See also: IRC log
Moe made pull request for update to the introduction prior to the meeting and emailed the list.
<scribe> Agenda: WCAG WG Requirements feedback https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_DPUB_Review_Nov_2016/results
See what the response where from the review.
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_DPUB_Review_Nov_2016/results
Katie: People not sure about metadata in this instance and confused about it. Will have another meeting next week.
Also concerned that this would be a requirements. It can be just a best practice. Perhaps in 2.1.
Now for electronic docs and other things not same as in 2006.
More discussion needs to be conducted next week.
Discussed some of Andrew's comments.
Shadi: we need to do more work on this.
Katie: people say this will take a bunch of time and slow things down.
Shadi: replied to Alistar's question about this.
WCAG has a discusion after the survey.
Katie: it was the last thing on the agenda and not enough time to cover this. Hopefully start with this next week.
Moe: Clarity the survey that went out was Testing Framework and 2 topics on the metadata.
Ist item was Testing Framework.
Moe: Andrew concerned we don't cover WCAG and other requirements.
Why are we leaving this opened ended we are providing a framework of testing a11y standards in general.
Shadi: intent here we did not want to nail down actual wcag number.
May have opened it too much.
May need to find a balance of content standards. or for wcag but can be applicable to other guidelines.
Moe to open github issue on this.
Katie added comment on teams comments?
Missed actual text.
Shadi: We should specific how this works.
Katie: yes, make it clear and what tools do.
Shadi: open another that req doc should specific relationships to failures and techniques
Open another issue.
Shadi: suggested others to review survey results.
Jemma: Choice is wide open.
What should we get from this?
Katie: Andrew clarified his comments and that topics were mixed.
<MoeKraft> Open GitHub Issue #5: ACT Framework Requirements document is too general, https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/5
Shadi: some copy paste issues. Sent to the chairs with questions for them to look at.
Perhaps we should be more specific on what working group should review. This one was a "are we on the right track" communication.
More important to look at their reaction. Their first look and what they think.
Jemma: most comments are more focused on 'negative rules".
Romain: Mike C made some specific comments. Should we look at these?
Can we make this more clear from his questions?
Moe: looking at survey results there are clear issues we can put in github. won't get lost that way.
Shadi: we can put in Github and assign and record.
Charu: on negative texts may be some confusion. Only report negatives but will test for all requirements. It is doing all positive tests. Only tell you when it fails.
Shadi: this is a testing framework as a reply to others concern about this.
Alistair: That is not what it means. We will test for things but when you write in the negative ways. Positive test: does car have doors: Negative test: test car does not have doors example.
Shadi: can we make it more clear.
Alistair: it is just a way we write the tests.
Charu: we are going to test positive and negative and only report on negative?
Alistair: No, it depends on what we want to test for: to conform or not conform. dont confuse what we test for with how we write the test.
Charu: you have a rule to test does the link have link text? rules will check for all ways to provide it. If it passes all you will not see errors. only if it does not pass a condition it will fail.
May be a matter of clarifying rule descriptions.
Alistair: you have to write some failure reason. Claim you have a skip link: if true it is possitive. or does not have a skip link and this is false.
Shadi: can Alistair send his suggested differences between positive and negative testing wording.
<shadi> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-fr-reqs.html#28-rules-test-for-failures
<jemma> +1
<shadi> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/7
Shadi: can you add it to the rules to test for failures?
how else to word this?
Alan: test for compliance?
we are suprised that this may not be read completely.
Alistair will write clarification.
<shadi> ACTION: agarrison to draft text for https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-fr-reqs.html#28-rules-test-for-failures section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/11/16-wcag-act-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-18 - Draft text for https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-fr-reqs.html#28-rules-test-for-failures section [on Alistair Garrison - due 2016-11-23]
Shadi: go back to looking at survey.
went down each response line by line.
from MC's comment: "In some cases absence of violations may be proof of compliance..." is not something I think we can be sure enough of to state.
<MoeKraft> I need to drop for another call.
Alan: automation does not cover 100% of a11y. so no testing can say there is proof of compliance.
Shadi: never have exhaustive testing to cover every technique.
Alistair: yes there are many ways to test, you cannot ever say we we do conform.
shadi: 4.1.1 may be an exception that automated testing may cover completely
Any other SC you will do so many tests for conformance
Charu: opened new issue for clarifcation of compliance. The issue raised by MC needs to be address.
back to survey reivew. next two items by MC are covered.
MG had this: The approach looks good. I have reviewed and identified a number of small editorial considerations.
Anyone to open an issue on this?
MaryJoe is cofacilitator with Wilco
MaryJoe: greets us
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/availability/
Coeditor is MoeKraft
Shadi: Thankyou and closes meeting. Please fill out the availablity survey.
Shadi: Question on changing the meeting time? may need to shift as more join. Should be as it is for next month or two.
<Alan> ACTION: Charu to open new issue for clarification of compliance [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/11/16-wcag-act-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-19 - Open new issue for clarification of compliance [on Charu Pandhi - due 2016-11-23].