<scribe> scribe: Jan

JT: Welcome back eveybody
... Maybe short agenda

1. Candidate Recommendation (CR) process update

JS: I had a goot chat with Michael Cooper this AM
... He has done a fair amount of work so far
... When WCAG went through CR in 2008, MC built a customized test tool for WCAG tester
... Really a wonderful custom tool
... originally i thought we would just take their tool and swap out the WCAG database with ATAG database
... But after talking about this, we decided that MC will built a new ATAG layer on top
... Can then start linking together ATAG SCs and WCAG SCs
... In some cases some specific WCAG SCs referenced
... SO how it will work....if someone submits form saying they want to be a tester
... They would then say something like we have video, we don't have flash etc
... Then test harness removes SCs that won't apply....
... Can also specify will test level vs level AA
... They would then do tests and report results right there
... So then Jutta could see a report that for Tool X, here are the reults or
... Could see for ATAG 2.0 SCs, here's where we have tests and here's what passed and didn't
... Allows reconciliation between testers if results don't agree
... He has budgeted time each week to work on it.
... Though he has lots of other pressures as well...though so far so good. Continues to progress.
... But don't have firm commitment on when will be done.

JT: I guess we will get head up when ready to use?
... WHat can we do to help?

JS: Number of things still to do.
... We need to prepare all of the sample documents that testes can use.
... Sample of text. Sample of all different media types.
... If you look at tests, thre is a lot of content that people need.
... We also need to finalize the instructions for testers,
... Let me get list...

JT: Any questions for Jeanne?

JS: Needs to be public material with no copyrights
... We also need examples of known bad material
... One thing I wanted to use is W3C before and after demo than no one objected to me using

JR: ERT test cases?
... e.g. files from Chris R....pics of cat etc

JS: I've only seen tests cases maintained at Illinois
... Did not have content...descriptions of how to test

JR: Just a bit concerned if test files aren't in WCAG2 order
... e.g. to test ATAG 2.0's test requirement

<Alastairc> Interesting resource for DOM testing: http://www.karlgroves.com/2013/09/06/web-accessibility-testing-tools-who-tests-the-dom/

AC: Very complex...since some HTML5 things don't have techniques also DOM manipulation is an issue

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2013OctDec/att-0043/ATAG2-CR-Tests-20131206.html

<Alastairc> JR: Perhaps deal with at the top of test procedure, you should say that the test procedure is X, doesn't include DOM manipulation checks. If there is DOM manipulation, you should account for that...

AC: Idea to ground the too;'s requirements against the type of editing that the tool can actually do (e.g. if it can do DOM manipulation or can't)
... Might need caveat that if templates include scripts that do DOM manipulation, the chjecker should account for that

TB: Checker should be able to account for that

JS: ex. EasyChirp checker will be quite simple, since the things that can be edited are quite simple (text tweets)

JR: Think we should keep calm and carry on....

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2013OctDec/att-0043/ATAG2-CR-Tests-20131206.html

JR: Should we start to distribute these 7 tools to our member to create?

1. Web Content Accessibility Test Procedure (Level A, AA, AAA):

2. Platform Accessibility Service Test Procedure:

3. User Agent Accessibility Test Procedure (Level A only):

4. Accessible test content file (Level A, AA, AAA):

5. Non-accessible test content file (Level A, AA, AAA):

6. A selection of separate pieces of content:

7. List of "accessible content support features" (may be created during testing):

JT: Might be good assignment to send to the list as well.

JR: I will send out to the list

JT: Great
... Everyone should respond by next meeting

<jeanne> JR: I have not received new reports or implementations, Please send to me as usual.

2. Implementation report update (Jan)

JR: I have not received new reports or implementations, Please send to me as usual.

3. Re-chartering update

JS: No update.

4. Other issues?

JS: Wonder about the group doing a sample test as a sanity check for the group.
... Before we get people lined up etc.

AC: I think this is a good idea

JR: +1

TB: Sounds good

JS: Maybe the existing doc with a couple extra columns

AC: Does that exist or need creating?

JS: Exists...see table in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2013OctDec/att-0043/ATAG2-CR-Tests-20131206.html
... Would help us understand if our basic concept was doable.

AC: I had someone go through Drupal to eval ATAG 2.0 and it went ok
... I could have them do this as well as a comparison

JT: How do we get this started?

JR: Maybe we pick a simplish tool

AC: Easychirp

JT: Great

JR: TinyMCE

http://www.tinymce.com/tryit/full.php

JR: I think someone should head this up and draw others in to help out
... Maybe I can chunk some tasks
... MDID Students?

JT: We have some keen students

JR: I can brief them

JS: Will help us determine what support info is needed.

Next meeting: January 20

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/JS/AC/
Found Scribe: Jan
Inferring ScribeNick: Jan
Default Present: Jeanne, Jan, [IPcaller], Jutta, Tim_Boland
Present: Jeanne Jan [IPcaller] Jutta Tim_Boland
Regrets: Alex_L. Tim_B._(partial) Cherie_E.
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2014JanMar/0001.html
Got date from IRC log name: 13 Jan 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/01/13-au-minutes.html
People with action items: 

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