28 Jan 2013


See also: IRC log


Jan, Jutta, Greg, Tim_Boland
Jeanne_S., Sueann_N., Alex_L.
Jan Richards


<scribe> Scribe: Jan



Comment: consensus of the group Not sure what "accessible test content file" is supposed to be.

JR: The link on the survey, doesn't work properly, the explanatory text is here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012OctDec/att-0056/ATAG2-10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20121214.html#accessible_test_content

Comment: I'd not sure the screen reader test should be part of the web content accessibility test procedure because bugs from screen reader will then be mistakenly attributed to the authoring tool or web content. The flip side is also true that just because screen reader present the content to users does not necessarily mean that the content meet WCAG 2.0 SCs.

JR: Agreed. The Web Content Accessibility Test Procedure (Level A, AA, AAA) only says "Such a test procedure MAY include:...Screen reader test".


COMMENT: Why does the test assume multiple editing views? I don't understand the language about "next editing view".

JR: The "loop" wording is used in case of multiple editing views. If only one is present, the "loop" only runs once.

COOMMENT: Test 0002 step 2.1 has ambiguous If statement.

Agreed: There is a typo: There should be a different 2.2 which should read: "Check if the authoring tool allows the content being edited to be be previewed in a user agent (e.g. browser or media player) where the alternatives can be rendered. If so, go to the next editing view that renders video-only media."

COMMENT: The test should be whether authoring tool can render the alternative, not whether the authoring tool can be set to render the alternative. It is possible for the authoring tool to obtain user preference from the OS or other sources where it will automatically render alternate content.

Agreed: Remove "be set to".



IMPORTANT: Just noticed that the survey incorrectly duplicates the A212 tests (as A211 tests). The real A211 tests can be found here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012OctDec/att-0056/ATAG2-10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20121214.html

GP: Also remember to be clear that text and media alternatives do not need to be displayed if at that point in the workflow they would never exist.

COMMENT: If the tests are exactly the same, then we have duplicative SC.

JR: Commenter is correct that they are duplicated...it was a copy-paste error in the survey


COMMENT: Steps 2 indicates that the SC is not testable.

JR: Please explain a bit more?


COMMENT: All steps with "SKIP", specify where to skip to.

JR: Skip refers to a button that already exists in the W3C testing framework that causes the test to be skipped. We use it in cases where a test is not applicable.

COMMENT: Screen readers should not be use for test 0002 4.2. Appropriate accessibility checkers should be used to identify programmatic exposure.

JR: Agree...will change wording to say an API checking tool OR a screen reader



COMMENT: Add this to end of step 1. "(Note: If this is due to limitations of the platform, "Partial Conformance due to Platform Limitation" is still possible.)"

JR: Please clarify. It's already part of step 1.

COMMENT: Shouldn't there be a step here for web-based content where it already passes 2.1.1 to avoid duplicative test?

JR: Agree with adding a new step: If the authoring tool is web-based and passes WCAG2.0 2.1.1 then, select PASS.

COMMENT: This SC is not about visible focus, why is 4.2 there?

JR: Because it is integral to use via keyboard for sighted users. In ATAG 2.0 there is no separate visible focus requirement.

COMMENT: Language in 4.3 can be improved. The never and ever conditions are not as clear as it can be.

JR: Agreed. New wording suggestion: Check the system for situations in which a key press has a time limit. If any key press time limit is found to be less than 20 seconds, then select FAIL.


COMMENT: Add this to end of step 1. "(Note: If this is due to limitations of the platform, "Partial Conformance due to Platform Limitation" is still possible.)"


COMMENT: Shouldn't there be a step here for web-based content where it already passes 2.1.2 to avoid duplicative test?


COMMENT: On 3.4, what if the keyboard focus cannot be returned to the first control for an unlisted reason.

JR: Seems like these two reasons are the ones that correspond to "keyboard traps"

COMMENT: The test does not involve collecting data on standard exit methods (Esc, F6, etc.) nor does it involve determining whether authors are advised of the method for moving focus away, probably via documentation.

JR: Agree - those do need to be added.

COMMENT: Lastly, the test is really about looping or linearization of focus order. The SC is about whether you can move the focus away from a given component. There is a difference.

JR: Agree - need to rewrite.


COMMENT: Add this to end of step 1. "(Note: If this is due to limitations of the platform, "Partial Conformance due to Platform Limitation" is still possible.) "

... I will send this out as an email to the list.

See you all next week.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-01-28 20:58:59 $

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 "Topic:" lines found.

Default Present: Jan, Jutta, Greg, Tim_Boland
Present: Jan Jutta Greg Tim_Boland
Regrets: Jeanne_S. Sueann_N. Alex_L.
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2013JanMar/0014.html
Got date from IRC log name: 28 Jan 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/01/28-au-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]