See also: IRC log
Wilco: we have the survey, if you have not please do so
<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTTF18Jan2017/results
minutes approved
<MoeKraft> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTTF18Jan2017/
Wilco: how do we define accessibility support?
Moe: is there a defination or a clause in WCAG we can refer to?
<MoeKraft> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-accessibility-support-head
<Wilco> Using a technology in a way that is accessibility supported means that it works with assistive technologies (AT) and the accessibility features of operating systems, browsers, and other user agents. Technology features can only be relied upon to conform to WCAG 2.0 success criteria if they are used in a way that is "accessibility supported". Technology features can be used in ways that are not accessibility supported (do not work with assistive technologies[CUT]
Wilco: let me grab the WCAG definition
Shadi: i have not seen any work on the notation of accessibility support
Wilco: i want to standardize the input
Shadi: do we need this at this stage
... we could end having the notation in text later, we may not have to
worry about it now
Wilco: you would set up accessibility
support to compare 2 tools or implementation of the rule, you have to
compare input matches for the same output
... this is tricky, we could set up support function that would check
what is supported, the rule might go if aria-describedby is supported on
text, a support clause in the rule to support the outcome
... what that means is check if x is supported
... if we have to do it it has to be super light so it can adapt
Alistair: It is very complicated, i would not worry about it
Wilco: the alternative would be to hard code it
Alistair: Over thinking this, blending WCAG
and ACT, not a big issue, not writing a light weight support
... We just have to maintain what is useful and what is not
... Allen writes a test after research and i don't have that rule, then
i would just take Allans, then we find out it is not accessibility
supported then we all dump it collectively
Shadi: i am all for trying to find simpler
ways and may be need to look at this later
... the assumption that this is accessibility supported is always there,
it could change, it could be supported in one region or with one screen
reader but may not be uniform
Alistair: if i adopt WCAG then we have to write the test in the same way, if we pool resources we make the determination of what test
Kathy: Different countries have different
standards, based on te content any rule can have compatibility issues
... i agree with Alistair, people will choose what rules to pick and
support based on the customer and content
Shadi: Picking and choosing, we have to
make some assumptions, we have to agree that people can make selections
... What i understood, are there test written independently and then
make the assumption if it is accessibility supported
Alistair: i don't think it is useful, it will be too much to maintain, lot of extra work with no benefit
Shadi: Interesting proposal, 2 tools run on
the same site with different assumptions and have different results
... the important question is will the user understand why the results
are different
... The more tranperency we can provide the more clear the results will
be or reasons why they not same
Alistair: it is common sense to select the same tests for same results
Wilco: fasinating discussion, we have to make some meta data available on which rules are accessibility supported, if that has to be explicit or can be in the rules description
Alistair: we write the test in plain english and not say anything about accessibility supported, has that will change
Wilco: That was what i am trying to get at, it can be implicit
Moe: We can identify the clause for accessibility supported data and rule can be independent of that
Wilco: that sounding like leave it implicit and not explicitly state
Moe: Can you give me an example
... may be i am misunderstanding
Wilco: Input field have label rule, implicit as well as explicit label and certain AT supports one
Wilco: it has to be defined in the baseline
... the code is being tested
Moe: if the client supports a configuration
Wilco: We can not outline what user agent or what AT will the rule supports
<MoeKraft> I think the rule should be independent of the assistive technologies.
Shadi: The goal is to have all tools interpret standards same
<MoeKraft> We are trying to confirm that the code meets success criteria and not validate the AT.
<MoeKraft> Sorry, need to drop.
Shadi: one could write a test can raise an
issue on a code and someone else will write a rule that passes based on
their interpretation
... the end user will not know the difference, how can we make that more
transparent
Alistair: the results can show why one fails one the other does not
Shadi: the report will say 2 tools ran and one is failing and other is passing, it will not be clear
Wilco: i would say if it is different rule
then it will show different results
... 3 options, we say, you must explicitly define what accessibility
supports the rule, or we can make it optional and let it be implicit
... last option is don't include accessibility support
Alistair: lot of overhead to optionaly define
Wilco: input text has a label, what are the accessibility supported assumptions, implicit labels, explicit labels, aria-label ..etc
Shadi: another use case is, if there is a
different way to test, rule, description, assumptions, steps, expected
results
... what if someone has different procedure or steps to test, so that
has to be defined
<shadi> +1 to specific examples!
Wilco: lets work this through via email and
end it here
... i want to mention F2F at CSUN
... like to hear, do we want to meet or not and the second thing is
where? we need a host
... We have talked to IBM and Deque, with no luck
... Alistair, can you explore if we can host, or any other ideas for
half day or full day meeting
... Jumping toopen issues
not sure what happened to my audio
still trying to understand what we want to include in the section of exception
Wilco: thanks everyone, talk soon