IRC log of au on 2012-11-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:55:19 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #au
19:55:19 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:55:24 [Jan]
Zakim, this will be AUWG
19:55:24 [Zakim]
ok, Jan; I see WAI_AUWG()3:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
19:55:31 [Jan]
Meeting: WAI AU
19:55:46 [Jan]
19:56:12 [Jan]
Regrets: Tim B. (Partial), Alex L.
20:00:55 [Jan]
zakim, code?
20:00:55 [Zakim]
the conference code is 2894 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, Jan
20:01:24 [Zakim]
WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has now started
20:01:31 [Zakim]
20:01:44 [Jan]
zakim, [IPcaller] is really Jan
20:01:44 [Zakim]
+Jan; got it
20:02:23 [Zakim]
+ +1.561.582.aaaa
20:02:52 [Jan]
zakim, aaaa is really Sueann
20:02:53 [Zakim]
+Sueann; got it
20:05:22 [Zakim]
20:05:45 [Jan]
zakim, [IPcaller] is really Jutta
20:05:45 [Zakim]
+Jutta; got it
20:05:46 [jeanne]
jeanne has joined #au
20:06:20 [Zakim]
20:06:45 [Jan]
Chair: Jutta Treviranus
20:07:05 [Zakim]
+ +1.571.765.aabb
20:08:13 [Jan]
zakim, aabb is really Greg
20:08:13 [Zakim]
+Greg; got it
20:09:12 [Jan]
Scribe: Jan
20:09:46 [Greg]
Greg has joined #au
20:09:57 [Jan]
20:10:29 [Jan]
Topic: 1. Review of where we stand with test creation, including potential discussion of some of these issues
20:10:35 [Jan]
20:12:09 [Jan]
JT: Takes group through the email...
20:13:29 [Jan]
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 [Jan]
JT: the ATAG2 tests may require the type of access that only a developer might have
20:14:34 [Jan]
JT: Has implications in terms of who could do the test...different from WCAG in which anyone can do it
20:14:48 [Jan]
GP: More a question of thoroughness....
20:15:20 [Jan]
GP: An outsider could run a few tests .... and then perhaps make an assumption
20:16:06 [Zakim]
20:16:07 [Jan]
JT: Brings up a very good A nad B are different
20:20:02 [Jan]
GP: Implies that source code might have to be turned over
20:20:14 [Jan]
JR, GP: Discuss
20:20:47 [Jan]
JR: Maybe better to say that developers may have an efficiency advantage
20:23:41 [Jan]
JR: But I won't say it can only be done by developers
20:24:38 [Jan]
JS: What's point?
20:25:00 [Jan]
JR: Huge number of tests to every component in whole UI
20:25:11 [Jan]
JS: So maybe best to say that
20:26:03 [Jan]
20:26:20 [Jan]
JT: What we want to migiate is false expectations about hard this will be
20:27:42 [Jan]
GP: To answer "what do we gain?" On flip side there may be a casual tester who makes a false claim
20:28:29 [Jan]
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 [Jan]
GP: I don't think we would be prepared to describe our test procedure
20:32:17 [Jan]
JT: Would it be useful to provide a sample description?
20:32:26 [Jan]
JR: I think so
20:32:43 [Jan]
JR: I can do that
20:33:11 [Jan]
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 [Jan]
...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 [Jan]
JR: I could provide a short sample description.
20:34:39 [Jan]
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 [Jan]
GP: Change for bugs to due to bugs
20:36:27 [Jan]
JR: Idea in law of reasonableness
20:36:38 [Jan]
JS: I know that won't fly for W3C
20:41:36 [Jan]
JT: Maybe some way of benchmarking what is the majority...just thinking alout
20:41:42 [Jan]
20:42:56 [Jan]
JS: I don't think these help us at the start
20:43:41 [Jan]
GP: I think industry participation is contingent on not facing liability which would come from expectation of perfection
20:43:54 [Jan]
JS: How does it relatatre to testing?
20:44:49 [Jan]
GP: If perfection is required, we wouldn't be able to be involved
20:45:44 [Jan]
JS: OK but this really hasn't happened with WCAG
20:46:13 [Jan]
GP: In the case of website errors, when they are pointed out they are quickly and easily fixed
20:49:45 [Zakim]
20:52:31 [Jan]
JS: In CR, we are the ones testing tools
20:55:29 [Jan]
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 [Zakim]
21:03:29 [Jan]
JT: Next week - let's have the same potentially mixed meeting.
21:03:51 [Zakim]
21:03:53 [Zakim]
21:03:59 [Zakim]
21:04:08 [Jan]
RRSAgent, make minutes
21:04:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Jan
21:04:17 [Jan]
RRSAgent, set logs public
21:04:22 [Jan]
Zakim, bye
21:04:22 [Zakim]
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]
Zakim has left #au
21:04:27 [Jan]
RRSAgent, bye
21:04:27 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items