13:53:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act
13:53:23 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/06/12-wcag-act-irc
13:53:25 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:53:25 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wcag-act
13:53:27 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
13:53:27 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
13:53:28 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference
13:53:28 <trackbot> Date: 12 June 2017
13:53:41 <Wilco> agenda?
13:53:46 <Wilco> agenda+ Issue 81 - First draft of publication requirements
13:53:51 <Wilco> agenda+ Versioning of rules
13:54:09 <Wilco> agenda+ Accessibility support discussion
13:54:17 <Wilco> agenda+ Negative tests
13:54:33 <Wilco> agenda+ Availability for ACT TF Teleconferences - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/availability/
13:59:16 <Wilco> Shadi, what's the new meeting address?
13:59:22 <ChrisLoiselle> ChrisLoiselle has joined #wcag-act
14:04:25 <rdeltour> rdeltour has joined #wcag-act
14:04:46 <Manoj> Manoj has joined #wcag-act
14:05:24 <rdeltour> scribe: Romain Deltour
14:05:29 <rdeltour> scribenick: rdeltour
14:05:39 <Wilco> zakim, take up item 1
14:05:39 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Issue 81 - First draft of publication requirements" taken up [from Wilco]
14:05:58 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag-act
14:06:05 <maryjom> present+
14:06:38 <rdeltour> shadi: just got a message from Stein Eric, asking me to take over. I'll try to bring sth later this week for next week's discussion
14:07:13 <rdeltour> wilco: do you want anyone else to jump on that with you?
14:07:29 <rdeltour> shadi: might be easier to just draft sth, and then people can jump in on that.
14:07:37 <rdeltour> zakim, take up next
14:07:38 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Versioning of rules" taken up [from Wilco]
14:08:10 <rdeltour> wilco: we had some discussions on the 1st draft of our spec
14:08:30 <Wilco> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-rules-format.html#quality-updates-version
14:08:54 <rdeltour> wilco: we put in a little paragraph on version numbering.
14:09:04 <rdeltour> ... we're gonna use a version of an X.Y.Z scheme
14:09:18 <rdeltour> ... there was a few comments we had unaddressed, coming from Kathy and Alistair
14:10:00 <rdeltour> ... it came down to a concern about 1. wether this is too complex, too much overhead and 2. how to deal with many rules published all at once
14:10:42 <rdeltour> ... I think version numbers can be quite useful for rules, I like tracking the changes
14:11:19 <rdeltour> ... the WCAG techniques are currently updated every 6 months
14:11:39 <rdeltour> ... they just publish updates, and you just have to go back in history if you want to see what changed
14:12:23 <rdeltour> ... speaking for myself, for our customers, being able to track what things changed exactly, being able to identify where a specific issue come from, is particularly important
14:12:32 <rdeltour> ... I see it might be less useful for others
14:12:41 <shadi> q+
14:13:03 <Wilco> ack s
14:13:15 <rdeltour> rdeltour: versioning sounds like a good idea to me as well
14:13:34 <Sujasree> Sujasree has joined #wcag-act
14:13:46 <rdeltour> shadi: I guess there's another perspective. Not only a client wants to see the changes, but also how my own testing is impacted retroactively
14:14:14 <rdeltour> ... we need to separate between simple editorial changes, and more "major" change that impact the outcomes
14:14:43 <rdeltour> ... my understanding of Alistair's proposal is that would become a new test
14:15:02 <rdeltour> ... it's not a black and white clean line. what happens with regression testing needs to be addressed as well
14:15:13 <rdeltour> q+
14:15:21 <MoeKraft> MoeKraft has joined #wcag-act
14:15:40 <rdeltour> wilco: I don't think the idea of making a new rule for a major change is gonna hold up
14:16:09 <rdeltour> ... we defined a major change as anything that can cause a PASS to become a failure
14:16:22 <rdeltour> ... it may be sufficient to track that in either a changelog or a version
14:16:34 <rdeltour> ... we could consider doing either one or the other
14:16:42 <Wilco> ack r
14:18:23 <rdeltour> rdeltour: I think the recomendation should be the same for all rules, it shouldn't be optional
14:18:54 <rdeltour> ... otherwise it's less useful (not deterministic)
14:19:17 <rdeltour> ... a version number is either to parse than a changelog
14:20:02 <rdeltour> maryjom: we use versions on rule sets, not on an individual rules
14:20:13 <rdeltour> ... we then let people know what change in a group a rules
14:20:22 <rdeltour> ... we don't update individual rules all that often
14:20:32 <rdeltour> wilco: for Deque we do the same thing.
14:20:45 <rdeltour> ... clients only track the version of the tool. they don't always want the latest
14:21:06 <rdeltour> ... it seems to me that in practice nobody is tracking individual versions of rules
14:21:21 <rdeltour> ... at the moment we're not even tracking the history of rules
14:21:56 <rdeltour> ... is it sufficient if you bundle all your rules together and say "this is the latest version"
14:22:14 <rdeltour> ... for implementations would that be sufficient?
14:22:20 <rdeltour> maryjom: I think it might
14:22:49 <rdeltour> ... if we're trying to make rule that go along with WCAG, we can make sure that bundle of rules is compatible with whatever the bunlde of technique is at
14:22:54 <rdeltour> wilco: you'd lose 2 things
14:23:22 <rdeltour> ... if we track changes, you can look at a rule and see at what point the rule changed
14:23:38 <rdeltour> maryjom: with github
14:24:14 <rdeltour> wilco: you're supposed to include a changelog of all major or minor changes in an ACT rule, so you keep a history for an individual rule somewhere
14:25:07 <rdeltour> ... I guess the only thing you'd lose is that you can't say "I'm using rule X.Y.Z from the N release" as a tool developer, since we'd not be tracking individual versions
14:25:18 <rdeltour> q+
14:25:28 <Wilco> ack rd
14:27:20 <rdeltour> rdeltour: a very important use case is for a user, an a11y auditor, to lookup the information on how/why/when a rule's behaviour changed
14:27:20 <MoeKraft> +1
14:27:27 <MoeKraft> to Wilco
14:27:45 <rdeltour> wilco: if you have a change log, you might not need a version number
14:28:22 <rdeltour> shadi: I think we'll need both
14:28:39 <rdeltour> ... some people with say version X of the test rules, but some other want to know about individual rules
14:28:45 <Sujasree> <sujasree> +1 to wilco... it is sufficient to have change log and do not require version number on individual rule file
14:28:57 <rdeltour> ... we might want to differentiate major and minor changes
14:29:15 <rdeltour> ... how much of a change can you still bear to be the same rule
14:29:45 <rdeltour> ... there might be a variety of changes, technology emerges, AT change, etc. all this can influence a rule
14:29:52 <rdeltour> ... and bugs, typos, etc
14:30:48 <rdeltour> wilco: so you're saying we should still track versions of individual rules or a changelog would be sufficient?
14:31:07 <rdeltour> shadi: I think a version w/b useful, but we also need a separate process for more major changes
14:31:23 <rdeltour> ... at w3c we use dates as version
14:31:47 <rdeltour> ... I don't mind whether it's a version number, or a date, etc.
14:32:00 <rdeltour> ... creating a changelog is quite simple
14:32:23 <rdeltour> wilco: what do you tink of rolling the versions in the changelog itself?
14:32:52 <rdeltour> shadi: it can work. I think it's enough if there's a date. we can also auto-generate a diff
14:33:20 <Charu> Charu has joined #wcag-act
14:33:27 <rdeltour> ... we can simplify the auhoring with an automated diff service
14:33:35 <shadi> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:33:35 <Zakim> Present: maryjom
14:33:47 <rdeltour> wilco: so it seems we're dropping the version number section, and make it a changelog
14:33:52 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
14:34:11 <shadi> present+ Wilco, Shadi, Chris, Romain, Moe, Manoj, Sujasree, Charu
14:35:01 <rdeltour> wilco: we want to remove the version number section, bake it in the changelog section, don't necessarily want an X.Y.Z schema, dates may be sufficient.
14:35:07 <rdeltour> zakim, take up next
14:35:07 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Accessibility support discussion" taken up [from Wilco]
14:35:52 <Wilco> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-rules-format.html#structure-acc-supp
14:36:13 <rdeltour> wilco: we put an editor's note in the last draft
14:37:50 <rdeltour> wilco: Alistair had concerns regarding if we even needed to address accessibility support in rules
14:38:08 <rdeltour> ... questions whether rules should be about theoretical accessibility or not
14:38:21 <rdeltour> ... I'm very much of doing something with a11y support
14:38:35 <rdeltour> ... whether the proposed solution is the right answer I really don't know
14:39:02 <rdeltour> ... but it's such an important topic, and historically hasn't really be addressed by tools, so it's important to consider it
14:39:21 <shadi> q+
14:39:33 <rdeltour> ... we sort of agreed to put it in our scope. do you still think we need to start addressing this?
14:39:45 <Charu> q+
14:40:03 <rdeltour> shadi: is there an example test rule we can use as a base, to avoid hypothetical concerns one way or the other?
14:40:31 <shadi> ack me
14:40:33 <rdeltour> ... if we can show what we mean by consdering a11y support, not depending on a specific tool, this can make the discussion more tangible
14:41:09 <rdeltour> wilco: in auto-wcag we said we'd look at things that are accessible according to the spec; we try to avoid the problem to move forward
14:41:41 <rdeltour> charu: there are 3 different aspects: user agent / AT / markup technology
14:42:07 <rdeltour> ... we're covering a11y support for all 3 of these aspects
14:43:10 <rdeltour> ... if the user agent or AT is not up to a level of support we file a bug
14:43:20 <shadi> q+
14:43:26 <shadi> ack char
14:43:35 <rdeltour> ... if we add ARIA 1.1 and it fails with Firefox, it's up to them to fix that
14:43:59 <rdeltour> wilco: sure, it's a problem at their end if they don't support it, but it's also a problem for the user of the software
14:44:12 <rdeltour> ... developers should know the kind of problem so that they can avoid it
14:44:34 <rdeltour> charu: right, but not sure the rules should cover that. the rules are designed for a certain markup technology
14:44:48 <Sujasree> +1 to charu ... also, it will be tough to maintain that traceability over time
14:44:57 <rdeltour> ... otherwise it make it complicated if we put all that info in the rule format
14:45:12 <rdeltour> ... I don't know if we should cover the UA and AT support as well
14:45:33 <Wilco> ack sh
14:45:45 <rdeltour> shadi: I think this is exactly the kind of confusion that w/b solved with a specific example
14:45:58 <rdeltour> ... my recollection is that it's more focused on the technology level
14:46:29 <rdeltour> ... "this rule requres aria-describedby" so that the tool user can have a selection process to include/exclude all the rules that require ARIA support
14:46:48 <rdeltour> ... basically, have explicit knowledge about it so that people can enable tests or not
14:47:18 <rdeltour> ... I think many people, when they hear a11y support, think about  hard-coding versions of AT and UA
14:47:30 <rdeltour> ... then the rule w/b obsolete when the technology is updated
14:47:50 <MoeKraft> I have to drop. My apologies. I have intern meeting shortly.
14:48:03 <rdeltour> sujasree: I was exactly thinking like Charu
14:48:15 <rdeltour> ... the matrix can't use all the versions of the tools
14:48:49 <rdeltour> wilco: what about the scenario that shadi describes, where we list the features that may impact a11y support, and then the users look at this list to figure out which tool / combination is compatible
14:49:22 <rdeltour> wilco: e.g. ths rule requires this aria 1.1 feature
14:49:29 <rdeltour> q+
14:50:02 <rdeltour> sujasree: It would definitely be useful to have this information, but updating the support info is difficult
14:50:28 <rdeltour> wilco: at Deque we keep a rough list of what is supported, we don't add rules for things that are not well supported
14:50:42 <rdeltour> ... ideally we add rules as new technologies come out
14:51:03 <rdeltour> ... it seems to me that being able to adopt that and identify this thing is useful
14:51:27 <Charu> +1 to qualifying the rule with feature technology
14:52:10 <rdeltour> rdeltour: I like putting the info of the feature in the rule
14:52:25 <rdeltour> ... it makes me think of having something like caniuse for a11t
14:52:31 <rdeltour> s/a11t/a11y
14:52:40 <rdeltour> charu: ???
14:53:25 <rdeltour> wilco: now that we have more frequent updates to spec, one thing we could consider is to ref the version of the spec and name the feature in the spec
14:53:42 <rdeltour> ... maybe you'd point to "ARIA 1.0 alert"
14:53:58 <rdeltour> ... "this rule tests ARIA 1.0 alert"
14:54:18 <rdeltour> ... that would provide a leightweight way to declare a11y support
14:54:31 <rdeltour> charu: I would agree to that!
14:54:36 <rdeltour> +1 from me too
14:54:37 <maryjom> +1
14:55:05 <rdeltour> shadi: I'm just wondering whether we should rename it from a11y support to something less scary
14:55:09 <maryjom> +1 to Shadi.
14:55:22 <rdeltour> ... "descriptors of a11y feature" or something like that
14:55:43 <rdeltour> ... and an example would be really helpful  :)
14:56:33 <rdeltour> wilco: maybe "accessibility features" might work
14:56:38 <rdeltour> +1
14:57:18 <rdeltour> chris: I like the renaming.
14:58:06 <rdeltour> ... whithin the rule set, pulling from the ARIA specification, baking that into the rule set... is that something we're looking into?
14:58:20 <rdeltour> wilco: I think that w/b quite complicated
14:58:39 <rdeltour> ... might be an implementation feature more than a rule feature
14:58:48 <rdeltour> zakim, take up item 5
14:58:48 <Zakim> agendum 5. "Availability for ACT TF Teleconferences - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/availability/" taken up [from Wilco]
14:59:05 <rdeltour> wilco: we had very low attendance last week :)
14:59:30 <rdeltour> ... please fill the survey so that we know who to expect in our next calls
14:59:50 <rdeltour> ... thank you everyone, talk to you next week!
15:10:14 <shadi> trackbot, end meeting
15:10:14 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:10:14 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been maryjom, ChrisLoiselle, Wilco, Shadi, Romain, Moe, Manoj, Sujasree, Charu
15:10:22 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:10:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/12-wcag-act-minutes.html trackbot
15:10:23 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:10:23 <RRSAgent> I see no action items