See also: IRC log
CS: Happy New Year! :)
... had BenToWeb review in mid-december, it went quite well
... still need to do a few things but more or less closed
... still figuring out the future of this work
SAZ: all test cases on the W3C servers?
CS: no, not yet all
SAZ: not a top priority to transition them fast, we already have a lot of unreviewed ones
MC: tests are becoming ever more important, may
be a good time to bring back to the WG group now
... might be good to send a formal mail to the WG, and maybe try to get a
slot on the Thrusday call
SAZ: WG doing planning now or after the review period ends?
MC: doing planning now, just in case
<scribe> ACTION: CS send email to the WCAG WG explaining the status of the tests, and ask for a speaking slot at the upcoming Thursday call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/08-tsdtf-minutes.html#action01]
CS: side note, at least 300 more test cases from BenToWeb in the queue
CI: we will talk internally in CTIC about future plans
CS: several action items were set, but haven't
seen follow-up
... seems nothing changed
<scribe> ACTION: CS send out reminder to the people with due action items, pointing them to the outstanding work and asking them for dates by which they can deliver [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/08-tsdtf-minutes.html#action02]
<Christophe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2007Dec/0000.html
CS: nothing in the metadata telling us which
test suite a test belongs to
... would be useful, also to filter out old/unused tests etc
SAZ: is that different to the naming convention
discussion that is still open?
... to make the ID more stable
CS: it relates as both impact the naming convention
SAZ: if we will reopen the ID/naming/tagging discusion then we may want to take a step back and collect all outstanding issues
MC: agree with the overall thought, should
minimize the refactoring work
... not interested in how the IDs look like, they just need to work
SAZ: not so much about making the IDs more pretty, but if we have to touch them anyway then we should consider all aspects first
<scribe> ACTION: MC to have a fresh look at the ID/naming and linking/referencing of tests (especially linkage to techniques, stability, etc) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/08-tsdtf-minutes.html#action03]
<scribe> ACTION: CS send summary of the ID/naming/referencing mechanism of the tests, and collect the open issues (or previously discussed issues that were not ideally resolved) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/08-tsdtf-minutes.html#action04]
<Christophe> See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2008Jan/0001.html
CS: discussion allowing non primary rules vs just one single rule per test
A - Allowing just one primary rule and several other informational ones
CI: most of the tests so far seem to only have
1 rule anyway
... allowing multiple rule makes reviewing more difficult and complex
... we should keep it simple and just use what we need
CS: we may have not added such information but that doesn't mean it isn't useful
CI: we should focus on what we need, and
simplify the process
... don't see any impact on the quality of the samples
SAZ: my understanding is that the check for the
proper use of the primary/compelxity attributes can be automated, and
therefore it doesn't add too much reviewing overhead
... agree that we should keep it simple, but shouldn't disallow something
that we may later need
... WCAG 2.0 has a lot of cross-references or relationships between different
SC, especially at different Levels
... we may want to reflect this at some stage, so this feature may become
handy
CI: exactly one primary rule, and 0 or more information ones?
SAZ: yes
CI: and other metadata such as expertGuidance only refer to the primary rule or to which rule exactly?
CS: don't see this as a real issue
SAZ: are there concrete examples?
CI: take color contrast SCs which are in two different levels
CS: good example, it fails Level 3 and passes Level 2
CI: then they are both primary, why is one informational?
<scribe> ACTION: CS send concrete examples of tests that make use of the primary/complexity attributes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/08-tsdtf-minutes.html#action05]