W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > February 2008

[minutes] [for tracking purposes] F2F mobileOK Pro - day 1 - 5 February 2008

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 14:34:22 +0100
Message-ID: <47AC5A5E.5090202@w3.org>
To: public-bpwg@w3.org

Sorry for the noise, Phil already sent the links, this is more meant for 
'bots' than for human beings...

The minutes of the mobileOK Pro F2F, day 1:
http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-bpwg-minutes.html
... and the text version below.

François.


05 Feb 2008

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Feb/0008.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-bpwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           KaiS, AdamC, AlanC, PaulW, PhilA, DanA, Jo, DaveR

    Regrets
    Chair
           Kai

    Scribe
           PhilA, Dan

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Deliverables
          2. [6][auto-refresh]
          3. [7][AVOID_FREE_TEXT]
          4. [8][BACKGROUND_IMAGE_READABILITY]
          5. [9][BALANCE]
          6. [10][CAPABILITIES]
          7. [11][CENTRAL_MEANING]
          8. [12][CLARITY]
          9. [13][COLOR_CONTRAST]
         10. [14][CONTENT_FORMAT_PREFERRED]
         11. [15][CONTROL_LABELLING]
         12. [16][CONTROL_POSITION]
         13. [17][COOKIES]
         14. [18][DEFICIENCIES]
      * [19]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    Paul: I have to step out in 20 minutes or so

    Kai: Does anyone have anything more to add to the agenda?
    ... I think we'll take the BPs and bang out tests that are not
    covered

    DKA: I agree
    ... Let's get the draft ready rather than worry about some of the
    process issues at this stage
    ... we may find obstcles on the way

    Kai: In terms of expectation management - the results of the tests
    will not be 100% objective
    ... We can bracket the tests to help different evaluators to come up
    with differing answers
    ... Some answers will be subjective - is this OK?

    Paul: A conformance company can't afford to assert conformance if
    they're not deterministic
    ... To a degree, every test is ambiguous, but it needs to be very
    limited

    Kai: Take no. links on a page - it depends what the page is for. A
    sitemap is nothing but links

    Paul: There may be some but not that many

    Adam: How are these things to be asserted?
    ... is it self-certification? External?

    Paul: That's a different discussion. A content provider may make the
    claim themselves or they may want to farm it out to rubber stamp
    them...

    Adam: The amibiguity depends how the tests are being carried out

    Paul: It might become a legal requirement to be mobileOK due to the
    accessibility issue

    Adam: So we need a rule of thumb to decide whether tests are going
    to be carried out by the CP or an independent

    Paul: I think... "It is not necessary to seek independent
    verification for any type of assertion" - it's up to a CP to decide
    whether they want such independent verification

    Kai: A well known company's claim might be believed, but it may want
    to seek third party verification - it changes from a claim to
    trustmark in that situation.

    Paul: I'm hoping we can avoid getting bogged down in these issues
    ... How we make the assertion, POWDER or otherwise, and so on -
    that's not for now

    Kai: I want to talk about bracketing. We created the DDC - we can
    also set certain values that bracket the tests. This gives us
    something that can be worked on
    ... Unless we put down the brackets, we'll have too subjective a
    test

    Paul: We have machine testable, we have deterministic human tests,
    then we have the ones that are too ambiguous to ever come up with an
    agreement, but there are others that specialists could make a
    judgement call upon

    Kai: I would suggest that we move on and not turn in circles
    ... So let's address the issues the group has presented

    Note message from Jo:
    [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Feb/0004.htm
    l

      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Feb/0004.html

    Kai: Goes through the e-mail from Jo, who is now present
    ... Jo - your view is that we shouldn't be doing this?

    Jo: No - I am not sure that NOW is the time to do it and I'm not
    sure that you, Kai, have time to do it

    Kai: We're focussing on the tests today and tomorrow. We want to be
    done with it as quickly as we can

    Jo: You're asked to come back to the Group as a whole with a charter
    ... that means deciding to create a doc by the end of the year
    ... so there are questions to answer other than come up with tests

    Kai: I don't think it's up to us to determine the public interest in
    MOK

    Jo: But you're asking the group to support this
    ... The questions are meant to be hard, but not unhelpful
    ... the WG doesn't want to annoy everyone and doesn't want the TF to
    spend time on something it can't support
    ... there are serious doubts that it is achievable

    Paul: It's not 'them and us'
    ... it seems a watse of time to write a charter when the people in
    the room are willing to do the job
    ... I thought the only argument against it was the use of the WG's
    time

    Kai: We have to take the concerns seriously

    Paul: Can't we just write the spec and get it done
    ... it's a case of documenting the test cases

    Alan: How much feedback was there on the Basic tests?

    Jo: On the one hand there were quite a few, on the other there were
    not enough
    ... The worst thing that can happen is that you don't get any
    comments

    Alan: in WCAG 2 the time has been taken up by handling all the
    comments

    Jo: If you don't get any commetns that means no one has read it.
    Lost of comments means lots of works

    Alan: And what has been the feedback and/or implementation

    Jo: It's been largely internal - me, Sean, CTIC etc. We're
    criticising our own work a lot of the time
    ... We've had 3 Last Calls on it - so an extreme lavel of detail
    ... it took 18 months so you could argue that each test takes 2
    weeks

    Alan: What about the label?

    Jo: I've tried not to drag that into the discussion. We have a logo
    that will be shown next week at mobile world
    ... We havn't done the labelling side
    ... we're unclear what the labelling paradigm will be

    Kai: Does the WG have any +ve proof that what we're doing that what
    we're doing is undesirable?

    Jo: I don't think we know
    ... People are using the Basic Checker and we're getting bug reports
    ... What's less encouraging is the crawls of various TLDs and there
    are very few mOK Basic sites

    Kai: I think the achivability is there given the people around the
    room

    Jo: Then I think the point to make is that neither Sean nor I think
    it is achivable

    Kai: Desirability - that's hard to judge

    Jo: I have no view about its desirability

    Kai: I think most people think it's desirable
    ... I remember at FT Boston there seemed to be support

    Jo: Minds can change

    Kai: Utility to the community at large? This TF thinks its quite
    large. mOK makes no sense without mOK Pro - it's not complete
    without it
    ... But that's an opinion at the table. The same could be said for
    the BPWG in the first place?
    ... Does that naswer the concerns, even though it may not be
    satisfactory?

    Jo: It's not my call, it's the group's call
    ... The TF can't decide to do something off its own bat - it need
    agreement from the WG as a whole

    Alan: The time available is?

    Jo: If the TF is going to produce a Rec or a Note? If Rec Track it
    needs to be in CR around October
    ... If the process is not complete by the end of the BPWG charter
    (Dec 08) then it looks bad.

    Alan: I assume that these tests will be more complex and more
    controversial than machine tests
    ... My enthusiasm is waning

    Jo: I suggest you come up with a timetable to suggest

    <Kai> ACTION: Kai to put together a reasonble time table for
    completion of mobileOK Pro by the end of BPWG [recorded in
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-636 - Put together a reasonble time
    table for completion of mobileOK Pro by the end of BPWG [on Kai
    Scheppe - due 2008-02-12].

    Kai: Point 2 in Jo's mail - the lack of compliance with mOK Basic
    ... Basic is a pre-requisite for Pro. We have no implementation
    experience of the easy bit before we start on the hard bit
    ... It's half the battle. We don't have any experience - but that
    doesn't invalidate the existence of Basic

    Jo: repeats his argument

    <Kai> Phil: I very much disagree with your point

    <Kai> Jo: Ideally one would wait

    <Kai> Phil: that is what I disagree with

    <Kai> ...until the full picture is there, a complete system with all
    the bits and pieces, then it makes sense. It has no legs

    DKA: Can I suggest that we focus on the content? We're here to get
    the tests done, so let's get on with it
    ... I'm actually neutral on whether we do this or not. We're talking
    in the abstract - we need something concrete to work om

    Kai: But we have these concerns to answer

    Jo: And the WG has asked for the charter to be elaborated upon

    DKA: We can't spend to days on the charter

    Jo: Yes, but the charter as drafted has not been aceepted

    Kai: It was modelled on the CT TF

    Jo: It needs to clarify what the deliverables are?

    Kai: A timetable
    ... Deliverables and scope will be determiend today

    Jo: I believe that will be fine

    Kai: Point 3 - consumer pull

    Jo: I think we've covreed that

    Kai: Deterministic tests?
    ... I think this is covered by bracketing - assigining value ranges
    to subjective tests

    Jo: There are things in WCAG 1 that have been dropped because they
    are not subject to repeatable tests

    Kai: Yes, we're in dangerous territory
    ... Do we think that the subjectivity of these tests, with
    bracketing, makes them unworkable

    Dave: It's an issue

    Alan: I don't think we have to test 100% of the BPs - just go
    further than Basic

    Kai: We have a variety of tools available - the question being asked
    is still valuable

    Dave: I think we might have to introduce a warn

    Kai: But the consensus is that there will be tests that we cannot
    apply because they are intrinsically not repeatable

    Jo: I suggest you take note of Alan's points about WCAG 1 tests
    being dropped for non-repeatability

    <achuter> ACTION: Alan to check on which WCAG 1.0 checkpoints were
    dropped in 2.0 due to untestability. [recorded in
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot-ng> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) -
    Alan

    <trackbot-ng> Try using a different identifier, such as family name
    or username (eg. achuter, atai)

    Kai: Point 5 - we've covered

    <achuter> ACTION: achuter to check on which WCAG 1.0 checkpoints
    were dropped in 2.0 due to untestability. [recorded in
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-637 - Check on which WCAG 1.0
    checkpoints were dropped in 2.0 due to untestability. [on Alan
    Chuter - due 2008-02-12].

    Dom says that the implication is that testing should be carried out
    on the DDC - but is that clear?

    Jo: That would be my expectation

    Kai: It seems to me that the BPs we're talking about are the way
    content is presented so that's outside the DDC?

    Jo: Either you're going to test all possible experiences or you're
    going to limit to a single environment

    Kai: I think the tests are expected to work on any device, including
    the DDC

    Jo: But you need to be clear that you're testing the mobile
    experience, not the desktop, for example
    ... Imagine a site has 3 completely separate representations -
    Basic, iPhone and desktop
    ... you need to specify which you're testing or you test them all

    Kai: I think we're testing a mobile environment

    Jo: Basic only covers the DDC
    ... So if I have those 3 representations, can I calim mOK Pro for
    all three?

    <Kai> ISSUE: Does the TF need to create device which emulates the
    DDC for testing?

    Issue surrounding testing environment. Since DDC doesn't exist, how
    can a human carry out tests using it

    Jo offers [24]http://rabin.mobi/dmplbit

      [24] http://rabin.mobi/dmplbit

    <Kai> ACTION: Kai to raise an issue on ISSUE: Does the TF need to
    create device which emulates the DDC for testing? [recorded in
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-638 - Raise an issue on ISSUE: Does the
    TF need to create device which emulates the DDC for testing? [on Kai
    Scheppe - due 2008-02-12].

    <Kai2> ACTION: Kai to create a more elaborate charter with times,
    deliverables [recorded in
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-639 - Create a more elaborate charter
    with times, deliverables [on Kai Scheppe - due 2008-02-12].

    PhilA: Is there a Test Suite for Basic?

    Jo: Yes - part of the checker

    <achuter> scribenick achuter

    <achuter> scribenick: achuter

Deliverables

    Kai: At least we know that we can follow the model of the MOK Basic
    tests.

    Jo: It contains the subset of aspects that are machine-testable.

    Kai: So we're extending MOK basic.
    ... We need to go through all the BPs in Basic and add what's
    missing.

    [On screen all see thre format agreed in Boston meeting]

    Jo: Basic used a kind of pseudocode if-then pass/warn/fail.

    Kai: We can modify that.
    ... It's not so easy because we are going to bracket some aspects.

    Phil: We should give examples if we can.

    Kai: Test questions, then yes or no.

    Jo: In Basic we provided [IDs] for the fail or warns so tools can
    link to them.
    ... If you aggregate results this is not possible.
    ... You can decide if a test is failed because because one fail
    fails the whole test.

    Phile: Testing is only for failures.

    Jo: Checker shouldn't stop.
    ... ... on fail.

    Phil: We should test for fail. Just extend the Basic tests.

    <PhilA> RESOLUTION: A deliverable will be the mobileOK Pro tests
    document

    Phil: We should provide test suite.
    ... I am prepared to do it if necessary.
    ... These are individual pages linked from an [index] page.

    Kai: Do we all agree it is necessary?

    Adam: For some it would not be necessary.

    Kai: Perhaps they should only be for tests that are otherwise
    ambiguous.
    ... There's a danger that it could be interpreted as limiting the
    applicability of the tests.
    ... Have reservations about test cases.

    Dan: This looks like it could be more than the task force can
    handle.
    ... We should just facilitate creation of these test cases by the
    community.
    ... Do we want to limit the interpretations?

    Phil: Yes, we do, for example, to mobile context.
    ... A test suite would make it easier to write the tests.

    Kai: It would be better not to include test suite in deliverables,
    but allow others to do so.

    <PhilA> ACTION: Phil to draft test suite document to complement Test
    Document - such a draft may or may not be completed depending on its
    usefulness in the Test Document creation process [recorded in
    [27]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-640 - Draft test suite document to
    complement Test Document - such a draft may or may not be completed
    depending on its usefulness in the Test Document creation process
    [on Phil Archer - due 2008-02-12].

    RESOLUTION: Pro document scope is all tests not covered by MOK
    Basic, against the default delivery context (DDC).

    Phil: We need an implementation of the DDC for the human tester to
    use.

    Jo: I did an implementation of the DDC, which the TF can use.

    [discuss whether emulator should be a deliverable]

    Dave: We have some people who could do it.

    RESOLUTION: Jo will donate emulator code, to be tweaked by TF and
    become a deliverable.

    <Kai2> ACTION: Dave to ask Paul if Segala can tweak Jo's emulator
    [recorded in
    [28]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-641 - Ask Paul if Segala can tweak Jo's
    emulator [on Dave Roberts - due 2008-02-12].

    <Kai2> CLOSE ACTION-641

    <trackbot-ng> ACTION-641 Ask Paul if Segala can tweak Jo's emulator
    closed

    <Kai2> ACTION: Rooks to ask Paul if Segala can tweak Jo's emulator
    [recorded in
    [29]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-bpwg-minutes.html#action08]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-642 - Ask Paul if Segala can tweak Jo's
    emulator [on David Rooks - due 2008-02-12].

    Kai: We need to avoid [scope creep].

    Jo: [about template] Problem description would repeat the BP.
    ... Is a prescriptive document, not explanatory or tutorial.

    Kai: We shouldn't quote or adapt the description of the BP. Danger
    of confilcting version.

    Alan: Danger that document will be unreadable, as it links to at
    least two others.

    Kai: This is a web document, we need to use hyperlinks rather than
    duplicating content.

    Alan: Users can adapt the content and merge it if they want to.

    Kai: Should we go on to evaulate Pro if Basic is failed.
    ... Passing basic test is a prerequisite.

    Jo: Don't have to run basic first.

    Dave: Have to pass basic test first.

    Jo: It's unlikely that people will do pro without running basic
    first.
    ... We need to reward not to punish.
    ... Should provide helpful results.
    ... Structure should be as granular as possible, provide most
    helpful feedback possible.

    Kai: Should parameterise the tests.
    ... To make them less subjective.

    [30]http://www.wabcluster.org/uwem/tests/#guideline-1

      [30] http://www.wabcluster.org/uwem/tests/#guideline-1

    Alan: Would like to see XPath expressions of applicability criteria.

    Kai: Yes, but can do that later.

    Jo: Better no to be so precise at this stage.
    ... Warn should not be on cannot be determined, only on dodgy
    content.

    Kai: Test is passed unless there is an explicity fail. Warn for
    things that author needs to look at.

    Phil: Should avoid warnings, and aim to have none by completion.

    <Kai2> ACTION: Kai to post the test format to the list [recorded in
    [31]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-bpwg-minutes.html#action09]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-643 - Post the test format to the list
    [on Kai Scheppe - due 2008-02-12].

    Dave: Where we find machine-testable things we should provide
    feedback to checker group.

    Alan: We must avoid adding new requirements not in the BPs.

    <DKA> scribenick: DKA

    <scribe> scribe: Dan

    Yo-ho

    Kai: we left off with access key test. We provided a format: a link
    to the best practice, a statement , a link to bp, pseudocode
    (optional) and pass/fail/warn criteria.
    ... First thing we noticed in accesskey is that in the BP we didn't
    see any list of access keys.
    ... [taking through earlier attept of test written in an earlier
    document]

    Adam: re-word that to say "usage of access keys should be consistent
    across the site".

    Phil: explaining how decoration consistent with access key
    annotation doesn't necesarily mean link decoration.
    ... ...should include 2 examples of how to do it and 1 of how not to
    do it.

    Kai: Should we write the examples in here? If so should they be
    prose, pictures?

    Dave: I think it should be prose.

    +1

    Phil: I like the idea of examples. Especially in this soft area of
    human tests. If we can think of examples of what we mean other
    people will better be able to understand...

    Kai: [adds examples section to template]

    [contuing to edit access keys test]

    Kai, Phil: [discussion of numeric vs. alpha access keys and whether
    we should strongly encourage numeric ones]

    Dan: We shouldn't try to refine the BP -- this might get into that
    territory -- we should just note the ambiguity.

    Paul: I think it's reasonable to do some clarification.

    Kai: I'd like to pound these out and note the open points.
    ... [agreeing with Dan]
    ... Should access keys be numeric? Should we take a stand here?

    Dave: No

    Dan: No

    Paul: We should mark it as something we might want to come back to.

    Kai: Yes.

    Paul: If it's a slightly ambiguous assertion then we could give an
    example, as specialists, of what that might mean.

    <PhilA> PROPOSED EXAMPLE: Hyperlinks may be easily decorated with
    access keys by presenting them in an ordered list where the access
    code is equivalent to the list position (and is usually numeric).

    Phil: I think producing an example helps to define the test.
    ... [pastes example]
    ... by putting it in brackets it becomes a should not a must, but
    strongly recommends a certain approach.

    Kai: should we paste it in?

    +1

    <Paul> +1

    Kai: What are we writing here? It doesn't fit into our format. Is it
    pseudocode?

    Phil: [suggests some pseudo-code]

    Dave: Suggest we don't do it right now.

    Adam: Is it a given it should be pseudo-code? Because the way it is
    now appears clearer to me than the pseudocode [as used in MOK Basic
    document]

    Kai: If we use pseudocode then we know what results in
    pass/fail/warn.

    Dan: suggests we note the tests now and decide on whether it's to be
    worded in pseudocode later. Prose may be more appropriate for
    human-verifiable tests.

    Dave: our first question should be: are there any access keys
    defined?

    Alan: First question should be: are there any items on the page for
    which accesskeys are appriate?

    Kai: Agree.
    ... We need to guide people towards correct usage.

    Alan: It's not only links, it's form controls as well.

    Kai: so "are there elements that require access keys"?

    [discussion on wording of tests for access keys]

    Kai: Any other discussion on access keys?

    Dave: What about multiple access keys with same value on the same
    page?

    <PhilA> ACTION: me to test assumption that access key assignments
    must be unique in a given HTML instance [recorded in
    [32]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-bpwg-minutes.html#action10]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-644 - Test assumption that access key
    assignments must be unique in a given HTML instance [on Marcos
    Eguillor Fernandez - due 2008-02-12].

    Kai: that's it for access keys.

    <PhilA> close action 644

[auto-refresh]

    s/[auto-referesh]/[AUTO_REFRESH]/

    Kai: a human test is noted in the best practice.
    ... Can we think of any limitations to this test?

    [documenting difference to MobileOK Basic test]

    [waiting for microsoft word to respond to a paste command]

    [going over the already written test in previous draft version]

    Kai: [getting on to writing pseudo-code for this test]

    Adam: Finding the structure of the sentences confusing.

    Dan: it should be "if not, [fail]" instead of "[fail]"

    Kai: [implements]

    Dan: I have added value here today.

[AVOID_FREE_TEXT]

    Dan: Because it's an "avoid" does that mean we can't "fail"?

    Kai: One example would be zip codes. You can encode it as a list of
    zip codes, but this doesn't make sense any more because there are
    too many to put in a drop-down.
    ... Should we codify that?

    Dave: This isn't just about lists though -- it's also about things
    like firstname, surname which migth be populated automatically.

    Kai: In particular intsnaces, where info about the user is know you
    could require that but this would be a small number of cases.

    Phil: this would be an easy way to determine if they've passed (if
    they have default text).

    Kai: If they don't have default text then you need to look at why
    they don't - which can be subjective.
    ... My example was about a numerical line [for lists
    ... ] where if you are under that, you fail if you don't use a menu
    instead of a free text.

    [formulating that into a test]

    [discussion on when you can have legit free text entry vs. should
    have a picklist]

    <PhilA> Suggestion that if there is a finite number of possible
    values for a text input and if that number is <= 20 then a pick list
    is reasonable

    <PhilA> Ended up with suggesting a limit of x selection box options
    and y radio buttons/check boxes

    <PhilA> Also noting the option to pre-fill forms with data alraedy
    known to website

    <PhilA> Examples noted: selecting Zip codes in a limited
    geographical area

    <PhilA> Offering predetermined values and an 'other' option with
    free text field

[BACKGROUND_IMAGE_READABILITY]

    <PhilA> Is there a test for colour contrast?

    <PhilA> Alan: Yes - from WCAG

    <PhilA> Paul: It's very harsh

    <PhilA> Kai: Do we need to specifically talk about colour blindness?

    <PhilA> Paul: I don't think we should deal with the issue of
    disabled users

    <PhilA> Kai: SO the human test just says "test the readability"

    <PhilA> Kai: The most common case is a flowery background and a
    fancy-coloured font

    <PhilA> Kai: We could just say "it must be readable" and then link
    to WCAG for those points

    <PhilA> PhilA: We should also refer to lighting conditions,
    especially outdoor lighting

    <PhilA> Checking - DDC does appear to support background images
    since it's in CSS level 1

    <PhilA> Adam: I think this is a case where an example would be
    useful

    <PhilA> ... we shouldn't squeeze objectivity in too far

    <PhilA> Kai: Yes, but we should provide brackets

    <PhilA> Add in some examples - maybe a floral background with a
    yellow font

    <scribe> scribenick: DKA

    <scribe> scribe: Dan

[BALANCE]

    Kai: 20 links, warn; 30 links fail

    Phil: Site maps have lots of links, home pages have lots of links...

    Kai: Not home pages on the mobile side.

    Adam: These numbers are going to be arbitrary... Do we need some
    explanatory text?

    [discussion on tests]

    Phil: "For general content" there should be no more than 30 links
    per page.

    DKA: We need to consider this in the context of a device where one
    press down on the rocker-switch means moving from one link to the
    next link (rather than thinking about more advanced devices).

[CAPABILITIES]

    Kai: This point is about not using the DDC.

    Alan: You can't test on every last device...

    Kai: This is a big can of worms. Every signal device has some
    limitations. You can't exploit the capabilities of every device
    fully.

    Phil: You could test if you get something different on a higher-spec
    device than in the DDC. SO test it on the emulator, and test it on
    the N-70 and test if it's different.

    Adam: Don't think that does it because it's about user experience.

    Kai: [writes out test for Capabilities - not meaningfully testable]

    Dan: I think we should try to do more here - and particularly focus
    on scripting, for example for form input controls.

    [discussion on the merits of javascript]

    Kai: basic functionality of the page should be usable without
    scripting.

    Dan: Split this up into a few capability areas: scripting one of
    them...
    ... We need to take into account a more subjective evaluation of the
    content and whether it has effectively adapted to advanced
    capabilities of the device. For example, does it use scripting to
    provide a nice UI on the N95 - does it fill the screen and detect
    orientation-change on the iPhone? These are subjective measures but
    important and should be taken int account.

    Kai: [writes a pseudo-code statement to cover this and writes a few
    examples]

    +1

[CENTRAL_MEANING]

[CLARITY]

    Phil: You can do deterministic tests on clarity but they don't take
    into account the audience.

    Kai: if you bother the user with extra stuff they didn't ask for
    then you fail this best practice

    [discussion on what constitutes clarity]

    Kai: easiest part to deal with is [limited]...

    Phil: if you ask for a time of a show - you get some specific
    information back - curtain up time, etc...

    [working out tests]

    Dan: should we consider evaluating the content by N human readers
    each of which could give a score?

    Phil: We could use the "FOG" index which can be calculated by
    machines.
    ... Mumbles something about algorithms...

    <PhilA> I was mumbling about a Fog Index:
    [33]http://process.umn.edu/groups/ppd/documents/information/writing_
    tips.cfm

      [33] 
http://process.umn.edu/groups/ppd/documents/information/writing_tips.cfm

    <PhilA> Alan notes that this applies to English

    [discussion on cultural differences to clarity of language]

    Dan: Suggest we drop this one.

    Dave: +1

    Paul: +1 it was dropped from WCAG

    [some continued discussion on the wording of the potential
    pseudo-code]

    Paul: I don't think it should be a pass or a fail.

    Kai: Could be a warn.

    [re-writes test accordingly]

[COLOR_CONTRAST]

    Paul: there are specific success criteria for this in WCAG. We could
    use the same or similar. Then we could use the same or modified
    tools.

    Kai: should we make use of this tool?

    Alan: The tool hasn't been produced by W3C - the algorithm has been
    produced by W3C.

    <Kai>
    [34]http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/Overview.html
    #G18

      [34] 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/Overview.html#G18

    Kai: Current test (5 to 1 contrast) is based on the WCAG technique.

    Dan: Is it the right WCAG version?

    Kai: yes.

    <Kai>
    [35]http://juicystudio.com/services/luminositycontrastratio.php

      [35] http://juicystudio.com/services/luminositycontrastratio.php

    <adam> ScribeNick: adam

    <PhilA> scribeNick: ADam

    [references WCAG luminosity test]

[CONTENT_FORMAT_PREFERRED]

    Phil: This is machine testable test but not in basic.
    ... We will define human test that could be feasibly automated.

    Paul: Concerned that DDC doesn't appear to support png.

    Kai: Should be consider devices that support other formats?

    Phil: No.

    [ some confusion between PREFERRED and SUPPORT ]

    Phil: The Content Format Preferred BP says that content should be
    sent in preferred format "where possible".

    [ discussion on how to formulate this into a test ]

[CONTROL_LABELLING]

[CONTROL_POSITION]

    Kai: Current wording is too prescriptive, can envision cases where
    you would want to do something different.

    [ Group support to reword the test to capture the need for labels to
    be positioned appropriately to the form elements without actually
    specifying their relative positions. ]

    Phil: Do we need to explicitly forbid positioning using absolute css
    positioning which wouldn't be supported by the DDC?

    Kai: Feels wrong.
    ... Added this point to the test requirements, and explicitly
    explained it in test limitations.

[COOKIES]

[DEFICIENCIES]

    <PhilA> This is a difficult one. Meeting adjourned to the
    Porterhouse

    <PhilA> Tune in tomorrow

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: achuter to check on which WCAG 1.0 checkpoints were
    dropped in 2.0 due to untestability. [recorded in
    [36]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: Alan to check on which WCAG 1.0 checkpoints were
    dropped in 2.0 due to untestability. [recorded in
    [37]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: Dave to ask Paul if Segala can tweak Jo's emulator
    [recorded in
    [38]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]
    [NEW] ACTION: Kai to create a more elaborate charter with times,
    deliverables [recorded in
    [39]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
    [NEW] ACTION: Kai to post the test format to the list [recorded in
    [40]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-bpwg-minutes.html#action09]
    [NEW] ACTION: Kai to put together a reasonble time table for
    completion of mobileOK Pro by the end of BPWG [recorded in
    [41]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: Kai to raise an issue on ISSUE: Does the TF need to
    create device which emulates the DDC for testing? [recorded in
    [42]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: me to test assumption that access key assignments must
    be unique in a given HTML instance [recorded in
    [43]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-bpwg-minutes.html#action10]
    [NEW] ACTION: Phil to draft test suite document to complement Test
    Document - such a draft may or may not be completed depending on its
    usefulness in the Test Document creation process [recorded in
    [44]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
    [NEW] ACTION: Rooks to ask Paul if Segala can tweak Jo's emulator
    [recorded in
    [45]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-bpwg-minutes.html#action08]

    [End of minutes]
      _________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [46]scribe.perl version 1.133
     ([47]CVS log)
     $Date: 2008/02/08 13:26:24 $

      [46] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [47] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Friday, 8 February 2008 13:34:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:57 UTC