auto-WCAG Discussion on Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT)

<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/workshop-2016/

<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/WCAG_Conformance_Rules_for_W3C

Changes to the Conformance rules : Scope, Project Outline, 3 phases of 1 year each, each one culminating in a funtional delverable

These will be usable components

Scope: division into 2 sides. Rules and Framework

Rules are the final result and will be generically applicable (not limited to WCAG)

They will be for any web technology (so not bound to any language in particular , html, pdf, etc etc) : extensible

Focus at the moment is on HTML, Aria

Scope includes semi automated tests , but we might not develop semi-automated rules in ACT

Accessibility Support : clear definition of which assistive technologies are covered by the rules

David: UA techniques vary and so how to extend rule assertions in this way ? It seems like another task.

<jon_avila> an example may be particular ARIA roles that rely on keystrokes like slider or menu and we can tell that they are used in a mobile page -- perhaps indicated by CSS breakpoints

There are design patterns for the detailed variations (all browsers, etc) wilco: example, text for images... different scenarios for different technologies

how to indicate this problem domain?

David: somone takes the rules and sees how they play out over all the user combinations (browser, AT, context, etc)

Katy: to avoid getting too bogged down in very particular cases of browser AT combinations

... finding the middle ground where the rule has relevance for the majority of test situations

Rule remains based around a main requirement, and not moving into very specific areas

<Ryladog> We should avoid going down the road of building to a specific AT

Raph: having a spec for the features that are implemented or not

Raph has a contact who has been working on this (URL)

Wilco: not too concerned with the minutae of specific AT ; but for any given rule we could know what the baseline is

Jon A : mobile is an area where these things have greater relevance

Katy: support component is important , but this is not limited to AT, it actually concerns browsers, platforms and also technologies

David: providing a mechanism for going between the rules and the range of AT , so that people can make the inferences

Wilco: the rules need to be homogeneous , possibly using EARL

David: agree

Wilco: Scope , anything missing? is something missing?

<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/WCAG_Conformance_Rules_for_W3C

Shadi: resumé of the sections in the page

Wilco covers the details of the page

<EmmaJPR_bbc> Point 2 still says collection ... FYI

<EmmaJPR_bbc> Under ACT suite

Wilco: having looked at these phases, how do they sit with the other people on the call?

Shadi : this is first draft, so obviously the wording is evolving

<shadi> +1 to david! not waterfall/sequential model

David: holistically the phases make sense. In reality there will be some crossover between phases, for example implementations (phase II) which require changes in phase I

<jon_avila> Agree with David

Wilco: important for the phases to generate usable material

even if this evolves later with subsequent phases

Katy: (mute off...) reasonable approach, good time line . Question : Community group or working group?

Wilco: to be proposed to the W3C, a working group or taskforce under the wcag working group.
... hte community group remains and focusses on rule design and rule developpement
... but designs and templates from the CG will be made available to the WG or TF
... what are the requirements for getting organisations on board , what do we need ?

John: need to avoid an accusation of just rehashing of wcag SC ....

Shadi: yes, need to put foward the notion that this is about Conformance Checking , to put foward
... question to Mary Jo, what is your take on the plan? How to get more people on board?

Katy: The business reason : not only toolmakers, but all testers in general: a means of having a consistent system , no "different results" for different tools, etc

Mary Jo : yes, related to Trusted Tester system. The value add here is about a more consistent result for testing conformance

Katy: consistent and reliable, for legal purposes

David: agree, would be good to have some public commitment from vendors as well as an expression of intention to adopt the rules, etc

Wilco: question for David -- tool vendor support will bring in more people?

David: yes . Key tools players with good customer bases really brings a market pressure overall for these developpers to take up the ACT ideas, and this has a knock on effect across the board
... if we consolidate these rules, then the vendors are in a way freed up to provide further value adds . In this sense the solutions provided by the ACT will have positive consequences

Makato: the direction is good. In Japan there are tool vendors , but they are lacking confidence , so if there were official testing rules coming from the W3C, then there would be an increase in testing tool development
... in March the japanese referential, official, based on WCAG 2, went official
... in March the japanese referential, official, based on WCAG 2, was released

<shadi> +1 to Makoto

Makato: this will increase business opportunities
... we should reach out to the developpers, encouraging them to join the project
... the topic is very specific, so people who might be interested in this topic could be limited in number. With this limited number of people, it is feasible to call them and see if they could be directly interested, so I will call them.

Wilco: thank you, yes, good idea/ We do need ot share this stuff wider ; to what degree might this be extended, there seems to be no upper bound

Emma: encouragements and possible connections within her organisation, and see you next month

Frank: tool developpers have an interest to be involved with the group ;
... ok, for the Community group working on rules, with the task force looking at the framework

Katy: task forces will always look to community group for rule validation

Shadi: a mature plan is needed, with resources, and named people for doing the work, so that this is in no way a burden on the WG

Mary Jo : as other countries pick up wcag as part of policy development ... China has been doing rules development , but are moving towards WCAG 2.0 (changes underway). They were interested in the standardization work and may be a source of help.

Difficulty getting response from Wei

Can: the rules of WCAG 2.0 are being used, although there are officially the Chinese rules, but these are really more or less a translation of the WCAG 2.0. Stability is important
... a testing implementation has been done, but there are some rules are confusing in the Chinese context
... much user testing (student volunteers), generally good results but of course the volume of pages tested is not very high

<shadi> +1 to Can

Can: we are hoping/expecting that the rules wlil become more testable , so looking forward to better guidelines being implemented so that most of the testing can be done automatically by a machine
... audio lost

everybody

Can: need more time to look at the local proposals, coming from students, which may be of interest ; I can forward them to you , let you know our suggestions

Wilco: next steps

rewording the document, refinement of document . Question, is the time right for approaching organisations ?

me?

Jon: totally onboard with the idea, but we need to define the commitments involved (time? deadlines, etc)

<shadi> +1 to jon to describe process and commitment requirements

Wilco: time investment from organisations

Shadi: half-day to full day per week
... this requirement is missing from the doc. And what are the specifics (CG versus Task Force commitments, etc)

<shadi> [resource commitments]

Jon: we are in, it might not be me, but someone

<shadi> [task list]

<shadi> [project plan]

David: also expressed desire to be involved and we are committed
... need more detailed tasks (revisions? refinements of the suite? ) ... timeline is necessary

David : scheduling

<shadi> [other commitments? adoption?]

Jon: what's missing? timeframe, yes. what are the other commitments that are implied here?

final thoughts

Shadi: things seem to be on the right track, some good things for the document from today's meeting and we can go foward

Separation of rule and ACT work

Final thoughts, Mary Jo : encouragements , looking forward

Raph: looking forward , and see you in Germany

Can: looking forward

Wilco: bye

<Wilco> Thanks John for doing the minutes