13:53:27 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act
13:53:27 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/15-wcag-act-irc
13:53:29 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:53:32 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
13:53:32 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference
13:53:32 <trackbot> Date: 15 May 2017
13:53:32 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
13:53:42 <Wilco> agenda?
13:53:57 <Wilco> zakim, clear agenda
13:53:57 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:54:04 <Wilco> agenda+ Comments on the Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Rules Format 1.0 Working Draft (6 April 2017 version) https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/82
13:54:19 <Wilco> agenda+ Publication requirements  https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/81
13:54:27 <Wilco> agenda+ Proposal for how to leverage existing testcases https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/76
13:54:34 <Wilco> agenda+ TPAC 2017
13:58:48 <ChrisLoiselle> I'll scribe today
13:59:08 <ChrisLoiselle> Scribe: ChrisLoiselle
14:03:07 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag-act
14:03:13 <rdeltour> rdeltour has joined #wcag-act
14:04:12 <MoeKraft> MoeKraft has joined #wcag-act
14:04:33 <ChrisLoiselle> zakim, next item
14:04:33 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Publication requirements  https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/81" taken up [from Wilco]
14:04:36 <rdeltour> present+
14:04:47 <maryjom> present+
14:04:54 <Wilco> present+
14:04:57 <Wilco> agenda?
14:05:01 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
14:05:35 <shadi> zakim, take up agendum 1
14:05:35 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Comments on the Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Rules Format 1.0 Working Draft (6 April 2017 version) https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/82" taken up [from
14:05:38 <Zakim> ... Wilco]
14:06:58 <Charu> Charu has joined #wcag-act
14:07:13 <sujasree> sujasree has joined #wcag-act
14:07:46 <MoeKraft> Latest draft: https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-rules-format.html
14:08:44 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: Publication requirements...any comments?
14:08:55 <ChrisLoiselle> Shadi: Stein-Erik will follow up with me next week
14:08:59 <ChrisLoiselle> zakim, next item
14:08:59 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Publication requirements  https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/81" taken up [from Wilco]
14:09:52 <Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/82
14:10:54 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: seems to be strong emphasis on automation
14:11:36 <ChrisLoiselle> what are people's comments on this?
14:11:59 <shadi> q+
14:12:34 <ChrisLoiselle> MoeKraft: There is no specific call out on automation. Ruleset talks to it. Explain in scope.
14:12:40 <shadi> +1 to Romain
14:12:42 <shadi> q-
14:13:25 <ChrisLoiselle> Romain D : QA testing and distinguishing between automatic testing and semi-automated , test tools in broader sense
14:13:25 <MoeKraft> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-rules-format.html#abstract
14:13:46 <ChrisLoiselle> Shadi : I agree with Romain's thought. Testing tools in the broader sense
14:14:38 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: May not even have to say for "tools" , rather for evaluation of accessibility
14:14:46 <MoeKraft> Currently the first statement reads: The Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Rules Format 1.0 is a specification designed to harmonize how accessibility rules are described for automated test tools, and how test procedures are written for quality assurance testing.
14:15:36 <ChrisLoiselle> Shadi : good to mention test tools, but could mention later on. Primary goal is to harmonize accessibility rules...."including" automated and semi-automated tools.
14:16:12 <ChrisLoiselle> Shadi : Will take as a pull request and work on it.
14:16:27 <ChrisLoiselle> MoeKraft: will open item on that for Shadi
14:19:34 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco : Do we want to include partial test results text into introduction as well? Combining different test results...abstract...
14:20:04 <ChrisLoiselle> Shadi : A rule doesn't necessarily test one success criteria, could include many within one test
14:21:01 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: Rule aggregation already covers that.
14:22:11 <ChrisLoiselle> Shadi: this should be a heading of its own. Relationship between test rules and WCAG SC's. Or broaden criteria. Mapping between test rules and SCs. Needs own heading.
14:22:47 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: Mentions we can talk to this in section 3.3.
14:23:23 <ChrisLoiselle> Shadi: either in introduction or scope would be better, more general and not inside test rule
14:23:46 <ChrisLoiselle> Shadi: use "Mapping" vs. "relate".
14:24:26 <ChrisLoiselle> MoeKraft: will create ticket on creating section within scope on mapping between rules and success criteria
14:24:44 <ChrisLoiselle> MoeKraft: will assign that to Wilco
14:26:51 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: Talking towards the comment 2: Outcome "Cannot tell". Confusing on what that actually means. Might consider moving away from that outcome in regard to testing / auditing. Was part of EARL 1.0 , why did it happen that way?
14:27:31 <ChrisLoiselle> Shadi: Cannot tell, in EARL 1.0 was more general. WCAG SCs are designed that they are always applicable.
14:27:47 <ChrisLoiselle> If no video, there is no applicable content, so SC is met when no applicable content
14:28:39 <ChrisLoiselle> heuristic tests and human input is needed...
14:29:17 <ChrisLoiselle> Shadi: in 2.0 there is no such thing as Not Applicable
14:30:02 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: when it comes down to it, human input is needed.
14:30:41 <ChrisLoiselle> Shadi: several tests may be needed to accomplish the rule, and there may be cases where the person completed 1 of 2 tests and can't meet.
14:30:49 <Charu> q+
14:30:55 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: ACT rules are supposed to be independent of each other.
14:31:15 <ChrisLoiselle> Shadi: Is result always pass or fail ? Or are other results possible?
14:31:34 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: yes, there are others than pass / fail.
14:32:14 <Wilco> ack c
14:32:50 <ChrisLoiselle> Charu P: in IBM rules, it is a violation, clear cut pass / fail. Usually fail. Then possible violation, if more than one way to meet SC. If rule is looking for one technique....manual tests form should have submit button as an example
14:33:28 <ChrisLoiselle> manually testing: video needs testing manually for captions
14:35:04 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: needs review auditing issue type...these all somewhat relate to the cannot tell type.
14:35:41 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: Do we want to use a different wording than "cannot tell"?
14:36:25 <ChrisLoiselle> Charu: cannot tell should point to human decision required.
14:38:34 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: more thought would need to be put into this.
14:38:52 <MoeKraft> I like "potential violation"
14:39:40 <ChrisLoiselle> Shadi: example situations could be introduced in terms of "cannot tell".
14:39:44 <MoeKraft> or "requires review"
14:40:22 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: What happens if we don't go with EARL terminology?
14:40:46 <ChrisLoiselle> Shadi: subset can be put into place. But what is need? I.e. is outcome undetermined, neither pass or fail.
14:41:00 <MoeKraft> +1 Shadi's term "undetermined"
14:41:33 <Wilco> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-rules-format.html#output-outcome
14:41:47 <rdeltour> q+
14:42:56 <Wilco> ack r
14:43:11 <ChrisLoiselle> General question from me: I.e. is undetermined not present and therefore not testable?
14:44:15 <MoeKraft> Sorry, my phone batter died. Just rejoined.
14:45:18 <shadi> "The result of the test is undetermined. This may be because human intervention or further testing is needed."
14:46:32 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: Will ask Raph  to clarify comments for 6.2. Will talk to variations of this.
14:46:44 <sujasree> sujasree has joined #wcag-act
14:46:55 <ChrisLoiselle> zakim, next item
14:46:55 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Proposal for how to leverage existing testcases https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/76" taken up [from Wilco]
14:47:36 <Wilco> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/Testing_Resources
14:49:24 <Wilco> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-act/2017Apr/0020.html
14:50:51 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: Would like to start doing is have a look at Deque's repository
14:51:54 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: can we update the test case repositories to work with this file format as well?
14:52:31 <ChrisLoiselle> Charu: Take each test case and put this in this format?
14:53:37 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: Put JSON file , pull into large repository
14:55:06 <ChrisLoiselle> MoeKraft: to Charu: Karma test run...instead of JSON that takes rules to scan content. JSON for each test case. JSON used to describe rule format i.e. meta data
14:55:15 <ChrisLoiselle> expected outcomes
14:56:53 <Wilco> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/Testing_Resources#Test_cas_format_.28explicit_results.29
14:58:08 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: Moe and Charu will do that at IBM and repositories will be talking to each other soon hopefully.
14:58:13 <ChrisLoiselle> zakim, next item
14:58:13 <Zakim> agendum 4. "TPAC 2017" taken up [from Wilco]
14:59:10 <Wilco> https://www.w3.org/2017/11/TPAC/
15:00:06 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: to book hotel with group code
15:01:41 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: feel free to join the AG working group call tomorrow if you want, as we have a slot during that call
15:02:04 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: talk to you in two weeks
15:02:23 <ChrisLoiselle> Shadi, do you want me to send minutes? Or did you ? I didn't catch that
15:03:19 <ChrisLoiselle> ok , you will
15:03:22 <ChrisLoiselle> thanks so much
15:03:29 <shadi> trackbot, end meeting
15:03:29 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:03:29 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been MaryJoMueller, Wilco, Kathy, SteinErik, Debra, Moe, Sujasree, rdeltour, maryjom, ChrisLoiselle
15:03:37 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:03:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/15-wcag-act-minutes.html trackbot
15:03:38 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:03:38 <RRSAgent> I see no action items