See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Jan
JT: Takes group through the
... 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
... 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
... 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
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
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.
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
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.
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]