14:56:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act
14:56:03 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/12/14-wcag-act-irc
14:56:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:56:05 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wcag-act
14:56:07 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
14:56:07 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:56:08 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference
14:56:08 <trackbot> Date: 14 December 2016
14:56:15 <Wilco> agenda?
14:57:40 <Wilco> agenda+ Approval of last week's meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTTF14Dec2016/
14:57:44 <Wilco> agenda+ Action 13 - Write up on Section 4.1 Selectors
14:57:47 <Wilco> agenda+ Action 11, pull request #12 - Re-review of draft Rule Description section
14:57:49 <rdeltour> rdeltour has joined #wcag-act
14:57:53 <Wilco> agenda+ Pull request #20 - Re-review proposed update to the Introduction section
14:57:59 <Wilco> agenda+ Issue 5, pull request Update to Scope and related sections
14:58:02 <Wilco> agenda+ Clarification of Task Force work
14:58:09 <Wilco> agenda+ Open Issues in github https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues
14:58:14 <Wilco> agenda+ Open Action Items https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/track/actions/open
14:58:20 <Wilco> agenda?
15:00:29 <MoeKraft> MoeKraft has joined #wcag-act
15:01:08 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag-act
15:01:09 <shadi> present+
15:01:24 <rdeltour> scribe Romain
15:01:34 <rdeltour> scribe: Romain
15:01:44 <shadi> scribenick: rdeltour
15:03:13 <shadi> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:13 <Zakim> Present: shadi
15:03:14 <rdeltour> zakim, take up next
15:03:15 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Approval of last week's meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTTF14Dec2016/" taken up [from Wilco]
15:03:31 <shadi> present+ Wilco, Romain, Moe, Alistair
15:04:01 <agarrison> agarrison has joined #wcag-act
15:04:08 <rdeltour> wilco: 2 comments
15:04:19 <rdeltour> ...  1. a broken link
15:04:38 <rdeltour> ... may be not worth the trouble to fix it
15:04:56 <rdeltour> ... 2. a comment from Mary Jo
15:05:51 <rdeltour> shadi: just send me offline what needs to be fixed
15:06:01 <rdeltour> zakum, take up next
15:06:12 <rdeltour> zakim, take up next
15:06:12 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Action 13 - Write up on Section 4.1 Selectors" taken up [from Wilco]
15:06:49 <rdeltour> wilco: Romain wrote  a proposal for the Selectors section
15:07:08 <rdeltour> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/21
15:07:54 <rdeltour> rdeltour: I don't think the language being too technical is much of an issue for a spec? can you elaborate?
15:08:09 <rdeltour> wilco: "selectors is a boolean predicate" sounds complicate
15:09:26 <Wilco> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTTF14Dec2016/results
15:09:44 <rdeltour> alistair: going to the text from GitHub is troublesome
15:09:59 <rdeltour> wilco: the text is copied in the survey
15:10:07 <rdeltour> shadi: you can also use rawgit
15:10:44 <rdeltour> rdeltour: I for one pretty much like the github view which shows the diff
15:11:02 <rdeltour> alistair: wrt the selector test, it's not just a boolean predicate
15:11:23 <rdeltour> ... why don't we just use the text from the W3C spec for CSS selectors
15:12:16 <agarrison> Why not have something like - "selectors are patterns used to select the element(s) you want to work with."
15:12:33 <rdeltour> rdeltour: I did adapt the definition in Selectors Level 4, so the definition will change to something like this
15:12:51 <MoeKraft> From Selectors Level 3 Recommendation: Selectors are patterns that match against elements in a tree, and as such form one of several technologies that can be used to select nodes in an XML document. Selectors have been optimized for use with HTML and XML, and are designed to be usable in performance-critical code.
15:12:51 <rdeltour> ... a selector *is* conceptually a boolean predicate
15:13:06 <rdeltour> wilco: this is why I suggested to simplify the text
15:13:10 <rdeltour> rdeltour: ok
15:13:45 <rdeltour> alistair: we have to be careful about elements, I always say "nodes" now
15:14:58 <rdeltour> rdeltour: I used "elements" very broadly, not in the markup meaning, but as in "element in a set"
15:15:10 <rdeltour> wilco: let's look at shadi's comment
15:15:35 <rdeltour> shadi: I think the most important comment is to take a plainer language
15:15:43 <rdeltour> ... CCS 3 can be used as an input
15:15:51 <rdeltour> s/CCS/CSS/
15:15:51 <MoeKraft> +1 to simplified text
15:16:04 <rdeltour> .. not complicate things with 'boolean'
15:17:46 <rdeltour> rdeltour: I was trying to use precise language, I find "boolean predicate" was precisely describing what is a "pattern that matches" something, but won't object a change in that direction if people feel more confortable
15:18:03 <rdeltour> wilco: in axe we call these things "matchers"
15:18:25 <rdeltour> ... selector is a bit too close to CSS, and we look at a couple other qualities
15:18:36 <rdeltour> ... not even sure "selector" is the right word
15:19:31 <rdeltour> rdeltour: I agree. Selectors is probably too close to CSS and can be confusing. Using a different terminology can avoid the confusion
15:19:47 <rdeltour> alistair: what we're looking for is a candidate set ready to test
15:20:05 <rdeltour> ... in effect, "select the stuff that you're ready to test"
15:20:30 <rdeltour> ... as long as we define it as something very general, I think there's no risk of confusion with CSS
15:20:36 <rdeltour> wilco: I see your point
15:21:11 <rdeltour> ... I kind of like the word "selector", if we can make clear enough that these things are not necessarily CSS selectors
15:21:24 <rdeltour> ... let's see if we can come up with a text
15:21:34 <MoeKraft> it's a selector :)
15:21:59 <agarrison> function that allows you to collect content to test
15:22:22 <rdeltour> rdeltour: I think we want to keep the concept of "filtering"
15:23:02 <rdeltour> alistair: we use applicability conditions before we go ahead and run the tests
15:23:19 <rdeltour> ... we could have something very light, "function that allows you to collect content to test"
15:23:37 <rdeltour> wilco: it's not necessarily programatic
15:23:58 <rdeltour> alistair: it has a broader context than just programming
15:24:17 <cpandhi> cpandhi has joined #wcag-act
15:25:37 <MoeKraft> From AXE: "Upon execution, a Rule runs each of its Checks against all relevant nodes. Which nodes are relevant is determined by the Rule's selector property and matches function. If a Rule has no Checks that apply to a given node, the Rule will result in an inapplicable result."
15:25:39 <rdeltour> rdletour: I found defining "selectors" was difficult without knowing the definition of "input data", since selectors are applied to input data
15:25:42 <MoeKraft> q+
15:25:47 <rdeltour> ... maybe we should look at that first
15:26:05 <Wilco> A selector is a procedure for locating elements or components within the test subject that are to be tested using the rule.
15:26:07 <rdeltour> alistair: what do you have in mind? input data is essentially the DOM
15:26:17 <rdeltour> wilco: not only (...)
15:26:56 <rdeltour> moe: I don't want to be too generic
15:27:35 <rdeltour> charu: I agree that dev are mostly familiar to selector terminology. As long as we describe it for the general public and keep selectors it can work
15:28:03 <rdeltour> wilco: I want to pass it on, maybe Moe you can try to humanize this description a little bit?
15:28:30 <rdeltour> rdeltour: don't hesitate to ask if you need help!
15:28:38 <rdeltour> zakim, take up next
15:28:38 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, rdeltour
15:28:44 <Wilco> q?
15:28:47 <rdeltour> ack moe
15:28:48 <Wilco> ack moe
15:28:55 <Wilco> zakim, take up next
15:28:55 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Action 11, pull request #12 - Re-review of draft Rule Description section" taken up [from Wilco]
15:28:56 <rdeltour> zakim, take up next
15:28:58 <Zakim> agendum 3 was just opened, rdeltour
15:29:48 <rdeltour> wilco: I think we can elaborate a bit on the proposed list
15:29:49 <MoeKraft> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/12
15:30:32 <rdeltour> ... I think we need more explanation on "limitations and assumptions", we need to clarify that
15:31:08 <rdeltour> charu: I put that over there because when we are actually writing the rules we do have assumptions and limitations based on the requirements
15:31:17 <Wilco> https://auto-wcag.github.io/auto-wcag/pages/design/rule-design.html#assumptions
15:31:42 <rdeltour> wilco: let link above is what we said in Auto-WCAG
15:31:56 <rdeltour> s/let/the/
15:33:03 <rdeltour> charu: it looks like we have a whole new section for "Assumptions"
15:33:35 <rdeltour> wilco: if it's clear to people what is meant by assumption in this context...
15:34:04 <rdeltour> ... if we don't clarify this section and leave it as-is, is it gonna be alright?
15:34:48 <rdeltour> rdeltour: I think it can be solved by putting a couple examples of assumption and limitations
15:34:56 <rdeltour> charu: good idea, I can put some examples
15:35:12 <rdeltour> wilco: cool, sounds good.
15:35:17 <rdeltour> zakim, take up next
15:35:17 <Zakim> agendum 4. "Pull request #20 - Re-review proposed update to the Introduction section" taken up [from Wilco]
15:35:52 <MoeKraft> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/20
15:36:03 <rdeltour> wilco: for english speaker, do you think this text is clear enough?
15:36:31 <rdeltour> moe: transparency was one of the words we brought up in a call 2 weeks ago
15:36:54 <rdeltour> ... I guess the best way to describe it is that it's clear, it's clearly understandable
15:37:21 <rdeltour> wilco: what I meant with "transparency" is that anyone could see through it, in terms of openness, there's no black box approach to this
15:37:43 <rdeltour> ... in closed sw, you throw some input, get results, and don't know how
15:38:08 <rdeltour> ... I think "transparency" means you know why you get the results you get
15:38:21 <rdeltour> ... is that different from the way you see it Moe?
15:38:37 <rdeltour> moe: no, not really
15:40:16 <rdeltour> rdeltour: I thought "transparency" here was a bit misplaced, or at least if we want to make it a strong point we should elaborate and explain it further
15:40:34 <rdeltour> charu: I think I agree (...)
15:40:42 <rdeltour> ... I agree with Wilco's interpretaiton
15:41:03 <rdeltour> ... what we mean is more "harmonized" or "standardized" set of test methods
15:41:05 <MoeKraft> From wikipedia, "White-box testing (also known as clear box testing, glass box testing, transparent box testing, and structural testing) is a method of testing software that tests internal structures or workings of an application, as opposed to its functionality (i.e. black-box testing). In white-box testing an internal perspective of the system, as well as programming skills, are used to design test cases."
15:41:17 <rdeltour> wilco: ACT is about harmonizing
15:41:39 <rdeltour> ... but the point of ACT is to standardize how you write rule. the harmonization comes after that/
15:43:10 <rdeltour> rdeltour: it's an introduction, so we can be a bit more verbose. I'd remove "transparent" here and add a setence to explain the concept of transparency
15:43:19 <rdeltour> moe: in the introduction or somewhere else?
15:43:27 <rdeltour> rdeltour: I'd say in the introduction
15:43:55 <rdeltour> moe: for the process, should we accept the PR and make the transparency in another PR?
15:43:58 <rdeltour> wilco: yes
15:45:00 <rdeltour> alistair: is the document being built out somewhere in a complete document? can we have that for meetings?
15:45:12 <rdeltour> ... in my mind it's hard to look at PR, all I want to see is the text
15:45:31 <rdeltour> ... if you want to show comments, that's fine. but can we have the link to the built-out document too?
15:46:31 <rdeltour> rdeltour: we don't have the built-out document for the new proposal, just for what has been accepted so far
15:46:44 <rdeltour> alistair: that's fine, at least we can comment on the agreed document
15:47:24 <rdeltour> ... we only have an hour to put to this, and we need something as clear as possible, even if it means someone dumping something in IRC
15:48:18 <rdeltour> maryjom: the survey has the updated text, I scraped it out
15:49:07 <cpandhi>  Link:
15:49:25 <cpandhi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTTF14Dec2016/
15:49:27 <rdeltour> ... you should look at the survey, it has links to issues or whatever
15:50:57 <shadi> +1 to use github comments rather than surveys
15:51:31 <rdeltour> rdeltour: while we're at it, I find it confusing to have both survey comments and gh comments, can lead to duplication
15:51:48 <rdeltour> ... I'd suggest to use gh only just because it's less rigid than the survey mecanism
15:52:06 <rdeltour> wilco: we need to make a recommendation, yes
15:52:12 <rdeltour> ... alistair, wdyt?
15:52:36 <rdeltour> alistair: if we can just have the complete document...
15:52:46 <Wilco> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-framework.html
15:53:09 <shadi> q+
15:53:31 <rdeltour> wilco: I can make sure that every week we have what's currently accepted on this URL
15:53:37 <rdeltour> alistair: that would be perfect
15:54:44 <rdeltour> rdeltour: can we add an "I don't know" option to the survey?
15:54:51 <Wilco> ack s
15:55:03 <rdeltour> shadi: to share experience from other groups...
15:55:15 <rdeltour> ... romain's concern can be obtained by rephrasing the option
15:55:38 <rdeltour> +1 for "needs more work"
15:55:54 <rdeltour> ... you can generate HTML or a document for a PR
15:56:04 <rdeltour> ... you can also use the HTML diff service to show the changes
15:56:15 <rdeltour> ... I can work with you offline to generate such URLs
15:56:24 <rdeltour> ... will make easier for people to review these proposal
15:56:52 <rdeltour> ... on the workflow, I think it'd make sense to have the survey a week ahead, rather than have really fresh comments
15:57:12 <rdeltour> ... so editors can bring questions they have in the following week
15:57:32 <rdeltour> ... there's time to consider the questions by the whole group before closing the survey
15:57:49 <rdeltour> wilco: I'd also suggest that the survey gets closed at least one day in advance
15:58:17 <rdeltour> shadi: could be, or it could be in parallel: have a survey opened for the next week
15:58:35 <rdeltour> ... different ways to handle that, but we need to give more time to consider the comments before the group
15:58:51 <rdeltour> wilco: OK. let's see if we can start doing that.
15:59:02 <rdeltour> shadi: it depends on the kind of questions as well
15:59:24 <rdeltour> ... a review survey may need more time than a weekly survey where people approve the minutes
16:00:51 <rdeltour> rdeltour: can we just use gh for voting on the change proposals?
16:01:07 <rdeltour> shadi: some groups work like that, but it needs more gh activity
16:01:21 <rdeltour> ... the survey handles people a bit more
16:01:59 <rdeltour> wilco: what I'm trying to do is have surveys on the wednesday after the meeting
16:02:22 <rdeltour> ... we look at what the results are and decide on the agenda with the management on tuesdays
16:02:56 <rdeltour> ... we can put all of the new text in the survey, put the current version, and then any comment you may have can be left on gh in the PR itself
16:03:12 <rdeltour> rdeltour: OK, sgtm
16:03:18 <rdeltour> alistair: ok, sounds good
16:03:30 <rdeltour> wilco: we have a plan!
16:03:38 <rdeltour> ... mary jo's aways for the next week
16:04:06 <rdeltour> s/aways/away/
16:04:50 <rdeltour> wilco: thank you everyone!
16:05:00 <rdeltour> trackbot, end meeting
16:05:00 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:05:00 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been shadi, Wilco, Romain, Moe, Alistair
16:05:08 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:05:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/14-wcag-act-minutes.html trackbot
16:05:09 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:05:09 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
16:05:09 <rdeltour> zakim, bye
16:05:09 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been shadi, Wilco, Romain, Moe, Alistair
16:05:09 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag-act