14:16:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #auto-wcag
14:16:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/02-auto-wcag-irc
14:16:45 <trackbot> trackbot has joined #auto-wcag
14:16:55 <Judy> trackbot, start meeting
14:16:55 <trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
14:17:34 <rdeltour> scribenick rdeltour
14:17:53 <Judy> agenda+ ACT Work Statement: https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/%28Proposed%29_Accessibility_Conformance_Testing_%28ACT%29_Task_Force_Work_Statement
14:17:54 <Judy> agenda+ ACT Deliverables: https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/ACT_Deliverables
14:17:54 <Judy> agenda+ ACT open issues: https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/Accessibility_Conformance_Testing_for_W3C#Open_Questions
14:17:56 <Judy> agenda+ Final thoughts
14:18:07 <Judy> zakim, take up next item
14:18:07 <Zakim> agendum 1. "ACT Work Statement: https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/%28Proposed%29_Accessibility_Conformance_Testing_%28ACT%29_Task_Force_Work_Statement" taken up [from
14:18:11 <Zakim> ... Judy]
14:18:27 <shadi> scribenick: rdeltour
14:19:27 <Judy> https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/%28Proposed%29_Accessibility_Conformance_Testing_%28ACT%29_Task_Force_Work_Statement
14:20:36 <rdeltour> wilco: shaid, please walk us through the proposal
14:21:01 <rdeltour> s/shaid/shadi
14:22:24 <rdeltour> shadi: Wilco and I will be looking back at previous work statement from the WCAG WG
14:22:48 <rdeltour> ... some alignment still needed on the deliverables section
14:23:02 <rdeltour> ... the deliverables description contains more details
14:23:15 <rdeltour> ... about the approach, the relations with other groups
14:23:30 <rdeltour> ... not much is new, we can look at the deliverables definition a bit more
14:23:41 <rdeltour> wilco: what is left to do on this? on communication?
14:24:13 <rdeltour> shadi: yes, the question is about how to reuse the CG mailing lists, or a task force list, etc. Cleanup is needed
14:24:29 <rdeltour> ... another question is the participants, who really want to participate here?
14:24:49 <rdeltour> ... this has not been looked out by the WCAG chairs and group
14:25:25 <rdeltour> judy: It w/b good for them to review it. the key question will  be resource allocation
14:25:41 <rdeltour> ... so far we still don't have sth clear, but no harm in asking feedback
14:26:29 <rdeltour> ... about the further description of the deliverables, I want to make sure they're clear enough, as well as other sections of the statement
14:26:48 <rdeltour> ... the question of what layer becomes a Rec, etc.
14:27:04 <rdeltour> ... shadi, how do you think that maps to other Rec track practices?
14:28:04 <rdeltour> shadi: we need to keep an eye on other groups, which may have different setup and different naming
14:28:22 <rdeltour> judy: how this would map to resources from other groups?
14:28:51 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #auto-wcag
14:28:52 <shadi> [[https://www.w3.org/testing/browser/]]
14:29:08 <rdeltour> ... I'm curious how this deliverables can map to all the resources that have been provided in the area of a11y testing (see the recent announcement from Microsoft)
14:29:28 <Judy> [Judy posting several links from Cynthia Shelley at Microsoft]
14:29:30 <Judy> Accessibility Test Automation using WebDriver and UIA went open-source today.
14:29:30 <Judy> Blog Post: https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2016/05/25/accessibility-test-automation/
14:29:30 <Judy> Github: https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/A11y
14:29:44 <MoeKraft> I have seen this.
14:29:52 <shadi> [[https://w3c.github.io/webdriver/webdriver-spec.html]]
14:30:51 <rdeltour> judy: curious wether there are relationships or opportunities between the current draft and the various things already out there
14:31:30 <rdeltour> shadi: seems compatible. from a conceptual perspective, having a spec that defines tests and test rules, with a framework doesn't seem to create issues
14:32:10 <rdeltour> judy: a lot of demand I was hearing from members is about an authority in the definition of rules
14:33:01 <rdeltour> ... if you look at this picture of what the normative layers are, do think that it is OK?
14:33:08 <Ryladog_> +1 for authority in the definition of WCAG 2 (+) rules
14:33:23 <rdeltour> moe: currently our tooling is based off the OpenAjax ruleset with some extensions
14:33:50 <rdeltour> ... when I heard about this group, my first question was about how to leverage the work of OpenAjax
14:34:06 <MoeKraft> https://fae.disability.illinois.edu/rulesets/
14:34:25 <rdeltour> judy: yes, big question. I think originally we intended to leverage this work
14:35:03 <rdeltour> katie: I think that's what the w3c can bring to the table, what is considered an authoritative set
14:35:10 <rdeltour> judy: does this approch do that for you?
14:35:12 <rdeltour> katie: yes
14:35:37 <rdeltour> wilco: from my persperctive, the framewrok will be the standard, but we need flexibility for the authoritative set
14:35:52 <rdeltour> ... we need to frequently test the accuracy of the rules
14:36:05 <rdeltour> ... we need the flexibility of not having them as specs themselves
14:36:18 <shadi> q+
14:36:23 <rdeltour> ... moe, is it goiing to fit with your organisation or do you expect rules to become spec?
14:36:47 <rdeltour> moe: it's been a pretty clear argument that the rules w/b pretty fluid and w/b hard to be standardised
14:36:54 <rdeltour> ... I think this would fit
14:37:18 <rdeltour> ... you aked if this is something the WCAG should be looking at and I think it's the right time
14:37:34 <rdeltour> shadi:  I think this may not be very clear in the doc.
14:37:53 <rdeltour> ... regarding john Gyunderson comment we can do more about explaining the vocabulary
14:37:55 <MoeKraft> s/moe:/judy:
14:38:04 <rdeltour> ... the ruleset will be technology dependent
14:38:43 <rdeltour> ... regarding your comment on authorativeness, the rules are approved by the WG
14:38:55 <rdeltour> ... they conform to the definition spec and were validated
14:39:28 <rdeltour> ... we could have a snapshot list evevery 6 month or so, or we can have a different way of signaling that on github
14:39:54 <rdeltour> ... the authoratitiveness has to be defined, how are they going to be defined
14:40:04 <rdeltour> ... how to label the rules?
14:40:14 <rdeltour> wilco: we can do without labelling for now
14:40:26 <rdeltour> ... but there will be some rules that have been vetted by the WG
14:40:39 <rdeltour> judy: an auhoritative set that will evolve, not a static set
14:41:01 <rdeltour> ... it has been done for the supporting techniques
14:41:09 <rdeltour> ... no reason why it wouldn't fit
14:41:23 <rdeltour> ... it requires a lot of discipline to keep publishing these updates
14:41:50 <rdeltour> ... wrt to John's stuff about technology specificity, that makes sense to me
14:42:24 <rdeltour> ... broadly on the question about if it's feasible within w3c to develop a standardised definition and fill it in with progressively vetted things
14:42:40 <rdeltour> ... yeah, I believe this is consistent with stuff WCAG has already done
14:42:58 <rdeltour> ... the techniques are informative, but there is defined process on how they are vetted
14:43:07 <rdeltour> ... that is a viable approach IMO
14:43:29 <rdeltour> shadi: it's a similar process as with the techniques and features
14:43:45 <rdeltour> ... the difference is that the development cana happen outside the task force
14:44:15 <rdeltour> ... the work can be done externally, then can be demoed to the group for approval
14:45:01 <shadi> q+ to ask about link to authoring practices
14:45:15 <rdeltour> judy: can we call that question right now?
14:45:27 <rdeltour> ... we may need to do that on the list as well
14:45:32 <rdeltour> wilco: OK, I will set it up
14:45:48 <rdeltour> judy: does anybody here objects to the deliverables as outlined in the wiki subpage?
14:46:18 <annika> q+
14:46:23 <rdeltour> wilco: we can do that within the next week
14:46:36 <MoeKraft> I'm still digesting deliverables. I will respond to Wilco's email.
14:46:42 <rdeltour> ... if there's any feedback we can still adress it, otherwise we can take it to the WCAG WG
14:47:11 <Ryladog_> +1
14:47:19 <MoeKraft> 0
14:47:20 <Wilco_> Wilco_ has joined #auto-wcag
14:47:20 <shadi> +1
14:47:21 <rdeltour> +1
14:47:25 <Wilco_> +1
14:47:45 <rdeltour> annika: I had a few comments on the wiki
14:47:54 <rdeltour> ... most of it are minor stuff or covered already
14:48:04 <rdeltour> ... like procedure of regular update to the rule set
14:48:21 <Judy> +1 specifically to Annika's request to specify regular updates
14:48:58 <annika> Question on table with responsibilities: Why is the benchmark tool  developed by auto-WCAG and the Rules suite frontend by ACT TF? In my  opinion it would make more sense to do it the other way around.
14:49:17 <shadi> https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/Talk:ACT_Deliverables
14:49:47 <rdeltour> wilco: I think it should be available as a W3C resource, so it make sense to be developed by the TF
14:50:13 <rdeltour> ... as for the tool, it can be done as an open colllaboration, so doens't have to be closed to the TF
14:50:42 <rdeltour> ... I don't want to be the implentor for the specification that I develop myself
14:50:53 <rdeltour> annika: than I misunderstood what the tool was
14:51:03 <rdeltour> ... I thought the tool was part of the deliverable
14:51:27 <rdeltour> wilco: the idea is that we would develop the benchmarking method
14:51:45 <rdeltour> ... the tool would be an implementation of the method, that would actually do the analysis of the rule
14:52:11 <rdeltour> ... it would pull a number of pages, run the pages evaluation automatically, and the results would be checked manually
14:52:39 <rdeltour> ... you need a rule implementation and some way to manually compare the results of the rules to the evaluation
14:52:54 <rdeltour> annika: it's a way of testing an implementation?
14:52:56 <rdeltour> wilco: yes
14:53:10 <rdeltour> shadi: annika raises a  good point.
14:53:29 <rdeltour> ... not sure if it needs clarification, but please send feedback
14:53:57 <rdeltour> ... wilco, not sure where the frontend has to be developped. It could be developed in auto-wcag or somewhere else, as long as the TF oversees it
14:54:02 <rdeltour> ... we can leave it open
14:54:32 <rdeltour> ... also, it's good that you're talking to john gunderson, I'd like some clarification on his email's question
14:55:03 <rdeltour> wilco: if I understand correctly, they've gone beyond WCAG testing and have done testing for ARIA best practices
14:55:09 <MoeKraft> q+
14:55:17 <shadi> ack me
14:55:17 <Zakim> shadi, you wanted to ask about link to authoring practices
14:55:24 <shadi> ack ann
14:55:24 <annika> ack me
14:55:28 <rdeltour> ... so there's other rules you could run and other specs you can test against, doesn't have to be WCAG
14:55:42 <rdeltour> ... I think that it's his point
14:55:57 <rdeltour> ... our scope w/b WCAG, but you could apply it to other areas
14:56:05 <rdeltour> ... does it clarify it to you?
14:56:10 <rdeltour> shadi: yes
14:56:25 <rdeltour> ... we can probably describe this a little more
14:56:45 <rdeltour> ... focus primarily on strict WCAG first, then best practices or other areas later on
14:57:25 <rdeltour> moe: Most of our rules align the OpenAjax; we do have some rules for ARIA, and some rules about ARIA roles
14:57:56 <rdeltour> ... there are times when we find that for a given role some impropriate state or properties are associated
14:58:03 <rdeltour> ... it's not only best practices
14:58:18 <rdeltour> ... about my 0, I just want some more time to read the document
14:58:39 <rdeltour> judy: I'm reassured when people spend the time to carefullly read and review it :-)
14:58:58 <rdeltour> ... really good to give it some scrutiny, everyone else is welcome to do so!
14:59:21 <rdeltour> wilco: annika, I will have a closer look at your comment and update the deliverables doc accordingly
14:59:31 <rdeltour> ... shadi, you'll update the work statement
14:59:43 <rdeltour> ... adter that, we can email the group to review it.
14:59:50 <rdeltour> s/adter/after/
14:59:57 <rdeltour> wilco: final thoughts?
15:00:13 <rdeltour> moe: good work! I'm happy to be part of the team
15:00:27 <rdeltour> annika: no furhter comment ;-)
15:00:50 <rdeltour> judy: once it gets under discussion in WCAG, we might see a brief lag for a few weeks, don't be discouraged by that
15:01:12 <rdeltour> shadi: wilco and I will be doing cleanup, thank you everybody and looking forward to comments
15:01:16 <Judy> s/by that/by that, and thanks for all the work/
15:01:42 <rdeltour> romain: I appreciate the good work ! looking forward to the reviews...
15:01:59 <rdeltour> wilco: ok, thank you, talk to you next week for the technical meeting!
15:02:58 <shadi> trackbot, end meeting
15:02:58 <trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
15:03:11 <shadi> rrsagent, make logs world
15:03:17 <shadi> rrsagent, make minutes
15:03:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/02-auto-wcag-minutes.html shadi
15:03:22 <Ryladog_> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:03:26 <shadi> rrsagent, bye
15:03:26 <RRSAgent> I see no action items