17 Apr 2007


See also: IRC log


Shadi, Christophe, Vangelis, Michael, Tim


feedback from Shadi's session on "Testing for WCAG 2.0" at CSUN

<Christophe> Presentation on "Testing for WCAG 2.0", which described work of TSD TF; purpose and status.

<Christophe> One or two organizations may be interested in assigning resources. This may take a while.

<Christophe> Got attention of some tool developers; some asked for URL of the slides.

<Christophe> Next opportunity: Web for All conference in May.


<Christophe> TSD TF participants: use opportunities to talk about this work.

Reporting coverage issues to WCAG WG



CS: looked at this last week, no objections

RESOLUTION: adopt the issues template linked above for reporting issues to WCAG WG

Review of the review process document




<Christophe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2007Mar/0019.html

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to suggest it doesn't need another strawpoll round

SAZ: "bug" is a minor mistake (or typo etc) in the test sample
... it can be just fixed by the reviewer (or someone else who takes the action item) and doesn't need to go back to the group
... it's the chairs discretion to decide what constitutes a "bug" (rather than try to specify concrete parameters)

CS: so a "bug" is a new outcome from the TF decision

SAZ: yes, it's a "go ahead but with some minor modifications" (rather than "go ahead as-is" or "no, this needs to be reqorked")

CS: in a "bug" we assume we only have minor mistakes, that don't need re-review by the TF

SAZ: correct. things like wrong date, incorrect value, typos, etc


outcomes of a TF decision:

1. Reject: the group totally rejects a submitted test sample, it must be resubmitted and re-reviewed from the start

2. minor bugs as discussed above

3. more substantial bugs but not necessarily sufficient to constitute a rejection (test sample needs reworking)

scribe: in this case it will need to have another content-review that describes how the issues were addressed, then go back for a strawpoll by the TF

4. acceptance of the test-sample "as-is" (sent to WCAG WG for final approval)

5. test sample identifies an issue in the test procedure or technique, rather than in the test sample itself

scribe: these type of test samples are documented separately in a queue for WCAG WG to process

TB: "substantial bugs" are a conditional reject and need to be repaired by the author
... unless author expresses consent to have TF modify the submission
... how will the submitter be made aware about the expectation, especially for responses that are on hold and may take longer

SAZ: we haven't addressed such communication yet, will need to when we open up for public submission

<scribe> ACTION: SAZ to update flow-chart according to the above and resend to the TF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/17-tsdtf-minutes.html#action01]

SAZ: when an issue is recorded for WCAG WG (a test sample identifies an issue in the WCAG technique or test procedure), it is recorded in its own wiki template as an outcome of the TF decision

New tests from BenToWeb team

CS: have test samples ready

SAZ: maybe better to wait a week or two and watch potential changes due to updated WCAG 2.0 WD or changes from BenToWeb review

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: SAZ to update flow-chart according to the above and resend to the TF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/17-tsdtf-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.128 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/04/17 13:51:44 $