– DRAFT –
Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

ACT Standup

<dmontalvo> Kathy: Updated the rules format for background and secondary requirements

<dmontalvo> Helen: Discussed some PRs with JEan-Yves, especially around the transcripts

<dmontalvo> Trevor: I put out a CFR for one of my PRs, talked to Wilco about a different PR on ARIA, submitted the paper for Accessibility Testing Symposium

Nov 1 meeting canceled

<dmontalvo> Kathy: 2 November meeting is canceled

<dmontalvo> Helen: What's the schedule for November and December?

<dmontalvo> KAthy: Probably Thanksgiven and Christmas

CFCs from this week

<dmontalvo> Kathy: Wilco sent CFCs and it came out on a Tuesday

<dmontalvo> ... Please check out all these three rules that are ready for approval

<dmontalvo> ... That does not specify the date, let's put a week

<dmontalvo> ... First two rules are to be approved by AGWG, third one by ARIA

Defining implementations

<kathy> w3c/wcag-act#541

<dmontalvo> Kathy: Please take a look at this, this defines implementations in the Rules Format

<dmontalvo> ... We talked about it during TPAC

Secondary requirements explanations

<kathy> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/542/files

<dmontalvo> Kathy: In the first drafts we had the explanation added somewhere else, like in the background. What it does is it removes the explanations and puts it where the actual scenarios are listed

<dmontalvo> ... That should not be too much, but the explanation is still required

<dmontalvo> Helen: Theory is good, but the implementation is problematic for me

<dmontalvo> Kathy: The different scenarios that are included in the secondary requirements section might help. We've gone donw from four to three, as one of them was coveredin the other examples

<dmontalvo> Helen: Is it just for the AAA where people maybe required to test AAA?

<dmontalvo> ... Technically every rule can fail on a secondary level if you get very much into the detail

<dmontalvo> Kathy: Without these secondary requirements some implementations were not consisten, as they had results related to an SC that was not listed in the rule

<dmontalvo> ... We decided that it was correct for an implementation to show that they were failing one WCAG SC as there are test cases that have outcomes for these SC

<dmontalvo> ... We did not want to penalize these implementation

<dmontalvo> ... 3 scenarios

<dmontalvo> ... 1 The secodary requirement is stricter, for example in contrast ratios

<dmontalvo> ... Scenario 2 is the opposite of that, the rule is stricter as the secondary requirement

<dmontalvo> ... Scenario 3 is when an entirely different SC may have an outcome. For example, the rule is developed to test links but some test cases have image links, where 1.1.1 may be involved as a secondary requirement

<dmontalvo> Helen: So secondary is where some test cases may fail them as well as the conformance requirement

<dmontalvo> Kathy: If you have suggestions to improve the explanations please make comments

<dmontalvo> Helen: It's difficult when there is too much text

<dmontalvo> Helen: Are we being particularly verbose for a reason?

<dmontalvo> ... We should try to use more simple language

<dmontalvo> Daniel: I'll add you as a reviewer

<dmontalvo> Daniel: Sometimes language needs to be complicated because it's a technical realm

<dmontalvo> Helen: There are also other audiences for these rules, incluing manual testers who may not be that technical and still would benefit from these rules

<dmontalvo> Kathy: Sometimes we have some plain languge specialists that want to change the word but then that also changes the meaning

<dmontalvo> Helen: We have to have the same levels in the same rule

<dmontalvo> ... Difficult to make that balance

Update background in the rules format

<dmontalvo> Kathy: We discussed this during TPAC

<kathy> w3c/wcag-act#545

<dmontalvo> ... Have not completed it, I'll have it done for next week hopefully

<dmontalvo> ... Now background becomes a required section and other sections are put into that

<dmontalvo> ... One thing we discussed is a rename for Changelog. I need to make those changes

<dmontalvo> ... I think Wilco mentioned that he wanted to include the implementation section in it