IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-12-01
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:07:06 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
- 15:07:11 [bcaldwell]
- zakim, who is here?
- 15:07:11 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Chris, Becky_Gibson, Ken?, +000012aaaa, ??P6, Don_Evans, Jenae, Ben, Michael_Cooper, John_Slatin
- 15:07:13 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see RRSAgent, Michael, AliG, Zakim, ken, Becky, ChrisR, bcaldwell
- 15:07:33 [bcaldwell]
- zakim, ??P6 may be Lisa
- 15:07:33 [Zakim]
- +Lisa?; got it
- 15:09:48 [DonFEvans]
- DonFEvans has joined #wai-wcag
- 15:12:19 [ChrisR]
- test suite: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/tests/
- 15:16:24 [Michael]
- cr need straw poll to include rationale for tests and level
- 15:16:52 [Michael]
- cr will send thoughts on tests to list
- 15:20:02 [Michael]
- action: everyone please complete straw poll for next Wednesday meeting
- 15:20:13 [Zakim]
- +??P17
- 15:22:35 [Michael]
- cr to start posting messages on list re test suites to get discussion
- 15:22:47 [Michael]
- would like to have 2 iterations - one before and one after guidelines released
- 15:23:00 [Michael]
- ja start tracking test issues in Bugzilla
- 15:23:19 [David_]
- David_ has joined #wai-wcag
- 15:23:27 [David_]
- test
- 15:24:19 [Michael]
- mc we have until Feb or Mar to feel pretty complete about test suite
- 15:25:38 [Michael]
- ja to start updating end to ends
- 15:25:44 [Michael]
- to see where we're missing test cases
- 15:28:13 [Michael]
- dmd are checklists distinct from test suites?
- 15:28:22 [Michael]
- bc no idea - a couple approaches
- 15:28:29 [Michael]
- could have one test for every required item in checklist
- 15:28:45 [Michael]
- or could include tests for every possible thing but not strongly tied to checklist
- 15:29:03 [Michael]
- dmd don't want to duplicate effort
- 15:29:25 [Michael]
- bc they do need to be tied together but unclear how extensive tests should be
- 15:29:42 [Michael]
- dmd have tests sitting somewhere to be pulled in as needed
- 15:29:47 [Michael]
- cr part of existing design
- 15:29:56 [Michael]
- bc need to include tests for other technologies than html
- 15:29:57 [ChrisR]
- checklist? chunks from WCAG, techs and test suite: http://tile-cridpath.atrc.utoronto.ca/acheck/servlet/ShowChecklist1
- 15:30:16 [Michael]
- can't have checklist that's html only
- 15:30:21 [Michael]
- cr checklist per technology?
- 15:30:37 [Michael]
- bc no - have to include General with any tech, so at minimum it's a tech and general
- 15:31:17 [Michael]
- mc haven't answered whether we would also combine other technologies into single checklists
- 15:32:20 [Michael]
- bc risk with a single technology checklist is author doesn't realize they can't fully meet wcag because the tech (e.g., css) doesn't have necessary features
- 15:32:33 [Michael]
- therefore create combination checklist
- 15:33:06 [Michael]
- mc how do we handle that with arbitrary combinations?
- 15:34:27 [Michael]
- cr we'd have to have techniques and test suites for every technology
- 15:34:37 [Michael]
- mc at least the ones we're doing
- 15:34:54 [Michael]
- cr need checklist per technology
- 15:35:05 [Michael]
- bc need them per tech but not presented as standalone checklist
- 15:35:49 [Michael]
- because they have to understand they can't meet guidelines using just that technology
- 15:36:40 [AliG]
- http://www.accessinmind.com/supportEAM/ChecklistQuestionnaire.html and http://www.accessinmind.com/supportEAM/ChecklistReport.html
- 15:38:49 [AliG]
- corrected to http://www.accessinmind.com/supportEAM/ChecklistResult.html
- 15:38:51 [bcaldwell]
- http://preview.trace.wisc.edu/test/WCAG/checklists/checklist-2-19-2003int.htm
- 15:42:30 [Michael]
- bc vision was that checklists would be application like
- 15:43:00 [Michael]
- flow-chart process, walk through each criterion, decision tree about techniques to meet that criterion
- 15:43:17 [Michael]
- if you meet techniques you meet criterion; if you don't you can document what alternate method you used
- 15:43:57 [Michael]
- example above (preview.trace.wisc.edu) shows items disappearing based on answers to what is used
- 15:44:32 [Michael]
- is feature used, checklist items for that appear; or you can indicate that you did something else
- 15:44:44 [Michael]
- the trick is figuring out how to put this all together - more complex than a tax form now
- 15:45:03 [Michael]
- we need a "kitchen sink" printable version to start, and later develop a more interactive tool
- 15:45:37 [Michael]
- would also like to generate an EARL statement, to apply as metadata or generate a human-readable accessibility statement
- 15:46:24 [Michael]
- ag similar approach, select technology using
- 15:46:37 [Michael]
- grouped into categories - technology, content, presentation....
- 15:48:19 [Michael]
- complete form, then generate results page indicating all the tasks you need to undertake according to your questionnaire results
- 15:48:32 [Michael]
- grouped by technology
- 15:49:46 [Zakim]
- -Ken?
- 15:50:32 [AliG]
- which was the url???
- 15:50:45 [Zakim]
- +??P2
- 15:51:02 [Michael]
- cr went through principle, guideline, success criterion, technique (task), and test suite
- 15:51:48 [Michael]
- bc will discover we need user testing and to make decisions about process
- 15:52:06 [Michael]
- overwhelming to ask author to make a decision about each and every thing, but that creates a more efficient checklist
- 15:52:45 [Michael]
- cr do we have checklist document?
- 15:52:55 [Michael]
- ack lisa
- 15:52:59 [Michael]
- ack ??P2
- 15:53:40 [Michael]
- ls likes alistair's checklist, but would like entry page to indicate what combination of technologies to start with, or "typical" or "all"
- 15:54:16 [Michael]
- also likes layout
- 15:54:51 [Michael]
- and to call it "tests"
- 15:55:32 [Michael]
- sp test/task
- 15:56:06 [Michael]
- bc task was originally considered a checklist item
- 15:56:18 [Michael]
- there is a proposal to be strict about making those true/false statements
- 15:57:02 [Michael]
- maybe even go back to considering those checklist items
- 15:57:16 [Michael]
- maybe make difference between testable items (checklist items) and advisory (tasks)
- 15:57:45 [Michael]
- ag test should support tasks
- 15:57:59 [Michael]
- w/ failiure statements
- 15:58:07 [AliG]
- http://www.accessinmind.com/supportEAM/HTMLTech.html
- 16:00:17 [Zakim]
- -Lisa_Seeman
- 16:01:38 [Michael]
- ag indicate conditions for applicability and conditions for failure
- 16:01:56 [Michael]
- bc those are scoping questions that may affect which techniques or checklist items you're presented with
- 16:02:13 [Michael]
- ag run applicability tests first, then decide which tasks relevant, then run failure conditions
- 16:03:26 [Michael]
- mc use cases - which ones are we trying to meet here and which via other resources
- 16:03:37 [Michael]
- bc also general question of audience
- 16:04:31 [Michael]
- ag 3 types of users - author, editor, assessor
- 16:04:36 [Michael]
- checklist mainly for author
- 16:08:41 [Michael]
- Some use case stuff was posted at http://eramp.com/david/
- 16:09:07 [Becky]
- use cases: http://www.eramp.com/david/becky_use_cases.htm
- 16:10:48 [Michael]
- tom's personae http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003JulSep/att-0497/wcag-personae.pdf
- 16:14:21 [Michael]
- bc an early piece of work is to make sure tasks are all true/false statements
- 16:14:42 [Michael]
- need to decide also whether tasks are actually checklist items or we need checklist items in addition
- 16:14:50 [Michael]
- ag we need to split up into more granular statements
- 16:15:01 [Michael]
- bc maybe a series of checklist items apply to each technique/task
- 16:16:06 [Michael]
- mc the test files are a kind of break-down like this, do we use that?
- 16:16:55 [Michael]
- ag need to break down tasks more granular and tests are under each of those
- 16:17:33 [Michael]
- cr in test suite we have statements, but sounds like we want a question
- 16:17:43 [Michael]
- ag something that ends in true/false
- 16:18:14 [bcaldwell]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/07/checklist-notes.html (includes true/false statements for guideline 1.1 and 1.3)
- 16:18:15 [Michael]
- e.g., "each image is expected to contain an alt attribute" becomes "each image has an alt attribute"
- 16:18:51 [Michael]
- cr if change wording of test suite statements, would it make our checklist?
- 16:19:26 [Michael]
- wording in Ben's doc above seems good
- 16:21:41 [Michael]
- mc would this get applied to test suite or checklist items in techniques doc?
- 16:21:54 [Michael]
- ag advantage of putting in techniques doc helps us to see where we're missing tests
- 16:24:01 [Michael]
- mc maybe doing as checklist items makes requirements more clear
- 16:24:27 [Michael]
- bc depends on scope of test suite - do they include only what is necessary & sufficient, or do they include extra advice?
- 16:24:40 [Michael]
- ag if they include extra advice that could get to be a lot
- 16:26:23 [Michael]
- mc propose we decide test suite will only be what is necessary & sufficient
- 16:26:35 [Michael]
- bc can help focus us - we can "table" some of the other things
- 16:27:41 [Michael]
- resolved: test suites are only what is necessary & sufficient
- 16:28:53 [Michael]
- mc if we a) make test suite language t/f and b) adopt above resolution, can checklist be driven by test suite?
- 16:29:28 [Michael]
- resolved: checklists can be driven by test suite given above assumptions
- 16:29:38 [Michael]
- bc test suites will need to expand to include general and other technologies
- 16:29:49 [Michael]
- not sure anybody's working on that yet
- 16:30:10 [Michael]
- action: john can start on testable statements for general techniques
- 16:30:23 [Michael]
- ag break each task down into testable statements
- 16:32:29 [Michael]
- ag example in task should be a pass example
- 16:33:44 [bcaldwell]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/10/06-checklist-discussion.html - a more up to date version of proposed testable statements for 1.1 and 1.3 posted earlier
- 16:34:19 [Zakim]
- -Michael_Cooper
- 16:34:20 [Zakim]
- -Becky_Gibson
- 16:34:21 [Zakim]
- -Don_Evans
- 16:34:22 [Zakim]
- -Alistair_Garrison
- 16:34:22 [Zakim]
- -Chris
- 16:34:24 [Zakim]
- -Lisa?
- 16:34:26 [Zakim]
- -Jenae
- 16:34:27 [Zakim]
- -Ben
- 16:34:27 [Zakim]
- -David_MacDonald
- 16:34:28 [Zakim]
- -John_Slatin
- 16:34:30 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has ended
- 16:34:30 [ChrisR]
- ChrisR has left #wai-wcag
- 16:34:32 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Becky_Gibson, +000012aaaa, Don_Evans, Ben, Michael_Cooper, Jenae, John_Slatin, Chris, Ken?, Lisa?, Alistair_Garrison, David_MacDonald, Lisa_Seeman
- 16:42:31 [AliG]
- AliG has left #wai-wcag
- 16:59:17 [Michael]
- Michael has joined #wai-wcag
- 18:05:04 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #wai-wcag
- 19:08:04 [Michael]
- rrsagent, bye
- 19:08:04 [RRSAgent]
- I see 2 open action items:
- 19:08:04 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: everyone please complete straw poll for next Wednesday meeting [1]
- 19:08:04 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/12/01-wai-wcag-irc#T15-20-02
- 19:08:04 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: john can start on testable statements for general techniques [2]
- 19:08:04 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/12/01-wai-wcag-irc#T16-30-10