14:58:30 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act
14:58:30 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/11/23-wcag-act-irc
14:58:32 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:58:35 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
14:58:35 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:58:35 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference
14:58:35 <trackbot> Date: 23 November 2016
14:59:05 <Wilco_> Wilco_ has joined #wcag-act
14:59:10 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag-act
14:59:47 <shadi> scribe: shadi
14:59:58 <shadi> chair: Wilco, MaryJo
15:00:09 <cpandhi> cpandhi has joined #wcag-act
15:00:10 <Wilco> present+ wilco
15:00:16 <shadi> present+
15:00:29 <shadi> present+ MaryJo
15:01:07 <Wilco> agenda+ Req "negative tests" discussion
15:01:21 <shadi> zakim, clear agenda
15:01:21 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:01:25 <Wilco> zakim, clear agenda
15:01:25 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:01:35 <Wilco> agenda+ Req "negative tests" discussion
15:01:46 <Wilco> agenda+ Req WCAG scope discussion
15:01:51 <Wilco> agenda+ Update management section https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-framework.html#quality-updates
15:01:54 <Wilco> agenda+ Open Actions Items https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/track/actions/open
15:03:05 <rdeltour> rdeltour has joined #wcag-act
15:04:34 <shadi> present+ Charu
15:04:45 <shadi> present+ Romain
15:04:50 <shadi> regrets+ Moe
15:05:06 <cpandhi> me personely not a big fan
15:05:12 <Wilco> zakim, next item
15:05:12 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Req "negative tests" discussion" taken up [from Wilco]
15:05:58 <Wilco> zakim, next item
15:05:58 <Zakim> agendum 1 was just opened, Wilco
15:06:17 <Wilco> zakim, take up agendum 2
15:06:17 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Req WCAG scope discussion" taken up [from Wilco]
15:07:30 <shadi> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/5
15:07:58 <shadi> Wilco: comment came up, suggest not limiting to WCAG
15:08:15 <shadi> ..."Silver" coming up, and will likely be broader than WCAG alone
15:08:29 <shadi> ...would likely include aspects of ATAG and UAAG
15:08:38 <shadi> ...think need to support that
15:08:51 <shadi> ...put proposal in my comment in GitHub
15:09:06 <shadi> [[To show that the ACT Framework is capable of targeting different accessibility requirements, the following accessibility requirements are used: WCAG 2.0, ATAG 2.0, ARIA Authoring Practices 1.0 and EPUB Accessibility 1.0.]]
15:09:59 <shadi> MaryJo: can see the relationship to ARIA and ePub as semantic markup formats
15:10:18 <shadi> ...but not sure how easy it would be to do ATAG or other such specifications
15:10:20 <shadi> q+
15:10:45 <shadi> Wilco: put ATAG and not UAAG
15:11:03 <shadi> ...lots of CMS tools are web-based
15:11:17 <shadi> ...think we could address some aspects
15:11:31 <shadi> Romain: had same reaction as MaryJo
15:11:55 <shadi> ...if you are considering web-based authoring tools, then you are testing WCAG not ATAG
15:12:04 <cpandhi> q+
15:12:16 <shadi> ...what do we mean by "accessibility requirements are used"
15:12:25 <maryjom> q+
15:12:28 <shadi> ...need to be explicit
15:12:39 <shadi> Wilco: wasn't going to be that explicit
15:12:50 <shadi> ...but think sufficient if we can cover at least one role
15:12:55 <shadi> s/role/rule
15:12:55 <Wilco> ack s
15:15:49 <shadi> Shadi: think we need to separate document formats like ARIA and ePub from user accessibility requirements like WCAG, ATAG, and UAAG
15:15:55 <Wilco> q?
15:16:04 <shadi> ...think we may be covering some ATAG and UAAG aspects
15:16:14 <Wilco> ack c
15:16:37 <shadi> ...maybe we can say "will address WCAG, which may address some aspects of ATAG and UAAG", and provide an example or two
15:16:49 <shadi> ...may address some mobile aspects of UAAG
15:17:11 <shadi> Charu: agree with Shadi, should differentiate the different aspects
15:17:21 <rdeltour> q+
15:17:25 <shadi> ...document formats and accessibility requirements
15:17:33 <shadi> ...but also WCAG and others
15:17:47 <shadi> Wilco: think ePub goes beyond WCAG
15:18:08 <Wilco> s/ePub/EPUB Accessibility 1.0
15:18:20 <Wilco> ack m
15:18:37 <shadi> MaryJo: ARIA Autoring Practices are not normative
15:18:47 <shadi> ...think may want to stick to the normative specs
15:18:56 <shadi> q+
15:19:58 <shadi> Wilco: suggestion to follow ARIA Authoring Practices as they go beyond WCAG
15:20:04 <Wilco> ack r
15:20:28 <shadi> ...but agree would be good to stick with normative specs
15:20:44 <shadi> Romain: ePub a11y follows WCAG to 90%
15:20:51 <cpandhi> q+
15:20:53 <shadi> ...goes beyond on only some few aspects
15:21:07 <shadi> Wilco: but it is its own requirements doc
15:21:12 <rdeltour> http://www.idpf.org/epub/a11y/accessibility.html
15:21:19 <shadi> Romain: yes but links back to WCAG
15:21:36 <Wilco> ack s
15:23:19 <shadi> Shadi: can we describe the type of testing that we will cover rather than the guidelines?
15:24:02 <shadi> ...will it be content, browser chrome, OS mappings?
15:24:09 <rdeltour> q+
15:24:13 <shadi> Wilco: like the approach but not sure
15:25:28 <shadi> ...broader than web content but not all aspects
15:25:34 <Wilco> ack c
15:25:36 <shadi> ...maybe content and ePub?
15:25:46 <shadi> shadi: think ePub is type of content
15:25:58 <shadi> ...maybe can also spell out some use cases
15:26:09 <shadi> ...and what we are *not* focusing on
15:26:33 <shadi> Charu: think ARIA aspects will likely become part of WCAG
15:26:49 <Wilco> ack r
15:26:56 <shadi> ...might help us say the type of content that we are targetting
15:27:17 <shadi> Romain: elephant in the room when we talk about digital publishing is PDF
15:27:32 <shadi> ...and that may be the difficult part
15:27:37 <shadi> q+
15:28:12 <shadi> Romain: in response to Charu, trying to provide this back into WCAG
15:28:15 <maryjom> +1 to what Romain just said. Want to be specific enough in our scope to limit to web-based content.
15:28:21 <shadi> ...IDPF and W3C working together
15:28:39 <shadi> ...creating a shared working group
15:28:45 <shadi> ...and also sent issues to WCAG WG
15:28:56 <shadi> Charu: want to target normative work
15:29:07 <Wilco> q?
15:29:09 <shadi> ...especially if it will be covered by WCAG
15:29:46 <Wilco> ack s
15:31:13 <shadi> shadi: on PDF, will our *format* (Framework) not be applicable to PDF?
15:31:24 <Wilco> "To show that the ACT Framework is capable of targeting different accessibility requirements for web content and digital publications."
15:31:25 <shadi> ...versus the rules that we will initially develop
15:31:41 <shadi> Wilco: don't see why the format should not be applicable to PDF
15:32:02 <shadi> ...but the rules that we will create initially to complete the standard will be mostly HTML based
15:32:03 <rdeltour> suggest s/digital publications/web-based digital publications/
15:32:16 <maryjom> +1
15:32:30 <shadi> +1 to romain
15:32:37 <shadi> present+ Katie
15:32:42 <shadi> present+ Alistair
15:32:51 <agarrison> agarrison has joined #wcag-act
15:33:09 <Wilco> To show that the ACT Framework is capable of targeting different accessibility requirements for web content and web-based digital publications.
15:33:37 <shadi> +1
15:33:42 <maryjom> +1
15:33:51 <Ryladog_> Ryladog_ has joined #wcag-act
15:34:11 <Ryladog_> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:34:56 <shadi> shadi: maybe put the use cases as an appendix to the requirements, and link to them from this section?
15:35:03 <shadi> Wilco: like that idea
15:35:16 <Wilco> action: Wilco to update scope description
15:35:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-20 - Update scope description [on Wilco Fiers - due 2016-11-30].
15:35:42 <Wilco> zakim, take up item 1
15:35:42 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Req "negative tests" discussion" taken up [from Wilco]
15:36:11 <shadi> zakim, close agendum 2
15:36:11 <Zakim> agendum 2, Req WCAG scope discussion, closed
15:36:12 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:36:12 <Zakim> 1. Req "negative tests" discussion [from Wilco]
15:36:33 <shadi> Wilco: thread did not really come to a conclusion
15:36:51 <shadi> Alistair: not wild about what we will not be doing
15:37:03 <shadi> ...more interested in what we will be doing
15:37:16 <shadi> ...including the reason for failing
15:37:31 <Wilco> The ACT Framework will focus on defining rules that enable clear reasons for non-compliance to be given to the user. Breaking accessibility requirements down into rules lets us get meaningful results from testing parts of an accessibility requirement, where it may not be possible or practical to have rules that cover the full accessibility requirement. e.g. “images must have an alternative text”, but not "the text alternative must be descriptive".  Wher[CUT]
15:38:14 <Wilco> The ACT Framework will focus on defining rules that enable clear reasons for non-compliance to be given to the user e.g. “displayed content in a page flashes more than three times per second”.  Where possible, ACT Rules should map to [WCAG 2.0 Failure Techniques](https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/failures.html).
15:40:14 <shadi> Alistair: in your suggestion, you switch from what we will do to what we will not do
15:40:52 <shadi> ...we can have a different example than the flashing but think should keep the focus on what we do
15:41:22 <shadi> Charu: think nicely clarifies what the rules will be testing for
15:41:41 <shadi> ...maps to sucess criteria and outlines the failure condition
15:42:10 <shadi> ...the second one (the initial proposal)
15:42:31 <shadi> Katie: also agree with the second one
15:42:43 <shadi> q+
15:43:12 <shadi> Wilco: better examples we can use than three-flashes?
15:43:23 <shadi> Alistair: can send you a selection of examples
15:43:25 <Wilco> ack s
15:44:00 <Wilco> +1
15:44:09 <maryjom> +1 to "failure condition"
15:44:14 <cpandhi> +1
15:44:16 <shadi> Shadi: like the term "failure condition" from Charu
15:44:35 <Wilco> zakim, take up item 3
15:44:35 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Update management section https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-framework.html#quality-updates" taken up [from Wilco]
15:44:35 <shadi> ...should use it when we need to differentiate from "failure techniques"
15:46:21 <rdeltour> q+
15:46:27 <shadi> +1 to "update management" (rather than "change management")
15:46:34 <Wilco> ack r
15:47:19 <shadi> Romain: think sequence of major - minor version numbers may be backwards
15:47:43 <shadi> ...if you change the API or break existing behavior, that would be a major update
15:48:07 <shadi> ...concerned about "which could lead to a different result" in minor update
15:48:22 <shadi> Wilco: was thinking what would impact users
15:48:43 <shadi> ...new user violations are major impact
15:49:03 <shadi> ...chaning major function would lead to remediation effort
15:49:21 <shadi> Romain: better understand where you are coming from
15:49:36 <shadi> ...may be clearer if we phrase it in terms of violations
15:50:24 <shadi> ...maybe along the lines "documents will pass future versions when only the minor version is changed" or such
15:50:39 <shadi> Alistair: we don't version the tests but the entire suite
15:51:05 <shadi> ...may be a nightmare to version the individual tests
15:51:10 <shadi> Katie: agree
15:51:29 <shadi> Romain: are you talking about the rules or the steps in the rules?
15:52:11 <shadi> Alistair: good point but may be difficult to have individual tests with different states
15:52:47 <shadi> ...for example, if you correct a spelling mistake in a CSS selector, is this minor or major change?
15:52:53 <shadi> Wilco: sounds major to me
15:53:19 <shadi> Romain: if it produces new failures then it is major, correct
15:53:36 <cpandhi> q+
15:53:39 <shadi> Alistair: you'll get a lot of major versions
15:53:52 <shadi> Wilco: don't have a problem with that
15:54:24 <shadi> Katie: example of dot-version update?
15:54:41 <shadi> Wilco: anything that doesn't cause violations to go away
15:55:23 <shadi> ...change of values that does not cause new violations
15:55:34 <shadi> Katie: violations is the only parameter?
15:56:38 <shadi> Wilco: would typo in CSS selector make it to publishing?
15:56:48 <shadi> Katie: possibly not
15:57:07 <shadi> ...but versioning should be suite not the individual tests
15:57:48 <agarrison> q+
15:57:50 <shadi> Charu: maybe would be better to describe the versioning in terms of impact rather than the change
15:57:56 <shadi> ack cp
15:58:08 <shadi> +q to charu
15:58:11 <shadi> +1 to charu
15:58:13 <shadi> q-
15:58:21 <shadi> ack ag
15:58:28 <shadi> Wilco: agree
15:58:58 <shadi> Alistair: probably want to claim conformance to entire test suite rather than individual tests
15:58:59 <rdeltour> q+
15:59:11 <rdeltour> q- :)
15:59:11 <shadi> ...do we actually need versioning for individual tests?
15:59:16 <agarrison> q-
15:59:42 <shadi> topic: Next Meeting
15:59:50 <Wilco> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/track/actions/open
16:00:05 <shadi> No meeting next week, 30 November
16:00:19 <shadi> topic: Action Items
16:00:44 <shadi> Charu: still working on my action, should be ready for the next call
16:00:57 <shadi> ...added IBM column in the test description#
16:01:06 <shadi> Wilco: yes, saw that - thanks!
16:01:17 <shadi> Romain: pending questions on my action
16:02:50 <shadi> trackbot, end meeting
16:02:50 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:02:50 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Alan, Katie, Shadi, Haritos-Shea, Moe, Charo, MaryJo, Romain, Jemma, MoeKraft, Alistair, CPandhi, JaEunJemmaKu, Katie_Haritos-Shea, wilco,
16:02:53 <Zakim> ... Charu
16:02:58 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:02:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/23-wcag-act-minutes.html trackbot
16:02:59 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:02:59 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2016/11/23-wcag-act-actions.rdf :
16:02:59 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Wilco to update scope description [1]
16:02:59 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/11/23-wcag-act-irc#T15-35-16