Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

Approval of last week's meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACT8Dec2016meeting/

<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACT8Dec2016meeting/

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACT8Dec2016meeting/

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pulls

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/18

<maryjom> Shadi had comments: Does the ACT Framework define "requirements" versus a "format" or "template" or such? Also, are ACT Rules "in support" or "in accordance" to this framework? Maybe:

<maryjom> The Accessibility Conformance Testing Framework (ACT Framework) defines a format for accessibility testing rules (ACT Rules) that produce consistent validation results. This work will lead to more transparency and common understanding on how to test conformance to accessibility standards, such as WCAG 2.0.

<MoeKraft> yes

<MoeKraft> nvm, works now. Prompted to login.

<Wilco> @shadi, about your comment requirements vs format

<Wilco> I think format doesn't cover it. What we have is a set requirements of qualities for rules

<shadi> [[not hearing the discussion, will go with group consensus. Think "set of requirements" sounds a little vague and unclear. Concerned it may get pushback. But we can revisit when the document is fuller too. I suggest something stronger and more specific. Maybe "format and instructions" oer such?]]

<MoeKraft> The Accessibility Conformance Testing Framework (ACT Framework) defines a set of requirements and format to produce a transparent set of accessibility test methods that produce consistent validation results.

<shadi> [[how about "... is a specification to help produce ..."?]]

<MoeKraft> The Accessibility Conformance Testing Framework (ACT Framework) defines a set of requirements, format and measurable qualities to produce a transparent set of accessibility test methods that produce consistent validation results.

<shadi> [[that edit could work too]]

<jemma> +1

<maryjom> +1

Issue 7 - Clarification of "negative tests"

<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACT8Dec2016meeting/

<jemma> This would be compatible with the principle that “not applicable” is a pass, and that SC are written as affirmative statements.

<jemma> copied from https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/7

Action 11 - Draft of Rule Description section

<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACT8Dec2016meeting/results

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/12

Review proposed update to the Introduction section https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-framework.html#quality-updates

Open Issues in github https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues

<Ryladog_> ScribeNick: Ryladog

<jemma> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/17

<Ryladog_> WF: Issue #17 til open,

<Ryladog_> WF: Issue #13, Wilco created a pull request that solves the confusion on numbering

<Ryladog_> WF: Open issues on other folks, I will ping them to see the status

<Ryladog_> JEMMA: Issue #17, the instruction in APG group - we put the instructions in the Read Me document

<Ryladog_> WF: Good, Ill make it a comment

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/2

<Ryladog_> WF: Pull request by Shadi

<Ryladog_> WF: We can put the editorial changes on the survey for next week?

Review proposed update to the Introduction section https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-framework.html#quality-updates

<Ryladog_> MJ: We probably dont need to survey editorial content

Open Action Items https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/track/actions/open

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/19

<Ryladog_> MJ: Action for Romain, Action 17 on Wilco which is done, Action 20 update scope

<Ryladog_> WF: Ive done that

<Ryladog_> MJ: I can close action 20?

<Ryladog_> WF: Last action item not done. Maryjo I think we can put that on the survey for nexy week