14:55:39 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act
14:55:39 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/01/25-wcag-act-irc
14:55:41 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:55:41 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wcag-act
14:55:43 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
14:55:43 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:55:44 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference
14:55:44 <trackbot> Date: 25 January 2017
15:00:23 <Wilco> agenda+ Active surveys https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/availability/ https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTTF25Jan2017/
15:00:27 <Wilco> agenda+ Approval of last week's meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2017/01/18-wcag-act-minutes.html
15:00:35 <Wilco> agenda+ Draft Section 3.1 Rule Outline https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/43/files?diff=split
15:00:46 <Wilco> agenda+ Rework of Rule Description Section https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/42/files?diff=split
15:00:48 <Wilco> agenda+ Draft Section 6.1 Output Data https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/41/files?diff=split
15:00:51 <Wilco> agenda+ Possible F2F or informal get-together at CSUN
15:00:54 <Wilco> agenda+ Progress on issues assigned last week - what is ready to survey?
15:00:59 <Wilco> agenda+ Open issues in Github, feedback from WCAG WG https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues
15:01:03 <Wilco> agenda+ GitHub demonstration https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/GitHub_Resources_and_Information
15:01:08 <Wilco> agenda+ Next meeting: February 1st
15:02:48 <MoeKraft> MoeKraft has joined #wcag-act
15:03:05 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #wcag-act
15:03:21 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag-act
15:03:30 <shadi> scribe: shadi
15:03:40 <Charu> Charu has joined #wcag-act
15:04:07 <shadi> present: Wilco, Charu, Moe, MaryJo, Shadi
15:04:09 <maryjom> present+maryjom
15:05:42 <Kathy> present+ Kathy
15:05:43 <shadi> zakim, take up next
15:05:43 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Active surveys https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/availability/ https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTTF25Jan2017/" taken up [from Wilco]
15:06:01 <MoeKraft> +1
15:06:04 <shadi> Wilco: reminder for everyone to complete their surveys
15:08:10 <shadi> zakim, take up next
15:08:10 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Approval of last week's meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2017/01/18-wcag-act-minutes.html" taken up [from Wilco]
15:08:27 <MoeKraft> +1
15:08:37 <shadi> Wilco: approved
15:08:40 <shadi> zakim, take up next
15:08:40 <Zakim> agendum 2 was just opened, shadi
15:08:47 <shadi> zakim, close agendum 2
15:08:47 <Zakim> agendum 2, Approval of last week's meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2017/01/18-wcag-act-minutes.html, closed
15:08:49 <Zakim> I see 8 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:08:49 <Zakim> 3. Draft Section 3.1 Rule Outline https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/43/files?diff=split [from Wilco]
15:08:49 <shadi> zakim, take up next
15:08:50 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Draft Section 3.1 Rule Outline https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/43/files?diff=split" taken up [from Wilco]
15:10:18 <shadi> Moe: pass/fail criteria should be part of the outline
15:10:26 <shadi> ...did not see one for the rule itself
15:10:27 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag-act
15:10:45 <shadi> Charu: rule outline has a description
15:10:54 <shadi> ...but also need a pass/fail criteria
15:11:03 <shadi> ...is that part of the test description?
15:11:13 <shadi> ...should it be added to the outline?
15:11:30 <shadi> Wilco: think part of the test procedure
15:11:41 <shadi> Charu: maybe that covers it
15:12:26 <shadi> Moe: also comment by Romain
15:12:40 <shadi> ...think also falls under test procedure
15:13:52 <shadi> Wilco: think remediation techniques more part of the background
15:14:02 <shadi> ...maybe separate thing
15:14:10 <shadi> Moe: so part of the outline?
15:15:11 <shadi> ...want to make sure we are identifying the correct requirement
15:15:23 <shadi> ...not sure techniques should be part of the test procedure
15:15:44 <shadi> Wilco: maybe better to have separate section on remediation?
15:15:54 <shadi> Moe: as part of the outline?
15:16:03 <shadi> Wilco: need to think it through
15:16:41 <shadi> Charu: rule may map to more than one technique?
15:16:51 <shadi> Wilco: we previously discussed relationship to techniques
15:17:09 <shadi> ...may not have 1:1 mappings but may be good to record mapping
15:17:33 <shadi> Charu: than think need to mention techniques where we mention success criteria
15:18:00 <shadi> Moe: under "associated criteria"
15:18:01 <shadi> q+
15:18:23 <shadi> Charu: sounds good
15:19:10 <Wilco> Shadi: It may be useful to seperate between SC and techniques. SC is what we are testing for. Techniques are related materials
15:19:45 <Wilco> ... so it should be under another heading, like related techniques. I wonder if a rule can map to more than one criteria
15:20:25 <Wilco> ... there may be a 1 to 1 mapping to fail techniques. I would be hesitant to get into remediation
15:20:50 <Wilco> Moe: Are you okay if we call it related techniques?
15:20:52 <Wilco> Shadi: yes
15:20:54 <Wilco> +1
15:21:26 <shadi> Wilco: like that, then we can keep terminology a little clearer
15:21:42 <shadi> ...currently we call it "accessibility requirements"
15:23:50 <shadi> Shadi: fine with "accessibility requirements" and "related techniques"
15:24:07 <shadi> ...just not sure about "remediation"
15:24:17 <shadi> zakim, take up next
15:24:17 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, shadi
15:24:21 <shadi> ack me
15:24:22 <shadi> zakim, take up next
15:24:22 <Zakim> agendum 4. "Rework of Rule Description Section https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/42/files?diff=split" taken up [from Wilco]
15:25:24 <shadi> Charu: example of failure condition vs scope?
15:25:26 <maryjom> regrets: Alistair, Romain, Detlev, Alan
15:25:31 <shadi> ...would say part of both
15:27:20 <shadi> ...for example, "all images" could be "scope"
15:27:45 <shadi> ...but "all images missing alt-text" could be the failure condition
15:27:59 <shadi> Moe: may be putting too much in the description?
15:28:19 <shadi> ...there are other items where we could put this
15:28:37 <shadi> ...think description should be simple plain-language description
15:30:28 <shadi> Charu: suggestion was to expand on the bullets
15:31:21 <shadi> Wilco: agree with Moe on not indicating success criteria the description
15:32:08 <shadi> Charu: so more focus on why we have the rule?
15:33:09 <shadi> Moe: [reads out current outline]
15:33:21 <shadi> ...seems repeating a lot of what is in the outline
15:33:58 <shadi> ...requirements and assumptions elsewhere
15:34:21 <shadi> q+
15:34:49 <shadi> Charu: so remove these sections from the description?
15:35:18 <shadi> Wilco: think so
15:36:00 <shadi> Charu: already have accessibility requirements as a separate section, correct?
15:36:09 <shadi> Wilco: will be listed in the outline
15:36:23 <shadi> ...should they also become new sections in the document
15:36:56 <shadi> Charu: think this makes sense
15:37:01 <shadi> Moe: me too
15:37:25 <shadi> action: charu to add these items as separate sections
15:37:25 <trackbot> Created ACTION-21 - Add these items as separate sections [on Charu Pandhi - due 2017-02-01].
15:37:40 <shadi> Wilco: come right after the description
15:37:42 <Wilco> q?
15:37:56 <Wilco> ack s
15:38:53 <shadi> Shadi: how far away are we from the auto-WCAG rules?
15:39:11 <shadi> ...previously we said we will have one or two example rules
15:39:24 <shadi> ...to have something specific to look at
15:40:29 <Charu> +1 to Shadi, like the idea to have a rule that follows the markup
15:40:30 <shadi> ...kind of rapid prototyping as we go along
15:40:51 <shadi> Wilco: can try to put a rule or two
15:42:04 <shadi> zakim, take up next
15:42:04 <Zakim> agendum 5. "Draft Section 6.1 Output Data https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/41/files?diff=split" taken up [from Wilco]
15:45:37 <shadi> Wilco: test results include "can't tell" and "unknown", we need to pick one
15:45:58 <shadi> ...going with "can't tell" unless other thoughts
15:46:31 <shadi> zakim, take up next
15:46:31 <Zakim> agendum 6. "Possible F2F or informal get-together at CSUN" taken up [from Wilco]
15:47:50 <shadi> Wilco: still looking for a host
15:48:10 <shadi> zakim, take up next
15:48:10 <Zakim> agendum 7. "Progress on issues assigned last week - what is ready to survey?" taken up [from Wilco]
15:49:24 <shadi> Wilco: [checks on open issues]
15:53:37 <shadi> Charu: section on limitations and assumption
15:54:04 <shadi> Wilco: we just decided to take that direction
15:54:14 <shadi> ...both concepts are quite similar
15:54:50 <shadi> Charu: why have a rule if you can use it?
15:55:08 <shadi> Wilco: may need to look at the terminology
15:56:09 <shadi> Shadi: sometimes also called "pre-conditions"
15:56:19 <shadi> ...depends on it is phrased
15:57:41 <shadi> Charu: don't use that approach in our tests
15:58:07 <shadi> Wilco: sometimes no solution to conflicting requirements for a rule to work
15:58:27 <shadi> Charu: then we define the rule as possible violation
15:58:41 <shadi> ...for confirmation by manual testing
15:58:53 <shadi> q+
15:59:48 <shadi> Wilco: may be interesting to explore this approach too
16:00:00 <Kathy> I have to sign off
16:01:26 <shadi> Shadi: depends on how the tests are designed
16:01:37 <shadi> ...would be good to check how others approach it
16:07:25 <shadi> trackbot, end meeting
16:07:25 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:07:25 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Wilco, Charu, Moe, MaryJo, Shadi, maryjom, Kathy
16:07:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:07:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/25-wcag-act-minutes.html trackbot
16:07:34 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:07:34 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2017/01/25-wcag-act-actions.rdf :
16:07:34 <RRSAgent> ACTION: charu to add these items as separate sections [1]
16:07:34 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/01/25-wcag-act-irc#T15-37-25