User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

16 Dec 2010

See also: IRC log


GregL, simon, mark
JimAllan, KellyFord
kford, jallan


<trackbot> Date: 16 December 2010

<kford> Chair: Jim_Allan

<kford> Scribe: kford

Testing requirements and Suites

<JAllan> WAI has resource to work on testing

<JAllan> ...what are the commonalities of requirements across WG

<JAllan> ...possible library of test items

<JAllan> ...UAAG may need more human testing

<JAllan> ...need common reporting structure

<JAllan> ...UAAG needs to develop requirements for validating guidelines

<JAllan> KF: push to test WAI-ARIA, can any of their test cases be used in other WG

<JAllan> ...User interaction part is hard to automate for UAAG testing

<JAllan> js: for UAAG to be finalized, we have to test that 2 browsers meet every requirement

<JAllan> ... needs to be open

<JAllan> ...anything developed should be sharable

<JAllan> KP: how to test with extensions

<JAllan> kf: list success criteria, and how browser x plus what extension meet the criteria

<JAllan> kp: should provide the link to the extension download

<JAllan> jr: are there candidate systems that do testing, that we can write a harness around

<JAllan> ja: talked about STEP from US Gov and WGBH, Usablenet Lift machine, powershots.org, powermapper.com cross browser testing

<JAllan> kf: tough part is the user interaction part

<JAllan> ... test all settings, and cascade of alternative content, etc.

<JAllan> ...standard test items would help

<JAllan> js: how practically are we going to manage to test all major browsers to find 2 that meet our guidelines

<JAllan> ...and track all of this

<JAllan> ...This is what the W3 will build, the tracking tool

<JAllan> kp: need to be able to share settings. would be neat if it were a browser extension

<JAllan> js: need to manage what the tests are, who passed, and why

<JAllan> kp: how would the testing work

<JAllan> js: WCAG testing keyboard accessible

<JAllan> ...pull up test case, it says purpose of test, file to use, function that user must do, criteria for passing, then add results to reporting tool

<JAllan> UAAG 1.0 test suite http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/TS/html401/

<JAllan> kf: open source testing tracking system?

<JAllan> jr: yes, they exist. but don't meet our needs

<JAllan> scribe: jallan

indicating a context menu http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2010Dec/0008.html (beginning of thread)

kf: custom context menus are authoring issue.

ja: how is existence of the custom menu presented to the user.

kf: this is an issue.

jr: general issue. elements have special function, how is user supposed to know about invisible behaviors.
... anytime content is implemented in a way that semantics are available to the browser or a11y api, then all bets are off

ja: does this fall under the WCAG catch all - no mater what it has to work

<kford> JR: Used example of text alternative that is explained in following paragraph as that passes wcag.

jr: WCAG 1.1.1 all non-text content. image with caption after it, is OK. no requirement for programmatically determinable

kf: what does this do to our cascade of alternatives.

jr: that is why we couch our guidelines in 'if no semantics are available, then we can't do anything with it'

<Jan> text alternative

<Jan> Text that is programmatically associated with non-text content or referred to from text that is programmatically associated with non-text content. Programmatically associated text is text whose location can be programmatically determined from the non-text content.

<Jan> Example: An image of a chart is described in text in the paragraph after the chart. The short text alternative for the chart indicates that a description follows.

kf: example, link with text and image (no alt in image)
... the relationship is progammatically determinable because they are in the same anchor

ja: javascript blackhole should be brought up to CG

all: discussion of alt, WCAG 1.1.1, etc.

ja: where does lack of semantics go?

jr: WCAG has conditions of conformance, ATAG has 'applicability notes' in the body of the document, they are normative
... applicability note are listed at the top
... recommends UAWG read ATAG for applicability notes

kf: +1

js: use sparingly, easy for them to be separated from the other content, or other folks reuse the material

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/12/16 19:13:32 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: kford
Inferring ScribeNick: kford
Found Scribe: jallan
Inferring ScribeNick: JAllan
Scribes: kford, jallan
ScribeNicks: kford, JAllan

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Example JAllan Jan Jeanne Jim_Allan KF KP KimPatch Microsoft P19 aaaa all inserted ja jeanne-bbiab joined jr js kford trackbot ua
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

Regrets: GregL simon mark
Found Date: 16 Dec 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/12/16-ua-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]