(2004.04.22 16:44:32) Topic for #wai-wcag+1 617.761.6200 passcode 9224 ("WCAG") wendy (2004.04.22 16:45:01): if you have a site aimed at helping dyslexics at school audience will be different than a medical site. wendy (2004.04.22 16:45:39): is "clear and simple" testable in that example. no. * (2004.04.22 16:46:05): MattSEA q+ wendy (2004.04.22 16:46:22): are we allowing for people to have different sets of requirements? (depending on audience, requirements, goals, etc.) wendy (2004.04.22 16:46:34): not testable in a way that we can clarify in wcag wendy (2004.04.22 16:46:37): ack michael wendy (2004.04.22 16:47:25): we could test teh guidelines and see how reliable the results are. help us determine if we are correct in our belief that these are reliably testable. wendy (2004.04.22 16:48:31): yes there is implementation testing phase (CR) but would not have the formality of data that michael describes. wendy (2004.04.22 16:49:49): q+ to say, "would like to hear more about michael's proposal" wendy (2004.04.22 16:49:54): ack matt wendy (2004.04.22 16:50:12): when it comes to human communication, absolute is not an option. wendy (2004.04.22 16:50:29): there are no broadly applicable rules wendy (2004.04.22 16:50:51): not knocking the needs of people with cognitive disabilities, but that people with 180 iqs can talk past each other. wendy (2004.04.22 16:51:13): we can not (via the web) determine when we have lost a user (i.e., they are not understanding us) wendy (2004.04.22 16:51:28): do not think we will ever be able to test any bit of human communication wendy (2004.04.22 16:51:34): gian - but we still want people to try wendy (2004.04.22 16:51:50): matt sure. but we can't put it in a normative document wendy (2004.04.22 16:52:25): ack wendy wendy (2004.04.22 16:53:29): would like to see for each guideline that is not automatically testable, see a test made (sample web pages), have reviewers review against criteria (stats? not sure how many reviewers need) wendy (2004.04.22 16:53:40): could be done scientifically by usability expert. wendy (2004.04.22 16:54:40): people should send example sites to the list, WG could review and determine which cause problems or not. wendy (2004.04.22 16:54:53): however, want to ensure reliability to results and formality would help. MichaelC (2004.04.22 16:56:50): I have to go now. I hit the wrong button and posted my thoughts on the layout table discussion early. If we get to that in the agenda, my thoughts are up there in the IRC log. wendy (2004.04.22 16:56:58): action: gian, michael, doyle once we have a process for reviewing, do reviews. * (2004.04.22 16:57:00): RRSAgent records action 6 irc (2004.04.22 16:57:01): MichaelC has left wai-wcag wendy (2004.04.22 16:57:15): action: wendy and jenae work out process for testing guidelines against real sites. * (2004.04.22 16:57:17): RRSAgent records action 7 wendy (2004.04.22 16:57:53): ack paul wendy (2004.04.22 16:58:21): there are tools/tests (fog, etc.). we could say in one sense it is not testable, in another it is. MattSEA (2004.04.22 16:58:25): q+ wendy (2004.04.22 16:58:59): do we decide, it's not testable and get rid of it OR kind of testable and keep? wendy (2004.04.22 16:59:01): ack matt wendy (2004.04.22 16:59:13): fog - testable, but not proven to be beneficial. wendy (2004.04.22 16:59:37): if run fog on medical, accounting, etc. type of site, just by shrinking syllables is not sufficient., wendy (2004.04.22 16:59:42): must look at the words you are using. DoyleB (2004.04.22 16:59:45): hand up wendy (2004.04.22 17:00:20): it is people's difficulty to communicate. numbers can not dictate what "understandable" is. it changes from person to person. wendy (2004.04.22 17:00:45): in determining if we keep, we either drop it as a success criteria or say "on some level testable" and keep or drop testability wendy (2004.04.22 17:01:31): ack gian wendy (2004.04.22 17:01:45): propose drop requirement for testability. wendy (2004.04.22 17:02:34): we can't really say, "you should comply to test x" wendy (2004.04.22 17:02:57): instead, "make it aimed at your audience." then it is up to the site owner to define what they want to comply with. wendy (2004.04.22 17:03:10): ack doyle wendy (2004.04.22 17:03:32): we can't force developers to write for anyone other than whom they presume who their audience is wendy (2004.04.22 17:03:51): if we do write something, then we need to say that authors know their audience. sh1mmer (2004.04.22 17:04:20): q+ wendy (2004.04.22 17:04:46): does that mean a graphics site does not need to provide text b/c don't expect person who is blind to visit? GVAN (2004.04.22 17:04:49): Q+ MattSEA (2004.04.22 17:04:52): q+ wendy (2004.04.22 17:04:59): don't expect someone on medical site to use non-medical words. e.g., drug names. MattSEA (2004.04.22 17:05:02): q+ to say perceivable is perceivable wendy (2004.04.22 17:05:05): if person doesn't understand, not the author's fault wendy (2004.04.22 17:05:28): graphics sites, that's a different issue. it's similar in that we derive visual info in a way that needs to be perceived in a different way. apples and oranges. wendy (2004.04.22 17:05:29): ack loretta wendy (2004.04.22 17:05:50): if we let go of making things testable, crashes into our goal of guidelines that are usable in legislation. wendy (2004.04.22 17:06:05): we could go back and decide which is more important, but tied together. wendy (2004.04.22 17:06:08): ack sailesh wendy (2004.04.22 17:06:16): requirement for testability is important. should not drop. wendy (2004.04.22 17:06:32): for clear and simple: could say level 1 and 2 are testable. level 3 are best practices. wendy (2004.04.22 17:06:48): ack tom wendy (2004.04.22 17:07:36): language is unique in that the ability to comprehend complex language, indicates that someone might have trouble interpreting other parts of the site. wendy (2004.04.22 17:08:03): it's important that if there is a distinction, we need guidance. we can't ignore language, but it may need to be treated differently. wendy (2004.04.22 17:08:26): it's unreasonable for a site to dumb-down language if the concepts are beyond the understanding of some readers. wendy (2004.04.22 17:08:34): ack gvan wendy (2004.04.22 17:08:49): using plain language is currently at level 3. wendy (2004.04.22 17:08:58): have not talked about "dumbing things down." irc (2004.04.22 17:08:58): silvia has left wai-wcag wendy (2004.04.22 17:09:14): we do have a provision for things that are not testable (in the gateway) wendy (2004.04.22 17:09:25): if they are not testable, should not be in guidelines wendy (2004.04.22 17:09:38): gian - that's what afraid of. won't be in guideline. wendy (2004.04.22 17:09:40): ack matt wendy (2004.04.22 17:09:56): should image sites say people who are blind are not in target audience? wendy (2004.04.22 17:10:03): perceivable is own category wendy (2004.04.22 17:10:34): gvan concern that people say "people with disabilities are not in the target audience" wendy (2004.04.22 17:10:48): ack gian wendy (2004.04.22 17:12:05): concern that everything related to cog disabilities relegated to level 3 wendy (2004.04.22 17:12:09): ack jason wendy (2004.04.22 17:12:42): if a success criterion is not reliably testable then it is not possible for anyone to detremine reliably if they have met it and thus should not be part of conformance scheme. wendy (2004.04.22 17:14:01): we have to distinguish between testable requirements to determine conformance and [case 1] wendy (2004.04.22 17:14:52): case 1 = providing best advice possible irrespective if testable or not wendy (2004.04.22 17:15:02): ack gian wendy (2004.04.22 17:16:13): we need to allow for human judgement sh1mmer (2004.04.22 17:17:26): q+ sh1mmer (2004.04.22 17:17:31): ack Tom wendy (2004.04.22 17:17:33): identify that people have to do something, even if they define what that something is wendy (2004.04.22 17:17:34): ack tom wendy (2004.04.22 17:17:53): do we have to make sure that any site w/any type of content has to conform to all levels? wendy (2004.04.22 17:18:20): if someone has a tv station, do we have to make sure they can get level a w/all of their content? all multimedia, programs (captioning), alt-language version of captions, etc. wendy (2004.04.22 17:18:21): ? wendy (2004.04.22 17:19:04): do we require all conformance levels for all types of content (including scientific content)? the actual meaning and language? achieve all levels w/all of those? wendy (2004.04.22 17:19:59): asking question "do things need to be testable" but we're only talking abut one example. wendy (2004.04.22 17:20:22): this is a fundamental question that we need to answer to move forward. wendy (2004.04.22 17:20:31): at minimum, a working answer to try on for the next while. wendy (2004.04.22 17:20:59): however, jason suggests it is not a question we can ask. do we have a choice if requirements need to be testable? wendy (2004.04.22 17:23:17): can you have "advice" in w3c doc that is separate from what is required? yes, "informative vs normative" sections are common. wendy (2004.04.22 17:24:53): gian proposes that success criteria do not need to be testable. she doesn't want to lock out some guidelines. wendy (2004.04.22 17:26:05): if you lock out guidelines b/c we can not define them in a testable manner, then we run the risk of locking out guidelines that people find useful and that increase the accessibility of content. wendy (2004.04.22 17:26:19): onus should be on site owner how they apply the checkpoint. wendy (2004.04.22 17:26:32): those checkpoints that help should be in there, even if not testable. wendy (2004.04.22 17:26:47): they should not be relegated to highest level (3) because we can not define them in a certain way. wendy (2004.04.22 17:26:58): they should be defined in way that is most assistive to people with disabilities.