W3C

- DRAFT -

WAI AU

26 Nov 2012

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Regrets
Tim_B._(Partial), Alex_L.
Chair
Jutta Treviranus
Scribe
Jan

Contents


<scribe> Scribe: Jan

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012OctDec/0035.html

1. Review of where we stand with test creation, including potential discussion of some of these issues

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0041.html

JT: Takes group through the email...
... 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.
... the ATAG2 tests may require the type of access that only a developer might have
... Has implications in terms of who could do the test...different from WCAG in which anyone can do it

GP: More a question of thoroughness....
... An outsider could run a few tests .... and then perhaps make an assumption

JT: Brings up a very good point....parts A nad B are different

GP: Implies that source code might have to be turned over

JR, GP: Discuss

JR: Maybe better to say that developers may have an efficiency advantage
... But I won't say it can only be done by developers

JS: What's point?

JR: Huge number of tests to perform...eg every component in whole UI

JS: So maybe best to say that

JT: OK
... What we want to migiate is false expectations about hard this will be

GP: To answer "what do we gain?" On flip side there may be a casual tester who makes a false claim

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).

GP: I don't think we would be prepared to describe our test procedure

JT: Would it be useful to provide a sample description?

JR: I think so
... I can do that

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...

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: 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).

JR: I could provide a short sample description.

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.

GP: Change for bugs to due to bugs

JR: Idea in law of reasonableness

JS: I know that won't fly for W3C

JT: Maybe some way of benchmarking what is the majority...just thinking alout

aloud

JS: I don't think these help us at the start

GP: I think industry participation is contingent on not facing liability which would come from expectation of perfection

JS: How does it relatatre to testing?

GP: If perfection is required, we wouldn't be able to be involved

JS: OK but this really hasn't happened with WCAG

GP: In the case of website errors, when they are pointed out they are quickly and easily fixed

JS: In CR, we are the ones testing tools

GP: Makes sense if tests are written such that any tool could be programmed to pass... my concern is just about bugs

JT: Next week - let's have the same potentially mixed meeting.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012-11-26 21:04:14 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137  of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: Jan
Inferring ScribeNick: Jan

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: GP Greg IPcaller JR JS JT Jan Jeanne Jutta Sueann Tim_Boland aaaa aabb
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

Regrets: Tim_B._(Partial) Alex_L.
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012OctDec/0035.html
Got date from IRC log name: 26 Nov 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-au-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]