13:58:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #auto-wcag
13:58:14 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/16-auto-wcag-irc
13:58:39 <shadi> meeting: auto-WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) proposal discussion
13:58:45 <shadi> chair: Wilco
13:59:13 <john> john has joined #auto-wcag
13:59:31 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #auto-wcag
14:00:06 <cpandhi> cpandhi has joined #auto-wcag
14:00:11 <John_HICKS> John_HICKS has joined #auto-wcag
14:01:48 <Judy> Judy has joined #auto-wcag
14:02:00 <annika> annika has joined #auto-wcag
14:04:06 <John_HICKS> The meeting numbers don't work for the telephone...
14:04:45 <Judy> present+ Judy
14:04:59 <emmaPR_bbc> emmaPR_bbc has joined #auto-wcag
14:05:02 <cpandhi> present+ Judy
14:05:07 <annika> scribe: annika
14:05:13 <cpandhi> Present+ Charu
14:05:16 <shadi> present+ shadi
14:05:23 <emmaPR_bbc> Hello, I'm still in another meeting but will join the phone conversation as soon as I am able
14:05:57 <annika> ITEM: Review of ACT proposal
14:06:28 <annika> Judy: What is the status of the documents? There seem to be still some comments.
14:06:38 <annika> Wilco: Comments mostly editorial.
14:06:59 <annika> Judy: Ok, I can contact the WCAG WG.
14:07:25 <annika> Wilco: Had conversations with Jon Gunderson und Jesse Beach.
14:07:39 <annika> ... would like to discuss their feedback today.
14:07:55 <Avneesh> present+ Avneesh
14:08:18 <annika> Wilco: We have a good idea what we want to do but we need to communicate better.
14:08:29 <annika> ITEM 1 Discussion: Developer focused
14:08:48 <annika> https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Accessibility_Conformance_Testing_for_W3C&oldid=2435
14:09:06 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #auto-wcag
14:10:00 <shadi> zakim, who is on the call?
14:10:00 <Zakim> Present: Katie_Haritos-Shea, Judy, Charu, shadi, Avneesh
14:10:02 <John_HICKS> many thanks , i am on the call now
14:10:09 <annika> Wilco: Agree with Jon's comment that developers shouldn't be forced to choose between several options.
14:10:18 <John_HICKS> Present : John Hicks
14:10:21 <shadi> present- Katie_Haritos-Shea
14:10:37 <shadi> present+ John, Annika
14:10:47 <shadi> present+ MaryJo
14:10:55 <shadi> present+ Judy
14:10:58 <annika> ... Jesse would like to see tool that integrate with development tools (so that developers can use the evaluation during their work on a web site).
14:11:00 <shadi> zakim, who is on the call?
14:11:00 <Zakim> Present: Judy, Charu, shadi, Avneesh, John, Annika, MaryJo
14:11:12 <shadi> present+ Wilco
14:11:39 <annika> ... Focus shouldn't only be on conformance testing.
14:12:12 <annika> John_HICKS: Clarifaction: developers = web developers (not tool developers).
14:12:18 <annika> Wilco: yes.
14:12:33 <shadi> q+
14:12:35 <Judy> q+
14:12:59 <shadi> q- moe
14:13:04 <shadi> q- cpan
14:13:05 <annika> John_HICKS: There is a lot of complexity in web development. I don't see that ACT as adding another level of complexity.
14:13:50 <annika> ... Developer should have a choice to select one of several options.
14:14:04 <Wilco> q?
14:14:07 <annika> Wilco: Jesse's comment was that there shouldn't be several options.
14:15:18 <annika> shadi: The would be a simplification. There is only one way to meet a requirement.
14:15:38 <John_HICKS> excuse me for jumping on the queue there, i didn't know we had that in place!
14:15:40 <annika> ... Previously we talked about the use of warnings. Do we need both?
14:15:48 <shadi> ack me
14:17:10 <John_HICKS> q?
14:17:35 <cpandhi> q+
14:17:36 <John_HICKS> q+
14:17:55 <annika> Wilco: yes, both are needed: warnings (something might cause an accessibility problem) and additional messages (this technique is not recommended or not allowed in this web site = rule defined by an organisation).
14:18:16 <shadi> q+
14:18:32 <annika> ... The additional rules could be company policy or government stardards.
14:19:52 <annika> Judy: Comment on earlier comment (about complexity): WAI has gotten this comment before.
14:20:12 <annika> ... For example during the work on WCAG 2.0.
14:20:40 <annika> ... We need to find a balance between complexity and comprehensibility.
14:21:12 <annika> ... The motivation for ACT was to clarify the interpretation of WCAG 2.0.
14:21:29 <annika> ... This would be welcomed by evaluation tool developers.
14:21:50 <annika> ... We need to make sure to avoid confusion (caused by test results).
14:22:02 <emmaPR_bbc> present+ Emma
14:22:13 <annika> ... Maybe we need to decribe the expectation more clearly.
14:22:41 <annika> ... Which level of complexity do we need?
14:23:27 <annika> Judy: Can to ACT rules be used for other rules?
14:23:39 <annika> Wilco: Main focus is WCAG conformance testing.
14:24:01 <annika> ... Company policy rules could be added (e.g. at BBC).
14:24:44 <annika> ... Different kinds of rulesets (policy) can be stacked in the ACT framework.
14:24:58 <Wilco> q?
14:25:14 <shadi> ack j
14:25:22 <annika> Judy: What about the balance between complexity and simplicity? What it the audience?
14:26:06 <annika> charu: Two aspects of developer perspective: tool developers and web site developers.
14:26:38 <annika> ... WCAG is very generic. The rule specification should support the checking of the requirements.
14:27:23 <shadi> q-
14:27:38 <annika> ... Form the previous discussion it seems that we are trying to do more, e.g. by taking into account organisational requirements.
14:27:50 <annika> Wilco: The ACT framework it not limited to WCAG.
14:27:52 <shadi> q+ John_HICKS
14:27:56 <shadi> q- ju
14:28:02 <shadi> ack cpan
14:28:07 <emmaPR_bbc> q+
14:28:08 <annika> ... Also EPUB accessibility testing goes beyond WCAG.
14:28:24 <annika> ... Or ARIA best practice testing.
14:28:42 <annika> ... The challenge is: How do we communicate this?
14:28:48 <Judy> q+ to suggest a way to communicate this
14:29:08 <annika> Charu: We are focussing on the tool developers?
14:29:17 <annika> Wilco: Yes.
14:29:39 <annika> ... Web developers are the secondary audience.
14:30:08 <Wilco> q?
14:30:49 <annika> John_HICKS: The comments by Jon and Jesse should be considered.
14:31:25 <shadi> ack jo
14:31:32 <annika> ... It is up to the (web) developers how they build the web site. They need knowledge of WCAG.
14:32:26 <annika> ... Complexity can't be avoided. It is not a negative thing.
14:32:51 <Wilco> ack emma
14:33:26 <annika> emmaPR_bbc: Confirm that BCC does things a bit different from WCAG.
14:34:04 <annika> ... BCC could use the ACT framework to build their own ruleset.
14:34:34 <annika> ... E.g. BCC requires a hierarchical use of headings. That would be an additional requirements.
14:35:12 <shadi> q+
14:35:21 <annika> Wilco: The power of the framework is that BCC can write such a rule an contribute it to other organisations.
14:36:10 <annika> Judy: These issues should be addressed in the scope section of the proposal.
14:36:22 <Judy> https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/Accessibility_Conformance_Testing_for_W3C#Scope
14:37:25 <annika> ... Clarify that main audience of the work are tool developers.
14:37:40 <annika> ... State that complexity is necessary.
14:38:08 <annika> ... Clarify to what extent the framework can be applied to other technology.
14:38:35 <annika> ... What is the initial scope of the framework?
14:39:24 <shadi> ack ju
14:39:24 <Zakim> Judy, you wanted to suggest a way to communicate this
14:39:25 <annika> That other technologies like EPUB could be added.
14:40:22 <annika> Judy: 2nd point: Initial focus are HTML and ARIA and maybe EPUB.
14:40:37 <annika> ... and other technologies might be added.
14:40:48 <annika> Wilco: good point.
14:40:57 <Judy> [jb: and i think css too]
14:42:26 <annika> Avneesh: I suggested to add EPUB because this technology will be important in the future.
14:43:48 <annika> ... The tests have to cover a lot of cases. But the web developer needs to know only one technique to solve an accessibility issue.
14:44:12 <annika> Avneesh: W3C has high focus on EPUB.
14:44:39 <Judy> q+
14:44:59 <annika> ... In the framework EPUB should have the same priority as web.
14:45:00 <Wilco> q?\
14:45:14 <annika> shadi: Agreed with previous comments.
14:45:50 <annika> ... Separate between framework and ruleset discussion.
14:46:29 <annika> shadi: We need to clarify when and how rules (beyond WCAG) can be contributed back?
14:46:44 <annika> ... The rules might even conflict with WCAG.
14:47:12 <annika> ... This is a potential source of confusion and complexity.
14:47:32 <annika> ... HTML, CSS, ARIA and EPUB are a big task already.
14:47:34 <emmaPR_bbc> I didn't suggest we contribute back (though not against helping) ... only that BBC could use auto-wcag as a basis for our own test suite
14:47:46 <shadi> ack me
14:47:50 <annika> ... Processing non-WCAG rule would be too much effort.
14:48:12 <annika> Wilco: The focus of auto-WCAG is WCAG 2.0 AA.
14:48:41 <shadi> [[Not you Emma, I thought I heard Wilco say something like that]]
14:48:46 <annika> ... Other groups might be working on other criteria.
14:49:32 <annika> Judy: Agreed with Shadi that we need to clarify that ACT does not supersede WCAG 2.0.
14:50:29 <annika> ... We need to clarify the term framework. Suggest to rename deliverable 1 to framework.
14:51:12 <annika> ... Agree with Avneesh on comment about EPUB. EPUB rules might be developed by a different group.
14:51:43 <annika> ... An extensible framework must also be extensible for later work in WCAG.
14:51:52 <annika> ... This should also be mentioned.
14:52:13 <emmaPR_bbc> Agree Judy ... I'm hoping auto-wcag supports WCAG 2.0 and helps with clarification and understanding for conformance ... to help teams creating test tools
14:52:57 <annika> ... A huge concern is the scalability of the ACT work. This could be resolved by incorporation existing rules. Where is this mentioned?
14:53:24 <annika> s/incorporation existing/incorporation of existing/
14:53:37 <annika> Wilco: yes, this is not covered yet.
14:54:09 <annika> Wilco: Question about terminology: Is "conformance" the right word?
14:54:15 <Judy> s/by a different group/by a different pool of developers (but could be within this same group)./
14:54:16 <annika> ... Or is there a better word?
14:55:31 <annika> Judy: Some organisations really want ACT to address conformance.
14:56:03 <annika> maryjom: Our concern is the different tools use different interpretations of conformance.
14:56:45 <annika> ... So tools might yield different or contraticting results.
14:57:06 <annika> ... The tools must be close to WCAG.
14:57:35 <Judy> q+
14:57:39 <annika> John_HICKS: For web developers "conformance" means "good enough".
14:58:17 <annika> ... The word conformance is ok.
14:58:38 <annika> Judy: But "conformance" is used in WCAG with a specific meaning.
14:58:42 <cpandhi> q+
14:59:34 <emmaPR_bbc> I agree that for now conformance is probably the best word
14:59:41 <annika> ... That is a strong tie between ACT and WCAG.
14:59:59 <Judy> ack j
14:59:59 <shadi> ack ju
15:00:02 <John_HICKS> q?
15:00:04 <annika> Wilco: There seems to be agreement on the work conformance.
15:00:10 <Judy> ack cp
15:00:24 <John_HICKS> "conformance" ... is good enough
15:00:30 <annika> Charu: IBM uses the term "accessibility verification".
15:01:06 <emmaPR_bbc> Hoping ACT will help bring agreement to interpretations
15:02:07 <maryjom> Definition of conformance: Certification or confirmation that a good, service, or conduct meets the requirements of legislation, accepted practices, prescribed practices, prescribed rules and regulations, specified standards, or terms of a contract.
15:02:12 <annika> Wilco: Will email a summary of the comments by Jon and Jesse.
15:02:14 <emmaPR_bbc> meant auto-wcag, not ACT
15:02:16 <cpandhi> https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/%28Proposed%29_Accessibility_Conformance_Testing_%28ACT%29_Task_Force_Work_Statement
15:02:54 <annika> Wilco: Can we forward the proposal to the WCAG WG now. Although some updates and clarifications are needed.
15:03:04 <annika> Judy: Yes, already done.
15:03:14 <annika> Wilco: final thoughts?
15:03:45 <annika> Good discussion!
15:04:00 <emmaPR_bbc> Thanks annika ... great scribing
15:05:35 <Judy> s/already done/already done informally in IRC, and I'll follow up in email after./
15:05:39 <annika> Judy: Wilco please update the documents and send a message to the mailing list.
15:06:19 <Wilco> rssagent make minutes
15:08:15 <annika> https://www.w3.org/2002/03/RRSAgent
15:08:34 <shadi> rrsagent, make logs public
15:08:40 <shadi> rrsagent, make minutes
15:08:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/16-auto-wcag-minutes.html shadi
15:08:46 <shadi> rrsagent, bye
15:08:46 <RRSAgent> I see no action items