19:55:19 RRSAgent has joined #au 19:55:19 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-au-irc 19:55:24 Zakim, this will be AUWG 19:55:24 ok, Jan; I see WAI_AUWG()3:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes 19:55:31 Meeting: WAI AU 19:55:46 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012OctDec/0035.html 19:56:12 Regrets: Tim B. (Partial), Alex L. 20:00:55 zakim, code? 20:00:55 the conference code is 2894 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Jan 20:01:24 WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has now started 20:01:31 +[IPcaller] 20:01:44 zakim, [IPcaller] is really Jan 20:01:44 +Jan; got it 20:02:23 + +1.561.582.aaaa 20:02:52 zakim, aaaa is really Sueann 20:02:53 +Sueann; got it 20:05:22 +[IPcaller] 20:05:45 zakim, [IPcaller] is really Jutta 20:05:45 +Jutta; got it 20:05:46 jeanne has joined #au 20:06:20 +Jeanne 20:06:45 Chair: Jutta Treviranus 20:07:05 + +1.571.765.aabb 20:08:13 zakim, aabb is really Greg 20:08:13 +Greg; got it 20:09:12 Scribe: Jan 20:09:46 Greg has joined #au 20:09:57 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012OctDec/0035.html 20:10:29 Topic: 1. Review of where we stand with test creation, including potential discussion of some of these issues 20:10:35 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0041.html 20:12:09 JT: Takes group through the email... 20:13:29 JT: 1. the conforming entities are authoring tools, which may be extensive and which may consist of compiled code, making testing whole-tool statements (e.g. that all controls implement accessibility APIs) very difficult, especially for outsiders. 20:13:47 JT: the ATAG2 tests may require the type of access that only a developer might have 20:14:34 JT: Has implications in terms of who could do the test...different from WCAG in which anyone can do it 20:14:48 GP: More a question of thoroughness.... 20:15:20 GP: An outsider could run a few tests .... and then perhaps make an assumption 20:16:06 +Tim_Boland 20:16:07 JT: Brings up a very good point....parts A nad B are different 20:20:02 GP: Implies that source code might have to be turned over 20:20:14 JR, GP: Discuss 20:20:47 JR: Maybe better to say that developers may have an efficiency advantage 20:23:41 JR: But I won't say it can only be done by developers 20:24:38 JS: What's point? 20:25:00 JR: Huge number of tests to perform...eg every component in whole UI 20:25:11 JS: So maybe best to say that 20:26:03 JT: OK 20:26:20 JT: What we want to migiate is false expectations about hard this will be 20:27:42 GP: To answer "what do we gain?" On flip side there may be a casual tester who makes a false claim 20:28:29 Topic: 2. The authoring tool may run on any number of platforms.- the ATAG2 tests will not specify precisely how to make an application accessible on each particular platform. Instead, the tests will specify that the evaluator must have a "Platform Accessibility Service Test Procedure" ready before they start (@@@and that the test procedure should be described). 20:29:05 GP: I don't think we would be prepared to describe our test procedure 20:32:17 JT: Would it be useful to provide a sample description? 20:32:26 JR: I think so 20:32:43 JR: I can do that 20:33:11 Topic: 3. in many places, ATAG 2.0 refers to WCAG 2.0 as the recommendation that authoring tools and authors should be seeking to meet in the produced content (and with the authoring interface). However, WCAG 2.0 itself points to its WCAG 2.0 for implementation guidance with respect to particular formats, but with the important proviso that techniques are non-normative. Furthermore, not all... 20:33:13 ...formats have WCAG 2.0 Techniques yet:- the ATAG2 tests will not specify precisely how to meet WCAG 2.0. Instead, the tests will specify that the evaluator must have a " Web Content Accessibility Test Procedure" ready before they start (@@@and that the test procedure should be described). 20:34:28 JR: I could provide a short sample description. 20:34:39 Topic: 4. in many cases, for clarity, the ATAG 2.0 SCs are written in uncompromising language, but this could see even well-implemented products fail for bugs or pockets of little used functionality that have not yet been updated for accessibility. 20:36:16 GP: Change for bugs to due to bugs 20:36:27 JR: Idea in law of reasonableness 20:36:38 JS: I know that won't fly for W3C 20:41:36 JT: Maybe some way of benchmarking what is the majority...just thinking alout 20:41:42 aloud 20:42:56 JS: I don't think these help us at the start 20:43:41 GP: I think industry participation is contingent on not facing liability which would come from expectation of perfection 20:43:54 JS: How does it relatatre to testing? 20:44:49 GP: If perfection is required, we wouldn't be able to be involved 20:45:44 JS: OK but this really hasn't happened with WCAG 20:46:13 GP: In the case of website errors, when they are pointed out they are quickly and easily fixed 20:49:45 -Sueann 20:52:31 JS: In CR, we are the ones testing tools 20:55:29 GP: Makes sense if tests are written such that any tool could be programmed to pass... my concern is just about bugs 21:02:16 -Tim_Boland 21:03:29 JT: Next week - let's have the same potentially mixed meeting. 21:03:51 -Jan 21:03:53 -Jutta 21:03:59 -Jeanne 21:04:08 RRSAgent, make minutes 21:04:08 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-au-minutes.html Jan 21:04:17 RRSAgent, set logs public 21:04:22 Zakim, bye 21:04:22 leaving. As of this point the attendees were Jan, +1.561.582.aaaa, Sueann, Jutta, Jeanne, +1.571.765.aabb, Greg, Tim_Boland 21:04:22 Zakim has left #au 21:04:27 RRSAgent, bye 21:04:27 I see no action items