20:23 [wendy]: "throughout resource"
20:20:33 [wendy]: "context throughout resource" and "resource"
20:20:39 [wendy]: find places where 'page' is used
20:20:49 [wendy]: can we replace with "context throughout resource" and "resource"
20:20:55 [Yvette]: q+ to say "resource works for 3.2"
20:21:16 [sh1mmer]: q-
20:21:30 [sh1mmer]: ack Yvette
20:21:30 [Zakim]: Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "resource works for 3.2"
20:23:17 [wendy]: page used in several example and benefits. for success criteria: 2.4, 3.1, 3.2
20:23:31 [wendy]: ack jason
20:24:24 [wendy]: action: yvette review use of "page" in guidelines and success criteria (2.4, 3.1, 3.2). if possible, also review examples and benefits.
20:24:42 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=776
20:24:53 [Zakim]: +Mike_Barta
20:25:20 [sh1mmer]: Need to clarify "contracted?"
20:25:31 [sh1mmer]: Do we need to include a definition of "contracted"? Do we need an example
20:25:31 [sh1mmer]: of contracted words? Perhaps include hebrew as example in the example section?
20:26:31 [sh1mmer]: ack John
20:26:40 [wendy]: thread began on this issue: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0225.html
20:26:53 [wendy]: "contraction" is commonly used word, but given multiple languages, we should have a definition
20:27:14 [wendy]: perhaps examples could solve easiest w/examples
20:27:28 [wendy]: q+ to say, "contracted does not have exmaples for contraction"
20:27:36 [sh1mmer]: ack Loretta
20:27:41 [Zakim]: +Kerstin_Goldsmith
20:27:45 [wendy]: does hebrew fall under this criterion?
20:27:46 [sh1mmer]: ack wendy
20:27:46 [Zakim]: wendy, you wanted to say, "contracted does not have exmaples for contraction"
20:28:41 [sh1mmer]: example for this don't exist. This is related to 3.1 which has examples which are on a seperate thread
20:28:50 [sh1mmer]: ack John
20:29:24 [wendy]: there are contractions in braille that represent multiple letters
20:29:28 [wendy]: not sure applies to hebrew
20:29:39 [wendy]: belief that anything that leaves things out is a "contraction"
20:30:13 [sh1mmer]: two issues which are related to the examples related to this point. they need people to take them on
20:30:38 [wendy]: action: john continue working on examples for level 3 of 3.1
20:31:21 [wendy]: action: kerstin propose defn of "contraction" (issue 700) - http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=700
20:31:57 [wendy]: action: john possibly also look at other examples for 3.1 (issues 381 and 702)
20:31:58 [wendy]: <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=381>
20:31:58 [wendy]: <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=702>
20:32:21 [wendy]: Issues 511 and 694 - Examples for Guideline 2.5
20:32:49 [Yvette]: Wendy, is the live transcription service for deaf people on?
20:32:49 [wendy]: currently only have search engine example
20:32:53 [wendy]: no
20:33:03 [Yvette]: Both Roberto Ellero and Gian are following from IRC because they can't use the phone
20:33:09 [Yvette]: too bad
20:33:40 [sh1mmer]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=511
20:33:45 [sh1mmer]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=694
20:33:51 [wendy]: action: doyle propose more examples for 2.5 (issues 511 and 694)
20:34:02 [wendy]: Issue 565 - What is meant by "user error"
20:34:02 [wendy]: <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=565>
20:34:26 [wendy]: What types of errors is this guideline addressing? Is this something that
20:34:26 [wendy]: is a special problem for people with disabilities, or is it a usability issue
20:34:26 [wendy]: for all users? Also, using the term “graceful” is very subjective.
20:34:30 [MichaelC]: MichaelC has joined #wai-wcag
20:34:32 [wendy]: ===
20:34:36 [wendy]: word "graceful" is gone
20:35:08 [wendy]: zakim, who's making noise?
20:35:08 [Yvette]: zakim, who's making noise?
20:35:11 [Yvette]: lol
20:35:22 [MattSEA]: zakim, who's being sucked into a black hole?
20:35:22 [Zakim]: I don't understand your question, MattSEA.
20:35:25 [MattSEA]: zakim, who's making noise?
20:35:26 [Zakim]: wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Michael_Cooper (10%)
20:35:37 [Zakim]: Yvette, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Loretta_Guarino_Reid (23%), Gregg-and-Ben (36%), Mike_Barta (59%)
20:35:54 [Zakim]: MattSEA, listening for 15 seconds I heard sound from the following: Gregg-and-Ben (76%)
20:36:09 [wendy]: q+ to say, "look at language of existing doc"
20:36:34 [wendy]: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#minimize-error
20:37:51 [wendy]: add a sentence in benefits, "these are usability problems that effect all users but amplified for pwd"
20:37:54 [wendy]: ack john
20:38:09 [Yvette]: q+ to say "keep filled in data for forms with errors"
20:38:35 [wendy]: action: doyle add "these are usability problems that effect all users but amplified for pwd"
20:38:46 [wendy]: ack wendy
20:38:46 [Zakim]: wendy, you wanted to say, "look at language of existing doc"
20:38:50 [sh1mmer]: acl wendy
20:39:15 [sh1mmer]: Not totally satify the issue. The phrase 'user error' could refer to many things
20:39:27 [sh1mmer]: Make sure 'user error' is in a definition
20:39:28 [sh1mmer]: 1+
20:39:30 [sh1mmer]: q+
20:40:11 [wendy]: propose that we add a definition or in some way clarify "user error"
20:41:35 [wendy]: action: tom propose definition of "user errors" to answer the question "What types of errors is this guideline addressing?"
20:41:45 [Zakim]: -Kerstin_Goldsmith
20:41:56 [wendy]: ack yvette
20:41:56 [Zakim]: Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "keep filled in data for forms with errors"
20:41:58 [sh1mmer]: q-
20:42:01 [sh1mmer]: ack Yvette
20:42:31 [wendy]: can we include something hat says, "if you fill out form and there is an error, keep info in form so that don't have to fill out again"
20:42:48 [Zakim]: +??P16
20:42:56 [sh1mmer]: q+
20:43:02 [sh1mmer]: ack Tom
20:43:05 [wendy]: zakim, ??P16 is Kerstin
20:43:05 [Zakim]: +Kerstin; got it
20:43:22 [wendy]: the extra time is exactly what this guideline is trying to address
20:43:46 [wendy]: not that it takes more time to fill out a form, but takes more time to identify what needs fixing
20:43:47 [sh1mmer]: ack John
20:43:55 [Zakim]: -Mike_Barta
20:44:07 [wendy]: that's true for people using screen readers and with low vision, but if you have limited use of your hands
20:44:29 [wendy]: it could become real barrier
20:46:07 [wendy]: if you make an error and it takes person w/out a disability to recover x time and it takes pwd 2x...
20:46:22 [Gian]: or 6x
20:47:00 [wendy]: is it really an accessibility issue if doubles time for everyone
20:47:27 [Gian]: q+
20:49:48 [Yvette]: Example: task takes 1 minute for normal person, 2,5 minutes for person with screen reader
20:49:49 [wendy]: if you do it this way it will cost everyone additional time - thus a usability issue
20:49:59 [Yvette]: But with a barrier in the page, it takes 2 minutes for normal person, 5 minutes for person with screen reader
20:50:04 [Yvette]: than the barrier is a usability issue instead of accessibility because it causes everyone to be twice as slow
20:51:02 [wendy]: other hand: if someone who is visual can correct it in 3 seconds but someone with a screen reader takes 5 minutes, that is an accessibility issue
20:52:06 [wendy]: it is purely annoying or an accessibility issue?
20:52:08 [sh1mmer]: q+
20:52:18 [wendy]: ack jason
20:52:25 [Zakim]: +Mike_Barta
20:52:37 [wendy]: make sure that whatever wording we use that it is not specific to forms and applies to user interfaces in general
20:52:42 [BeckyG]: BeckyG has joined #wai-wcag
20:52:56 [wendy]: automatic validation techniques can avoid some of these problem.
20:52:58 [sh1mmer]: To summarise Gregg: If the error correction significantly changes the porportions of time needed to fill in a form compartively from a disabled and non-disabled person
20:53:11 [sh1mmer]: then it an accessibility issue
20:53:33 [Yvette]: ??? I lost my connection
20:53:38 [sh1mmer]: if the proportions remains the same its usibility, even if the time required increases
20:53:51 [sh1mmer]: ack Gian
20:53:57 [Gian]: I always thought accessibility was: A level- pwd could not access the info, AA-level- pwd could access the info but it took longer than for non-pwd, AAA-level- takes pwd & non-pwd same amount of time to access info
20:54:12 [Zakim]: +Yvette_Hoitink.a
20:54:29 [MattSEA]: q+
20:54:33 [sh1mmer]: q-
20:54:51 [wendy]: that is a misunderstanding of the levels. it is closer to the WCAG 1.0 defn.
20:55:08 [Zakim]: -Yvette_Hoitink
20:55:13 [wendy]: there was not a time equivalance
20:55:23 [Zakim]: -Michael_Cooper
20:55:25 [Gian]: that's what I meant - wcag 1.0, I don't think there should be too much difference between the two
20:55:49 [sh1mmer]: ack John
20:56:14 [sh1mmer]: q+
20:56:20 [wendy]: since gregg proposed a heuristic to determine diff betwen usability and accessibility issues, we ought to include that in the document to help other people understand
20:56:32 [wendy]: it's a rough measure, but it is useful for people to grasp the distinction
20:59:51 [sh1mmer]: ack MAtt
21:00:20 [wendy]: agree that it shouldn't be a defn. when working on html techniques, wanted to include "good ideas".
21:00:37 [Yvette]: zakim, mute me
21:00:37 [Zakim]: Yvette_Hoitink.a should now be muted
21:00:42 [wendy]: let's gather good advice, e.g., time on task is not a good measure of anything since you have a wide variance.
21:00:49 [Doyle]: brb - be right back
21:01:30 [wendy]: we need a straightforward guide to walk you through everyrthing, the "o-reilly version" of the guidelines
21:01:48 [Zakim]: +Avi
21:01:58 [wendy]: action: matt write o'reilly version of WCAG 2.0
21:02:10 [Yvette]: go matt ;-)
21:02:15 [wendy]: RRSAgent, drop action 8
21:02:22 [wendy]: action: matt propose o'reilly version of wCAG 2.0
21:02:30 [wendy]: matt waiting for more stable document before tackling
21:03:37 [sh1mmer]: ack Tom
21:03:55 [wendy]: support difference betwen usability and accssibility
21:04:19 [wendy]: understand don't want to use single heuristic. EOWG has also been discussing
21:04:52 [wendy]: need to clearly say why some of the less-technical (and more usable) aspects of accessibility have been included.
21:06:04 [wendy]: action item: issues review for guideline 2.4 (~20 issues logged)
21:06:11 [wendy]: RRSAgent, drop action 10
21:06:43 [wendy]: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/issuereports/navigation-mechanisms_issues.php
21:07:46 [wendy]: ack mike
21:08:15 [wendy]: action: mike summarize issues for 2.4 ( http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/issuereports/navigation-mechanisms_issues.php)
21:08:18 [wendy]: weeeeee!!!
21:08:57 [wendy]: ===
21:09:14 [wendy]: human testability: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0187.html
21:10:55 [wendy]: sailesh's wording: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0187.html
21:11:10 [GVAN]: In the judgment of the working group members, success criteria can either be tested automatically or tested by humans in a manner that is capable of yielding consistent results among multiple knowledgeable testers.
21:11:16 [Yvette]: q+ to say "that's not Charles' comment"
21:11:31 [wendy]: s/members/participants
21:11:38 [sh1mmer]: ack Kerstin
21:11:51 [GVAN]: In the judgment of the working group participants, success criteria can either be tested automatically or tested by humans in a manner that is capable of yielding consistent results among multiple knowledgeable testers.
21:12:32 [wendy]: defn of "multiple knowledgeable testers" needed?
21:12:41 [sh1mmer]: ack Yvette
21:12:42 [Zakim]: Yvette, you wanted to say "that's not Charles' comment"
21:12:57 [wendy]: cmn said, "we don't have to say anything about automatic tests"
21:13:12 [wendy]: we have defined tests that can be tested by humans in a manner that yields consistent results
21:13:24 [wendy]: that you can also test with computers is benefit
21:13:44 [wendy]: however, that is not true. there are some criteria that are only machine-testable
21:13:54 [wendy]: e.g., epilepsy
21:14:30 [Gian]: q+ to say "well technically all you would need is a human with epilepsy to sit infront of the screen"
21:14:56 [wendy]: ack gian
21:14:56 [Zakim]: Gian, you wanted to say "well technically all you would need is a human with epilepsy to sit infront of the screen"
21:14:56 [sh1mmer]: ack Gian
21:15:27 [Gian]: q-
21:15:35 [wendy]: that's not correct - you can never test for conformance w/user testing. the fact that *a* blind person can use does not mean that all people who are blind can use.
21:15:36 [sh1mmer]: ack John
21:16:13 [sh1mmer]: q+
21:16:17 [wendy]: if there are some criteria that are only-machine testable, then "in the judgement of wg ps all are testable. some tested reliablty by humans. @@some are only tested automaticlly@@"
21:16:39 [sh1mmer]: ack Tom
21:17:05 [wendy]: few issues are dangerous for humans to test. others are impracticle for humans to test
21:17:26 [Yvette]: zakim, mute me
21:17:26 [Zakim]: Yvette_Hoitink.a should now be muted
21:17:40 [Gian]: q+ "it depends on the site being tested"
21:17:58 [Gian]: q+ to say "it depends on the site being tested"
21:18:44 [sh1mmer]: q+
21:18:49 [wendy]: suggest that we say "either human-reliable or automatic" those that are impracical for humans we have instruments
21:19:03 [wendy]: unless you have a normalized instrument can't use in the standard
21:19:13 [wendy]: ack gian
21:19:13 [Zakim]: Gian, you wanted to say "it depends on the site being tested"
21:19:20 [Gian]: for example, testing whether alt attributes are missing is often done by an automated testing tool - but if you have a site that is 3 pages then it would be easier just to review the code instead of using a tool
21:19:41 [rellero]: rellero has joined #wai-wcag
21:19:48 [wendy]: ack tom
21:20:05 [wendy]: although there are practicalities involved in testing one way or the other, doing as gregg suggested is best plan
21:20:30 [Yvette]: zakim, unmute me
21:20:30 [Zakim]: Yvette_Hoitink.a should no longer be muted
21:20:33 [wendy]: again ask if this ok: In the judgment of the working group participants, success criteria can either be tested automatically or tested by humans in a manner that is capable of yielding consistent results among multiple knowledgeable testers.
21:21:30 [sh1mmer]: q+
21:21:36 [sh1mmer]: ack kerstin
21:22:02 [wendy]: said don't want to define " multiple knowledgeable testers" however we're going to get that question
21:22:06 [wendy]: people will want a definition
21:22:23 [wendy]: propose "7 out of 10"
21:22:42 [wendy]: or reusing some other usability reference
21:23:01 [Yvette]: q+ to say "Formulation is too difficult"
21:23:02 [Gian]: q+ to say "is that 7 out of 10 that agree 100%? There may be differences of opinion"
21:23:02 [wendy]: have to go with test reliability literature
21:23:07 [sh1mmer]: ack Tom
21:23:40 [wendy]: have different scales for different success criteria? level 3 needs less people out of 10 (e.g.,)
21:24:03 [sh1mmer]: q+
21:24:08 [wendy]: ack andi
21:24:10 [sh1mmer]: ack Andi
21:24:20 [wendy]: if we use that level of specificity will get confused as a requirement
21:24:25 [Yvette]: q-
21:24:31 [wendy]: when do human testability have to get that many peopel to agree it conforms
21:24:56 [wendy]: we didn't make any effort to figure out if that many people would agree, it was just our judgement
21:25:01 [wendy]: ack gian
21:25:01 [Zakim]: Gian, you wanted to say "is that 7 out of 10 that agree 100%? There may be differences of opinion"
21:25:05 [Gian]: it seems quite difficult to quantify it.
21:25:29 [Gian]: what if they can't agree about anything?
21:25:38 [wendy]: it is a binary question: does it pass or does it fail?
21:25:47 [wendy]: you can't "half pass"
21:25:50 [Gian]: (like wg ps ;)
21:25:53 [wendy]: 7/10 say pass or fail
21:25:55 [Doyle]: were 8 out of 10 knowledgable people to test the site, it would pass or fail
21:26:06 [wendy]: q?
21:26:11 [Gian]: then we need to say that - Satisfactory or Not Sat.
21:26:17 [sh1mmer]: ack Tom
21:26:20 [Yvette]: q+ to say "Formulation is too difficult"
21:26:43 [wendy]: necessity to make note of the fact that people using tools may need a qualified person to operate them?
21:27:10 [GVAN]: Q+
21:27:17 [wendy]: zakim, who's talking?
21:27:28 [Zakim]: wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Doyle (4%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (24%), Gregg-and-Ben (72%), Yvette_Hoitink.a (4%)
21:27:42 [wendy]: ack yvette
21:27:42 [Zakim]: Yvette, you wanted to say "Formulation is too difficult"
21:28:03 [wendy]: talking about "yielding consistent results" - difficult formulation.
21:28:24 [wendy]: non-scientific version: we have only included sc where you can objectively determine if sc fails or passes
21:28:32 [wendy]: s/objectively/??
21:28:50 [wendy]: more people will know "objectively" than "yield"
21:28:58 [wendy]: this is a defn of objective
21:29:11 [Gian]: s/objectively/accurately
21:29:13 [Doyle]: obtain?
21:29:15 [sh1mmer]: "result in"?
21:29:18 [wendy]: action: john propose simpler word for "yield"
21:29:29 [sh1mmer]: q?
21:29:32 [sh1mmer]: ack GVAN
21:29:57 [wendy]: can we agree that this proposal is better than existing text? can we capture the progress we have made
21:30:02 [wendy]: s/yield/produced?
21:30:17 [wendy]: ack jason
21:30:23 [wendy]: q+ gvan
21:30:30 [sh1mmer]: GVAN can you read it with 'produced' in pls
21:30:34 [wendy]: zakim, unmute jason
21:30:34 [Zakim]: JasonWhite was not muted, wendy
21:31:14 [wendy]: In the judgment of the working group participants, success criteria can either be tested automatically or tested by humans in a manner that is capable of producing consistent results among multiple knowledgeable testers.
21:31:32 [sh1mmer]: ack jason
21:31:41 [Zakim]: -Andi
21:31:55 [wendy]: yvette still feels it is difficult
21:32:00 [wendy]: john will continue to work on
21:32:08 [wendy]: this will pass with broad consent and not broad consent
21:32:44 [wendy]: this will pass with broad consent and not unanimous consent
21:33:23 [Zakim]: -John_Slatin
21:33:24 [Zakim]: -Kerstin
21:33:24 [Zakim]: -Paul_Bohman
21:33:25 [Zakim]: -Mike_Barta
21:33:26 [Zakim]: -Sailesh_Panchang
21:33:27 [Zakim]: -Matt
21:33:28 [Zakim]: -Tom
21:33:29 [Zakim]: -Wendy
21:33:30 [Zakim]: -Doyle
21:33:32 [Zakim]: -Loretta_Guarino_Reid
21:33:32 [rellero]: bye
21:33:34 [Zakim]: -Yvette_Hoitink.a
21:33:36 [Zakim]: -Becky_Gibson
21:33:38 [Zakim]: -Avi
21:33:40 [Zakim]: -Bengt_Farre
21:33:40 [nabe]: good bye
21:33:43 [BeckyG]: BeckyG has left #wai-wcag
21:33:46 [Gian]: bye
21:33:48 [wendy]: zakim, bye
21:33:48 [Zakim]: leaving. As of this point the attendees were John_Slatin, Michael_Cooper, Tom, Bengt_Farre, Sailesh_Panchang, Wendy, Becky_Gibson, Doyle, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Andi,
21:33:48 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #wai-wcag
21:33:51 [Zakim]: ... Yvette_Hoitink, Matt, Paul_Bohman, JasonWhite, David_MacDonald, Gregg-and-Ben, Takayuki_Watanabe, Mike_Barta, Kerstin_Goldsmith, Kerstin, Avi
21:34:01 [bcaldwell]: bcaldwell has left #wai-wcag
21:34:06 [wendy]: RRSAgent, bye
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]: I see 10 open action items:
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: yvette review use of "page" in guidelines and success criteria (2.4, 3.1, 3.2). if possible, also review examples and benefits. [1]
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/06-wai-wcag-irc#T20-24-24
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: john continue working on examples for level 3 of 3.1 [2]
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/06-wai-wcag-irc#T20-30-38
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: kerstin propose defn of "contraction" (issue 700) - http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=700 [3]
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/06-wai-wcag-irc#T20-31-21
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: john possibly also look at other examples for 3.1 (issues 381 and 702) [4]
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/06-wai-wcag-irc#T20-31-57
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: doyle propose more examples for 2.5 (issues 511 and 694) [5]
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/06-wai-wcag-irc#T20-33-51
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: doyle add "these are usability problems that effect all users but amplified for pwd" [6]
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/06-wai-wcag-irc#T20-38-35
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: tom propose definition of "user errors" to answer the question "What types of errors is this guideline addressing?" [7]
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/06-wai-wcag-irc#T20-41-35
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: matt propose o'reilly version of wCAG 2.0 [9]
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/06-wai-wcag-irc#T21-02-22
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: mike summarize issues for 2.4 ( http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/issuereports/navigation-mechanisms_issues.php) [11]
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/06-wai-wcag-irc#T21-08-15
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: john propose simpler word for "yield" [12]
21:34:06 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/05/06-wai-wcag-irc#T21-29-18
21:34:12 [Gian]: and me!!