See also: IRC log
Wilco: had good discussion at TPAC last
week
... discussion came up of relationship of ACT to Failures in WCAG
... exchange with Katie on the mailing list
... think could replace Failures with ACT rules
<cpandhi> +1
Shadi: don't think we should discuss
keeping or replacing Failures
... it is part of the WCAG 2.0 model and up to the WG to decide
... but agree that we should align our ACT rules to the Failures
... so that the "testing procedure" part of the Failures could be
replaced by ACT rules
Wilco: would there be a 1:1 mapping?
Shadi: not sure if always 1:1 but we should try to translate documented Failures into ACt rules
Alistair: sent email on Monday about this
... suggested replacing "test procedures" too
Wilco: looks like agreement
... so align ACT rules with WCAG Failures?
Alistair: align with the "testing
procedures"
... including relevant context information
... like the assumptions
Shadi: agree with aligning ACT rules with "testing procedures" of Failures, so that these could be replaced by WCAG WG if they wanted to
Charu: agree as well
... focus on designing the ACT rules
... and in that we align to Failures
... the plain english aspect will be very useful
... current testing procedures are sometimes very vague and can be
replaced with something more accurate
Katie: not sure where the idea of replacing came from?
Wilco: came from me, but agree with
discussion outcome
... about aligning with "testing procedures"
Katie: agree with focusing on designing the
ACT rules to align with "testing procedures"
... not good to call for replacing right now until we see what we get
Alistair: would be good to take that approach for the Techniques as well
Wilco: agree with that
... will try to put together a small proposal as part of the
requirements for the repository
+1 to document this as part of the requirements
<Wilco> ACTION: Wilco to document decision on failure techniques in requirement for repository [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/09/28-wcag-act-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2 - Document decision on failure techniques in requirement for repository [on Wilco Fiers - due 2016-10-05].
Wilco: Alistair did research
Alistair: all in the email I sent to the
list
... framework we are creating is probably similar to existing ones
... stuff available for software testing
... work probably closest to the acceptance testing
... there is information about how to write such tests
... helps the discussion we had at the f2f last week
... but also additional information, like "positive" or "negative"
phrasing
... probably our tests are "negative" - like want to identify images
without descriptions
<Wilco> shadi: Thanks, very helpful work. At TPAC I also looked at other testing effort at w3c.
<Wilco> ... there was browser testing and tools, who work on webdriver
<Wilco> ... also the web platform WG, they have a test effort called Web Platform Testing
<Wilco> ... we should look at that, build on that. Those are more focused on browser testing. It may only be partially useable, but terminology should be reused and build on
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/Testing_Resources
<Wilco> ... in this page are some resources. People can add to this, to have an overview of what exists
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to talk about existing W3C efforts too
Wilco: want to extract relevant parts from these resources
Alistair: not only about what we want to take up but also about what we want to avoid
Wilco: would be good to have the key
take-aways
... volunteers?
Alistair: how? maybe for me to do first-cut and send to the list for review?
Charu: I can review
<agarrison> ACTION: Alistair to pull out relevant sections of standards docs. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/09/28-wcag-act-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-3 - Pull out relevant sections of standards docs. [on Alistair Garrison - due 2016-10-05].
<cpandhi> ACTION: Charu to review forst cut from Alistair [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/09/28-wcag-act-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-4 - Review forst cut from alistair [on Charu Pandhi - due 2016-10-05].
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/track/
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-act/2016Sep/0022.html
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/methodology-reqs/
Shadi: think structure of WCAG-EM
requirements is useful
... but actual requirements may be too high-level than what we need
... important to have "terminology" and "audience" definitions
... and work from Alistair and Charu could add the details
<jemma> I agree with Shadi that wcag-em could be useful framework for ACT.
Alistair: some definitions could be taken over, like web page states
Wilco: agree with that
Shadi: agree with Alistair
... should build on existing terms where possible
... but wasn't necessarily focusing on the terms themselves but the
structure of the requirements document
Wilco: anyone want to help out reviewing
existing work at W3C?
...https:
//www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/Testing_Resources#W3C_Groups_on_Testing
Shadi: takes some searching and stuff
Jemma: can help with Open Ajax Alliance work
MaryJo: can look into DHS trusted tester
<scribe> ACTION: shadi to get GitHub setup for Requirements editing and viewing [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/09/28-wcag-act-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-5 - Get github setup for requirements editing and viewing [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2016-10-05].
<Wilco> ACTION: wilco to investigate W3C testing activities for take-aways on the requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/09/28-wcag-act-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-6 - Investigate w3c testing activities for take-aways on the requirements [on Wilco Fiers - due 2016-10-05].
<Wilco> ACTION: wilco to work with Jemma on OAA relation to ACT [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/09/28-wcag-act-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-7 - Work with jemma on oaa relation to act [on Wilco Fiers - due 2016-10-05].
<jemma> Thanks everybody!
trackbot, end meeting