IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-03-05
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 08:09:23 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
- 08:09:31 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #wai-wcag
- 08:09:33 [wendy]
- present:
- 08:09:36 [wendy]
- michael cooper, watchfire
- 08:09:45 [MattNCE]
- MattNCE has joined #wai-wcag
- 08:09:52 [wendy]
- jose, spanish office
- 08:10:06 [wendy]
- andrew arch, natl info lib service
- 08:10:10 [wendy]
- shawn henry, w3c
- 08:10:18 [wendy]
- allistair garrison, accessinmind
- 08:10:23 [wendy]
- judy brewer, w3c
- 08:10:26 [wendy]
- matt may, w3c
- 08:10:44 [wendy]
- helle bjarno,
- 08:10:49 [wendy]
- wendy buckley, amadeus
- 08:11:03 [wendy]
- henk, bartimeus
- 08:11:10 [wendy]
- eric, bartimeus
- 08:11:21 [wendy]
- tom croucher, university of sunderland
- 08:11:27 [wendy]
- ben caldwell, trace r&d
- 08:11:37 [wendy]
- wendy chisholm, w3c
- 08:11:44 [wendy]
- natasha lipkina, hp
- 08:12:25 [JoseA]
- JoseA has joined #wai-wcag
- 08:12:58 [Andrew]
- Andrew has joined #wai-wcag
- 08:13:03 [wendy]
- agenda+ wcag wg ttf look at updated eowg deliverables
- 08:13:40 [wendy]
- :)
- 08:15:06 [sh1m|cannes]
- sh1m|cannes has joined #wai-wcag
- 08:17:11 [judy_float]
- judy_float has joined #wai-wcag
- 08:17:18 [shawn]
- shawn has joined #wai-wcag
- 08:17:48 [judy_wcag]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/EO-Deliverables.html
- 08:20:31 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/EO-Deliverables.html#20042q
- 08:20:43 [wendy]
- flag: Evaluation Resource Suite as coord point
- 08:21:14 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/EO-Deliverables.html#20043q
- 08:21:24 [wendy]
- flag: faq
- 08:21:58 [wendy]
- web site redesign has several tasks that people want to complete that we'll design for (task force)
- 08:22:09 [wendy]
- general questions
- 08:22:23 [shawn]
- task list: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/UCD/tasks
- 08:23:30 [wendy]
- this task list goes out for review next week
- 08:23:42 [wendy]
- add: if i conform to wcag 1.0, what do i do differently for 2.0
- 08:24:58 [shawn]
- *me notes changes to deliverables page go to judy (not shawn)
- 08:25:13 [wendy]
- 4th 1/4 link also goes to jigteam
- 08:27:58 [wendy]
- wcag 2.0 techniques: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag20.html#techs
- 08:28:22 [wendy]
- michael shows gateway: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-GATEWAY-20031205.html
- 08:28:40 [wendy]
- tom shows more current version (on his desktop)
- 08:29:02 [wendy]
- agenda+ show html techs to give better idea
- 08:29:22 [wendy]
- 4th 1/4: revise curriculum. coord point
- 08:30:49 [wendy]
- gallery: coord point. issues w/pointing to live sites.
- 08:31:28 [wendy]
- 4th 1/4: quick tips revision
- 08:31:35 [wendy]
- (previous points, 3rd 1/4)
- 08:33:46 [wendy]
- add eowg to wcag wg timeline
- 08:34:40 [wendy]
- rationale document (research behind flicker/flash, db audio levels) - related to curriculum?
- 08:35:23 [wendy]
- faq - loose coord
- 08:35:29 [wendy]
- quicktips - close coord
- 08:35:32 [sh1m|cannes]
- sh1m|cannes has joined #wai-wcag
- 08:35:32 [wendy]
- eval - loose
- 08:35:52 [wendy]
- tutorials/templates - medium (wcag could provide resources)
- 08:36:07 [wendy]
- wcag has examples that could be used in curriculum
- 08:36:19 [wendy]
- curriculum - similar to tutorials
- 08:38:39 [wendy]
- flow between less technical and more technical
- 08:40:31 [wendy]
- coord w/site redesign
- 08:41:37 [wendy]
- april-ish - plans for how info would be available, queried, presented, chunks
- 08:42:51 [wendy]
- priorities?
- 08:43:28 [wendy]
- what's missing?
- 08:43:36 [wendy]
- implementing techniques w/out understanding technical details
- 08:43:45 [wendy]
- curriculum? eval resource suite?
- 08:46:49 [wendy]
- have a lot of potential information, careful not to overwhelm people.
- 08:46:51 [wendy]
- how coordinate?
- 08:47:08 [wendy]
- 1/2 hour joint meeting once a month?
- 08:48:38 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/query.cgi
- 08:50:47 [shawn]
- wac: maybe do project review WCAG for all WAI groups
- 08:50:49 [JoseA]
- JoseA has joined #wai-wcag
- 08:51:17 [MattNovoiCE]
- The issue with ATAG is that it is tied most closely to WCAG 1 and 2. ATAG conformance is based on the output conforming to a version of WCAG. (more)
- 08:51:50 [shadi]
- shadi has joined #wai-wcag
- 08:51:56 [wendy]
- action: shawn and judy coord w/wcag every x meetings
- 08:52:05 [wendy]
- a regularly scheduled time would be easier to remember
- 08:52:27 [Andrew]
- and a regular date can always be cancelled if not needed
- 08:52:34 [MattNovoiCE]
- The more WCAG matures, the better it is for all involved to stay up to date. It will also keep the document from casing other docs that depend on it (like ATAG) from falling apart.
- 08:57:58 [wendy]
- wcag 1.0 revised edition: issues for wcag (revised techniques?) issues for eo: how impact deliverables
- 08:58:30 [judy]
- judy has left #wai-wcag
- 09:04:23 [shawn]
- natasha: question about revised version
- 09:04:31 [shawn]
- andrew support revised 1.0
- 09:05:30 [shawn]
- wac: alistair writing material based on 1.0 and needs to know current thinking of WCAG
- 09:07:22 [wendy]
- tool developers need to clearly nkow how to interpret
- 09:07:32 [wendy]
- some people not adopt 2.0 right away, therefore revised, good idea
- 09:11:26 [Andrew]
- uri please?
- 09:12:13 [sh1m|cannes]
- www.w3.org/2003/12/wcag-10-errata-table.html
- 09:17:02 [shawn]
- action: shawn talk to judy about discussing WCAG 1.0 errata & revised version in EOWG
- 09:17:08 [wendy]
- 1.0 revised - cause another fork in the road?
- 09:19:10 [wendy]
- provide clarification that people need in a way that is simpler and doesn't need as much time as revised 1.0
- 09:23:15 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/Resources/WAI-UA-Support
- 09:23:16 [Andrew]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/Resources/WAI-UA-Support
- 09:23:30 [shawn]
- action: shawn take to wai site task force: 1. tasks about transition 1.0 to 2.0, 2. about user agent clause (from errata table "user agent support for accessibility")
- 09:31:44 [shawn]
- wac reviews timeline
- 09:32:07 [ben]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/TECHS-SUBMIT/
- 09:40:32 [wendy]
- eo component in bugzilla to track coord issues
- 09:42:03 [wendy]
- break
- 10:12:02 [wendy]
- back
- 10:13:56 [wendy]
- errata
- 10:14:00 [wendy]
- do we publish errata?
- 10:14:12 [wendy]
- s/errata/revised edition
- 10:14:22 [wendy]
- if so, what's the timeline?
- 10:14:33 [sh1m|cannes]
- of WCAG
- 10:14:40 [wendy]
- if so, what do we do about techniques? revise as well?
- 10:16:10 [wendy]
- do we have errata serious enough to publish a revised version?
- 10:16:46 [wendy]
- fairly clear that have issues with time constraints
- 10:17:00 [wendy]
- willingness of a few people to work exclusively on revised version
- 10:17:50 [wendy]
- task force to work solely on revised version?
- 10:19:31 [wendy]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JanMar/att-0365/testcases.html
- 10:20:44 [wendy]
- chris also has test files
- 10:21:28 [wendy]
- yesterday, discussed matrix of possible platforms to test on (and configurations of browsers/ats)
- 10:22:32 [RylaDog]
- RylaDog has joined #wai-wcag
- 10:23:28 [wendy]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JanMar/att-0365/testcases.html
- 10:23:53 [wendy]
- task force make recommendations about table of errata
- 10:24:01 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/2003/12/wcag10-errata-table.html
- 10:24:56 [wendy]
- q+ to say "not onloy technological, need to gain community consensus that can deprecate. industry and disability community"
- 10:25:35 [wendy]
- q-
- 10:25:51 [wendy]
- impact on laws - some point to wcag 1.0
- 10:26:50 [wendy]
- some incorporate checkpoints into laws
- 10:30:55 [wendy]
- past-proofing and future-proofing
- 10:32:28 [wendy]
- some places can use revision immediately.
- 10:32:32 [wendy]
- others, provide a pathway
- 10:33:20 [wendy]
- anticipated impact of revision
- 10:33:44 [wendy]
- why we made the change, what the impact will be on accessibility, impact on existing laws
- 10:33:56 [wendy]
- wcag focus on technical aspects (getting them right), eo focusing on policy
- 10:34:22 [wendy]
- have to do that anyway with 2.0
- 10:36:13 [wendy]
- @@add 5.3 to list of possible errata
- 10:36:36 [wendy]
- in html specification, comment that says "table should not be used for layout"
- 10:37:32 [wendy]
- user agent support page: would the w3c make a definitive statement of what is not covered by certain user agents?
- 10:37:56 [wendy]
- eval tool dev: selling point "we follow guidelines as precisely as possible"
- 10:38:24 [wendy]
- if we update the until user agents page, and don't update recommendation, have to follow recommendation not user agents support page.
- 10:39:02 [wendy]
- sometimes more accessible to not follow conformance
- 10:40:22 [wendy]
- wcag 1.0 techniques: wrap with label (instead of "for")
- 10:40:28 [wendy]
- difference with 2.0 technqieus
- 10:40:58 [wendy]
- techniques documents?
- 10:41:22 [wendy]
- additional effort. related to wcag 2.0 techniques.
- 10:42:05 [wendy]
- in 2.0 may say "don't do x" whereas in 1.0 says "x"
- 10:42:27 [wendy]
- usually a case of no longer recommending do something, that had been a until user agent stop gap
- 10:53:31 [Andrew]
- tf - a) imact assessment; b) proposals
- 10:55:21 [Andrew]
- tf would start work with no guarantee of going ahaed with task
- 10:55:54 [Andrew]
- tf - step 0) is tf work statement - goes to approval
- 11:02:51 [Andrew]
- tf - need to include community discusion/consultation on impact of deprecation
- 11:04:02 [wendy]
- what suggesting deprecate?
- 11:04:11 [wendy]
- release to public - get feedback. good reasons not to, let us know.
- 11:04:22 [wendy]
- put the impact assessment under that - get the info for that
- 11:04:35 [wendy]
- helps lawmakers see, no reasonto have point 1, 2, 3 no longer in law
- 11:04:52 [wendy]
- 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5
- 11:04:58 [wendy]
- rest, not sure about
- 11:06:46 [RylaDog]
- q+
- 11:09:48 [wendy]
- propose that the task force goes through all of these and makes proposals for how to handle.
- 11:10:38 [wendy]
- have 2 primary places for wide community feedback: impact assessment and request for review of draft. so even if we make a draft, if people yell loudly enough we might not actually publish it as a revised recommendation.
- 11:15:50 [wendy]
- action: andrew, allistair, eric?, (recruit others?) impact assessment, community discussion, and proposals for wcag 1.0 revised edition, present at 15 April WCAG WG telecon
- 11:16:31 [wendy]
- 1 impact assesment, community discussion
- 11:16:35 [wendy]
- 2. proposals
- 11:16:39 [wendy]
- 3 task force work statement
- 11:16:42 [wendy]
- 4 test uua
- 11:17:01 [wendy]
- 5 revise wcag 1.0
- 11:17:05 [wendy]
- 6 revise techs
- 11:17:35 [wendy]
- possible solution for techniques: statement at top of techniques that link to wcag 2.0 techniques. deprecate some of them.
- 11:17:39 [wendy]
- editorial notes, etc.
- 11:20:50 [ben]
- HTML Techs. Issues LIst: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/issuereports/xhtml_issues.php
- 12:29:02 [JoseA]
- JoseA has joined #wai-wcag
- 12:31:55 [sh1m|cannes]
- sh1m|cannes has joined #wai-wcag
- 12:34:22 [wendy]
- back after lunch
- 12:34:44 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20040301.html
- 12:37:16 [wendy]
- conformance
- 12:37:29 [wendy]
- open issue: should checklists be normative?
- 12:38:26 [wendy]
- techniques need to be flexible
- 12:38:42 [wendy]
- however, success criteria being testable linked to techniques
- 12:39:55 [wendy]
- pros and cons
- 12:40:05 [wendy]
- if checklists were normative - pros
- 12:40:19 [wendy]
- pro - conformance to guidelines would be clear
- 12:40:50 [wendy]
- con - there is only one definition of accessibility, as new techs invented or new capabilities adopted (in the tech), not able to adopt and conform, unless also do the checklist item
- 12:41:28 [wendy]
- con - implementation is too complex. (@@getr more)
- 12:41:33 [wendy]
- con - limit future expansion
- 12:42:26 [wendy]
- if checklists not normative, how solve testability issue?
- 12:42:39 [wendy]
- guidelines intended to be flexible in order for multipe ways to conform
- 12:42:53 [wendy]
- purpose of techniques is to create suggestions for ways to meet the guidelines
- 12:43:28 [wendy]
- if someone developed a technique that is not part of our set, will it be as well-vetted as our work?
- 12:43:54 [wendy]
- informal document - here's the criteria that we have (explain the HIRR testing that we're using0
- 12:44:07 [wendy]
- === our criteria for determining if a techniques fulfills a success cfriterion.
- 12:44:14 [wendy]
- methodology for creating new tec hniques
- 12:45:05 [wendy]
- if going to submit a technique...this be a supplementary document to this.
- 12:46:02 [wendy]
- some people may not submit clarifications/interpretations to us, but use them anyway. would need way to document why and how they diverged (only via techniques, not at guideline level)
- 12:46:24 [wendy]
- leaving room in the checklist for author's to create/use own techniques.
- 12:46:30 [wendy]
- (so, address that issue)
- 12:47:38 [wendy]
- proposal? normative statement in guidelines - you have followed validated techniques for conforming. guidelines normatively saying to follow "a" checklist of techniqeus. we've provided a set for you, if you choose to follow another set, here are thef eatures.
- 12:56:36 [wendy]
- problem with revised wcag 1.0 comes up with techniques (when we want to update them)
- 13:00:26 [wendy]
- normative statement about passing test sutie?
- 13:01:40 [wendy]
- wcag is written to apply to variety of technologies and some not avaialble today, don't have test suites.
- 13:02:19 [wendy]
- implication: force people who develop technologies to develop test suites for their technology
- 13:02:29 [wendy]
- (test suite in this case === evaluation methodology?)
- 13:10:45 [wendy]
- people should be able to create new techniques and conform to the guidelines
- 13:14:49 [wendy]
- action: tom and michael send a proposal to the mailing list contains: proposed statement, where in the doc it would appear, pros and cons (re: normative requirement for a process to evaluate techniques used)
- 13:15:21 [sh1m|cannes]
- sh1m|cannes has joined #wai-wcag
- 13:16:36 [wendy]
- normative checklist means that these techniqeus are required for conformance.
- 13:17:14 [wendy]
- even if there is an "other" - that is then too open for conformance unless there is a normative process to use to validate that the "alternative" techniques are as rigorous as those we've documented (via checklists)
- 13:18:12 [wendy]
- engineering solution is to create an audit trail, but do we have the authority to require/validate a process?
- 13:18:36 [wendy]
- this gets into certification, which we do not have the authority to do.
- 13:21:39 [wendy]
- audit trail is conformance claim, making the conformance claim is part of the process.
- 13:21:55 [wendy]
- "audit trail" is very rigorous conformance claim and process.
- 13:22:51 [wendy]
- "equivalent facilitation" - if claim that, have user testing data?
- 13:26:16 [wendy]
- sufficient, normative
- 13:27:43 [wendy]
- deadline for action item: 12 march
- 13:31:40 [wendy]
- diff levels of conformance: do we define a, a+, aa?
- 13:31:49 [wendy]
- need impact assessment to make that decision.
- 13:32:07 [wendy]
- icnreases the complexity of checklists
- 13:34:14 [wendy]
- action: wendy (and coerce john, andi, gregg, jason, and other austinites) to write impact assessment of conformance levels for discussion at f2f (send to list by 12 march)
- 13:34:18 [wendy]
- contrasting use cases:
- 13:34:23 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #wai-wcag
- 13:34:31 [wendy]
- a site policy for a govnt web site
- 13:34:36 [wendy]
- homework tailoring for student
- 13:35:12 [wendy]
- govnt: many subcontractors, policy has to simple.
- 13:36:22 [wendy]
- ===
- 13:36:50 [wendy]
- html techniques - these are the issues we want to address before our next TR draft
- 13:39:07 [wendy]
- 178: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=178
- 13:39:40 [wendy]
- not crucial for next tr
- 13:40:36 [wendy]
- 180 - not crucial to next tr
- 13:40:42 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=184
- 13:41:25 [wendy]
- publish link to mimasa's dtd that mixes svg, mathml, etc.
- 13:44:17 [wendy]
- michael suggests adding x-ref to issue. wendy has action to talk w/judy about refs to trace for bugs
- 13:44:21 [wendy]
- 185 - yes
- 13:44:51 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=186 - yes
- 13:45:02 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=187 - no
- 13:45:44 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=194 - close. done. everything moved to bugzilla
- 13:45:50 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=224
- 13:46:20 [wendy]
- no
- 13:47:21 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=225 editorial note: confounded w/wcag 1.0 errata work
- 13:48:46 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=226 yes. try to get something, if not. ednote
- 13:49:24 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=227 xml support?
- 13:49:55 [sh1m|cannes]
- sh1m|cannes has joined #wai-wcag
- 13:50:09 [wendy]
- heading on examples
- 13:50:52 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=228
- 13:50:59 [wendy]
- (227 - yes)
- 13:51:17 [wendy]
- 228 - yes
- 13:51:50 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=229 yes
- 13:52:32 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=230
- 13:52:39 [wendy]
- pf says accesskey needs to be reengineered.
- 13:52:44 [wendy]
- in the format
- 13:53:14 [wendy]
- there are 2 verbs used: focus and fire. in the future, likely to be two separate things.
- 13:53:27 [wendy]
- create a chain.
- 13:53:58 [wendy]
- editorial note
- 13:54:08 [wendy]
- not ready for next draft
- 13:54:42 [wendy]
- 234, 235, 236, 237, 238 - skip these since all about accesskey
- 13:54:49 [wendy]
- thread on xtech that should be looked at when consider accesskey
- 13:55:04 [wendy]
- -238 from previous list
- 13:55:17 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=238 enough info in bug to address?
- 13:56:38 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20031209/#a-accesskey
- 13:57:02 [wendy]
- not currently rendering ua issues, thus no.
- 13:57:12 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=239
- 13:58:06 [MattNovoiCE]
- MattNovoiCE has joined #wai-wcag
- 13:58:38 [wendy]
- action: wendy propose
- 13:58:47 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=240
- 13:59:16 [wendy]
- yes
- 13:59:35 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=241
- 13:59:36 [wendy]
- yes
- 13:59:49 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=242 no
- 13:59:59 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=243
- 14:00:38 [wendy]
- yes
- 14:00:57 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=246
- 14:00:58 [wendy]
- yes
- 14:01:23 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=248
- 14:02:13 [wendy]
- result of discussion needs to be incorporated
- 14:02:25 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=249
- 14:03:15 [wendy]
- reference the article
- 14:03:15 [wendy]
- http://www.mcu.org.uk/articles/tables.html
- 14:03:40 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=251 yes
- 14:04:00 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=252
- 14:04:53 [wendy]
- server-side image map are less of an issue these days (b/c of use of client-side). not priority for this draft.
- 14:05:09 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=254
- 14:05:17 [wendy]
- also server-side, not high priority
- 14:06:29 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=255
- 14:06:46 [wendy]
- action: wendy ping martin on language
- 14:07:47 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=257
- 14:08:00 [wendy]
- placeholder for scripting techniques - list of references
- 14:09:14 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=265
- 14:10:15 [wendy]
- yes
- 14:10:24 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=272
- 14:10:52 [wendy]
- placeholder for scripting tehcniuqesw
- 14:10:59 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=273
- 14:11:00 [wendy]
- yes
- 14:11:10 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=293
- 14:11:38 [wendy]
- yes. ednote - specific to get review and comment from community
- 14:11:48 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=294
- 14:11:49 [wendy]
- yes. ednote - specific to get review and comment from community
- 14:11:58 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=295
- 14:12:18 [wendy]
- summary of recent discussion - even if just summary of issues, ought to be included in next draft
- 14:12:30 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=296
- 14:13:01 [wendy]
- no
- 14:13:29 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=297 deprecated
- 14:13:48 [wendy]
- @@ - need to check that don't wrap label element wrapped, suggest label for
- 14:14:11 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=299
- 14:14:18 [wendy]
- ednote: here's some results. still open issue.
- 14:14:25 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=300
- 14:15:10 [wendy]
- need to say something in next draft, but probaly not completely worked technique
- 14:15:20 [wendy]
- ++ednote about testing of techniques happening in the future
- 14:15:30 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=490
- 14:15:51 [wendy]
- placeholder for scripting techniques - list of references
- 14:16:12 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=525
- 14:16:16 [Al]
- Al has joined #wai-wcag
- 14:16:22 [wendy]
- yes
- 14:16:32 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=575 wait
- 14:17:11 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=578 yes
- 14:17:24 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=579
- 14:17:31 [wendy]
- yes
- 14:17:52 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=580
- 14:18:08 [wendy]
- yes
- 14:18:16 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=652
- 14:18:31 [wendy]
- yes
- 14:18:59 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=653
- 14:19:00 [wendy]
- yes
- 14:19:08 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=654
- 14:19:54 [wendy]
- yes
- 14:19:59 [wendy]
- (at minimum an ednote)
- 14:20:06 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=655
- 14:20:22 [wendy]
- at least placeholder
- 14:20:29 [wendy]
- http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=656
- 14:20:40 [wendy]
- yes
- 14:46:00 [eaon]
- eaon has joined #wai-wcag
- 14:49:27 [wendy]
- back from break
- 14:49:37 [wendy]
- janina and katie describe voicexml issues
- 14:53:01 [wendy]
- likely find that vxml does not meet many requirements in wcag 2.0.
- 14:53:13 [wendy]
- primarily, b/c aimed at a particular kind of interaction.
- 14:53:56 [wendy]
- ivr - inter-active voice response
- 14:54:34 [wendy]
- vxml wg: wanted to create lang that could create set of applications could work if you change platforms
- 14:55:04 [wendy]
- platform-independence from vxml 1 and 2
- 14:56:00 [wendy]
- appendix h of vxml are accessibility guidelines, highlight the accessibility issues
- 14:56:43 [wendy]
- janina went through wcag and said "met, not met"
- 14:57:44 [wendy]
- 1.1
- 14:57:54 [wendy]
- 12 guidelines in vxml
- 15:00:47 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PR-voicexml20-20040203/#dmlAAccessibility
- 15:04:43 [wendy]
- (doesn't have allof the accessibility guidelines that were proposed)
- 15:05:04 [wendy]
- some of guidelines work for principle 2 overall but not specific to any guideline
- 15:11:13 [wendy]
- action: janina and katie - finish work on report of voicexml and wcag 2.0, look at next public draft success criteria. present report mid-april (before next WD) to WCAG WG.
- 15:11:43 [wendy]
- recommendation: recruit from deaf, hard-of-hearing, speech, and mobility communities
- 15:15:53 [wendy]
- ===
- 15:15:56 [wendy]
- test suite
- 15:20:31 [wendy]
- QA received feedback in CR (operational guidelines and spec guidelines)
- 15:21:00 [wendy]
- documents are complex and authoritarian
- 15:21:11 [wendy]
- at mtgs this week, decided to take step back.
- 15:21:22 [wendy]
- concluded "had gone too far" to make documents testable
- 15:21:52 [wendy]
- trying to cover all situations
- 15:22:44 [wendy]
- want to rewrite with more informal style that is less legalistic
- 15:23:38 [wendy]
- focus on characteristics of the result
- 15:24:06 [wendy]
- comes back to definition of testability
- 15:24:41 [wendy]
- testability depends on context
- 15:28:25 [dom]
- dom has joined #wai-wcag
- 15:28:32 [olivier]
- olivier has joined #wai-wcag
- 15:28:40 [lofton]
- lofton has joined #wai-wcag
- 15:29:00 [dom]
- http://esw.w3.org/topic/TestableOrNot
- 15:32:03 [wendy]
- some are machine-testable. Others require human judgment. Success criteria that require human testing yield consistent results among multiple testers.
- 15:32:16 [wendy]
- (latest wcag 2.0 draft: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20040301.html)
- 15:33:11 [wendy]
- context
- 15:36:00 [wendy]
- how make test cases from spec. more testable spec, easier to create tests.
- 15:36:12 [wendy]
- recommend testable assertions in the spec.
- 15:36:51 [wendy]
- can have a broad testable assertion and very specific test cases
- 15:37:34 [wendy]
- color contrast - do we need to be that specific in spec or could include specifics in test?
- 15:37:44 [wendy]
- in this situation...need this contrast....here is how you assess contrast.
- 15:38:13 [wendy]
- if you reach that degree of contrast, your readability will be x
- 15:38:23 [wendy]
- principle: have contrast between text and background
- 15:38:35 [wendy]
- question - how precise do you need to be in guidelines. need precise value?
- 15:38:48 [wendy]
- "enough contrast" too vague
- 15:39:06 [wendy]
- ave web author won't be able to use math algorithm to determine
- 15:39:10 [wendy]
- necessitates a tool
- 15:39:51 [wendy]
- qa came up with other methods to address: tools, templates. other ways to provide guidance.
- 15:40:09 [wendy]
- an assertion is testable if you can create test cases for it.
- 15:40:53 [wendy]
- how many of your test assertions have you created test cases for.
- 15:40:59 [wendy]
- how many can you create test cases for.
- 15:41:26 [olivier]
- (+ how much of your assertions are covered by your test cases)
- 15:42:09 [wendy]
- have to be able to arrive at "true" or "false" from test case (or test assertion?)
- 15:42:23 [olivier]
- wendy : case
- 15:42:31 [wendy]
- thx
- 15:44:14 [wendy]
- coverage: can do by inspection
- 15:44:20 [wendy]
- if fail test case, fail succcess criteria
- 15:44:30 [wendy]
- (however, if pass...could still fail criteria?)
- 15:44:57 [wendy]
- repeatability of results...think of precision and accuracy.
- 15:46:00 [wendy]
- testability, precision, accuracy
- 15:49:46 [wendy]
- thought process: have people create test suites and see differences in them to determien testability of success criteria
- 15:50:14 [wendy]
- level 1 criteria for 1.1:
- 15:50:38 [wendy]
- each of these corresponds to 'conformance requirements' in qa documents
- 15:50:39 [olivier]
- olivier has joined #wai-wcag
- 15:50:58 [wendy]
- it's a statement about a piece of wcag content that has a true/false answer
- 15:51:09 [wendy]
- 1.1 assertion 2: it's about as atomic as it coudl be
- 15:51:20 [wendy]
- from qa: atomic assertion that would lead to test case
- 15:52:13 [wendy]
- this assertion is represetned in different technologies
- 15:52:38 [wendy]
- in html, have about 10 technqiues that map to that assertion
- 15:52:52 [wendy]
- had a checklist item that was specific to techniques, but the t/f statement didn't fit well in techniqeus.
- 15:52:54 [wendy]
- fits in checklsits.
- 15:53:10 [wendy]
- need to create list of checklist items
- 15:53:31 [wendy]
- in the testing process, as groups develop test suites, either do they come up with same sets. are these technqieus sufficient?
- 15:53:35 [wendy]
- do groups come up with same tests?
- 15:54:13 [wendy]
- have 2 types of case: 1. something implementedin the technology (e.g., form elements must have a label)
- 15:54:44 [wendy]
- 2. quality of what is in the attribute - have techniques, but technqiues/ only way is inter-rater reliability
- 15:58:39 [wendy]
- techniques, informative: if you do this way, we're pretty sure your results will be accessible.
- 15:58:51 [wendy]
- if you don't, we have provided this framework to tset if this techiques qill be accessible.
- 15:58:54 [wendy]
- s/qill/will
- 15:59:41 [wendy]
- people donm't like processes, they like results. therefore, not suggesting make processes normative.
- 16:00:07 [wendy]
- guidelines for techniques producing
- 16:00:20 [wendy]
- needs to be separate from producing guidelines for producing content
- 16:00:29 [wendy]
- (brining up proposal from earlier today)
- 16:00:54 [wendy]
- create another normative document that says, here are the current wcag wg processes to create techniques)
- 16:00:59 [wendy]
- (proposal)
- 16:01:52 [wendy]
- don't put process for including new test cases, therefore don't put process for creating techniques
- 16:02:19 [wendy]
- only useful if have certification process.
- 16:05:02 [wendy]
- talking more along hte lines of an ISO process. if normative have to go on rec track. not worth the effort.
- 16:05:12 [wendy]
- (tom and michael still have action to make proposal)
- 16:06:39 [wendy]
- discussion of use cases. each time create new guideline, assess if you have addressed the given problems in one of the documents.
- 16:06:49 [wendy]
- i.e., find documents that are not accessible. write guidelines to addres sthose issues.
- 16:07:01 [wendy]
- go back to them from time to time to make sure what have addressed or not
- 16:07:12 [wendy]
- create criteria to detremine if something too costly to include
- 16:07:26 [wendy]
- un taxonomy of functional conditions.
- 16:07:44 [wendy]
- one useful taxonomy. testing do on paper via inspection
- 16:07:48 [wendy]
- use data, do the sweep
- 16:07:56 [wendy]
- e-ramp developed a set of personas
- 16:08:09 [wendy]
- useful to collect a reference list - bibliography - tha tpeople have created.
- 16:08:22 [wendy]
- industry canada used e-ramp work
- 16:08:38 [wendy]
- are they available online?
- 16:08:50 [wendy]
- multimodal interaction dadtabase of use cases
- 16:09:09 [wendy]
- theory: get that populate dwith use cases, so their design work is sensitive to diff usage patterns
- 16:09:13 [olivier]
- olivier has joined #wai-wcag
- 16:13:59 [wendy]
- define in CR exit criteria - what is good criteria
- 16:15:03 [wendy]
- need to find web site a and b that have characteristics that define in guidelines and claim to be accessible (or community claims that they are)
- 16:15:22 [wendy]
- if techniques are informative, don't need to prove they have been implemented.
- 16:16:15 [wendy]
- however, techniques demonstrate that can implement normative criteira
- 16:16:44 [wendy]
- document useful and usable
- 16:17:30 [wendy]
- potential exit criteria: if have technique for every gudieline, each technique has been used successfully to make content accessible. and it is usable. if give technique to author can apply it.
- 16:17:48 [wendy]
- (these are just suggestions...could be setting too high of a bar...too difficult)
- 16:18:04 [wendy]
- make cr exit criteria more concrete.
- 16:18:18 [wendy]
- to show that techniques are usable, make exit cretira: we can point to live web site that passes wcag 2.0
- 16:18:24 [wendy]
- and it uses this techniquee and is a viable web site
- 16:20:24 [wendy]
- test suite: series of tests and procedures that person can follow to evaluate their web site
- 16:21:09 [wendy]
- need to define process for how to evaluate content
- 16:21:18 [wendy]
- test case to evaluate content not tester
- 16:21:31 [olivier]
- olivier has joined #wai-wcag
- 16:22:07 [wendy]
- related to EOWG review teams
- 16:22:08 [wendy]
- ?
- 16:24:23 [wendy]
- gathering data related to voicexml tod etermine if should exclude from scope of guidelines or maybe just some guidelines.
- 16:24:53 [wendy]
- combinations of technologies and techniques
- 16:34:45 [wendolyn]
- wendolyn has joined #wai-wcag
- 16:35:13 [sh1mmer|cannes]
- sh1mmer|cannes has joined #wai-wcag
- 16:35:19 [wendolyn]
- RRSAgent, make log public-visible
- 16:35:36 [wendolyn]
- RRSAgent, make log world-access
- 16:35:42 [wendolyn]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 16:35:42 [RRSAgent]
- I see 9 open action items:
- 16:35:42 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: shawn and judy coord w/wcag every x meetings [1]
- 16:35:42 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/03/05-wai-wcag-irc#T08-51-56
- 16:35:42 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: shawn talk to judy about discussing WCAG 1.0 errata & revised version in EOWG [2]
- 16:35:42 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/03/05-wai-wcag-irc#T09-17-02
- 16:35:42 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: shawn take to wai site task force: 1. tasks about transition 1.0 to 2.0, 2. about user agent clause (from errata table "user agent support for accessibility") [3]
- 16:35:42 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/03/05-wai-wcag-irc#T09-23-30
- 16:35:42 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: andrew, allistair, eric?, (recruit others?) impact assessment, community discussion, and proposals for wcag 1.0 revised edition, present at 15 April WCAG WG telecon [4]
- 16:35:42 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/03/05-wai-wcag-irc#T11-15-50
- 16:35:42 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: tom and michael send a proposal to the mailing list contains: proposed statement, where in the doc it would appear, pros and cons (re: normative requirement for a process to evaluate techniques used) [5]
- 16:35:42 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/03/05-wai-wcag-irc#T13-14-49
- 16:35:42 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: wendy (and coerce john, andi, gregg, jason, and other austinites) to write impact assessment of conformance levels for discussion at f2f (send to list by 12 march) [6]
- 16:35:42 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/03/05-wai-wcag-irc#T13-34-14
- 16:35:42 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: wendy propose [7]
- 16:35:42 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/03/05-wai-wcag-irc#T13-58-38
- 16:35:42 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: wendy ping martin on language [8]
- 16:35:42 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/03/05-wai-wcag-irc#T14-06-46
- 16:35:42 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: janina and katie - finish work on report of voicexml and wcag 2.0, look at next public draft success criteria. present report mid-april (before next WD) to WCAG WG. [9]
- 16:35:42 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/03/05-wai-wcag-irc#T15-11-13