TSD TF

Test cases without a technique/failure mapping

CS: Drew sent comments on the mapping, doesn't have CVS yet

SAZ: working on CVS account for Drew, will send directions to generate SSH key

AJL: do all the tests map to the same techniques?

CS: we don't map to the technique, if the test is an incorrect implementation of the technique

AJL: so only the last one passes because its a pass
... the other two are failures because the text or audio is not right

SAZ: it is an interesting design concept that "failed tests" do not map to techniques, would like michaels input on it

CS: we can map to common failures, but not all failures are common failure

AJL: would be a value-add to be able to say that this failure maps to this success criteria

CS: there is a way to do this

SAZ: need to balance what a tools developer may want to see (all tests) and what a web developer may want to see
... failures will quickly fill the space, for example in the quick reference

<scribe> ACTION: AJL finalize the technique/failure mapping [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/30-tsdtf-minutes.html#action01]

<Christophe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2007AprJun/0043.html

<scribe> ACTION: CS send e-mail to MC and cc TF on mapping failures to SCs, and potential impact on the quick reference [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/30-tsdtf-minutes.html#action02]

Reviewing test samples for current working draft

CS: we have action items on reviewing test samples

<Christophe> http://www.w3.org/2006/tsdtf/TestSampleStatusList

<scribe> ACTION: SAZ review test samples marked "reviewer 03" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/30-tsdtf-minutes.html#action03]

<scribe> ACTION: TB review test samples marked "reviewer 01" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/30-tsdtf-minutes.html#action04]

<scribe> ACTION: CI review test samples marked "reviewer 02" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/30-tsdtf-minutes.html#action05]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2007Sep/0006.html

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tests/process

<scribe> ACTION: CV look into test samples that RR could do [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/30-tsdtf-minutes.html#action06]

Revisit naming convention for more stable URLs?

<scribe> ACTION: AJL review test samples marked "reviewer 04" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/30-tsdtf-minutes.html#action07]

<Christophe> How to use Schematron to check test samples: http://bentoweb.org/refs/TCDL2.0/tsdtf_schematron.html

CS: defer this to next week when MC is on the call too

SAZ: my only concern is amout of work vs added value, but think if needed than better now than later
... i'm happy with the group decision
... whatever is decided (i will not be here for the next call)

<scribe> ACTION: CS to provide an estimate on the amount of work required [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/30-tsdtf-minutes.html#action08]

User friendly metadata view

<Christophe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2007Oct/0002.html

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2007Oct/att-0002/sc1.2.1_l1_001.20071015.html

<Christophe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2007Oct/0005.html

http://canada.esat.kuleuven.be/bentoweb/misc/tsdtf/tcdlhtmlexamples/sc1.2.5_l3_001.20071016.html

CI: at first glance it is an improvement, don't have many more comments right now

SAZ: what does "test case needs review" mean?

CS: the expected result is "can not tell"

SAZ: we decided to fix this, right?

CS: this one isn't yet fixed

SAZ: maybe also a list for Technologies & Features?

CS: probably nested lists if there are features too

next meeting in two weeks