See also: IRC log
<MoeKraft> +1
Wilco: reminder for everyone to complete their surveys
<MoeKraft> +1
Wilco: approved
Moe: pass/fail criteria should be part of
the outline
... did not see one for the rule itself
Charu: rule outline has a description
... but also need a pass/fail criteria
... is that part of the test description?
... should it be added to the outline?
Wilco: think part of the test procedure
Charu: maybe that covers it
Moe: also comment by Romain
... think also falls under test procedure
Wilco: think remediation techniques more
part of the background
... maybe separate thing
Moe: so part of the outline?
... want to make sure we are identifying the correct requirement
... not sure techniques should be part of the test procedure
Wilco: maybe better to have separate section on remediation?
Moe: as part of the outline?
Wilco: need to think it through
Charu: rule may map to more than one technique?
Wilco: we previously discussed relationship
to techniques
... may not have 1:1 mappings but may be good to record mapping
Charu: than think need to mention techniques where we mention success criteria
Moe: under "associated criteria"
Charu: sounds good
<Wilco> Shadi: It may be useful to seperate between SC and techniques. SC is what we are testing for. Techniques are related materials
<Wilco> ... so it should be under another heading, like related techniques. I wonder if a rule can map to more than one criteria
<Wilco> ... there may be a 1 to 1 mapping to fail techniques. I would be hesitant to get into remediation
<Wilco> Moe: Are you okay if we call it related techniques?
<Wilco> Shadi: yes
<Wilco> +1
Wilco: like that, then we can keep
terminology a little clearer
... currently we call it "accessibility requirements"
Shadi: fine with "accessibility
requirements" and "related techniques"
... just not sure about "remediation"
Charu: example of failure condition vs
scope?
... would say part of both
... for example, "all images" could be "scope"
... but "all images missing alt-text" could be the failure condition
Moe: may be putting too much in the
description?
... there are other items where we could put this
... think description should be simple plain-language description
Charu: suggestion was to expand on the bullets
Wilco: agree with Moe on not indicating success criteria the description
Charu: so more focus on why we have the rule?
Moe: [reads out current outline]
... seems repeating a lot of what is in the outline
... requirements and assumptions elsewhere
Charu: so remove these sections from the description?
Wilco: think so
Charu: already have accessibility requirements as a separate section, correct?
Wilco: will be listed in the outline
... should they also become new sections in the document
Charu: think this makes sense
Moe: me too
<scribe> ACTION: charu to add these items as separate sections [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/01/25-wcag-act-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-21 - Add these items as separate sections [on Charu Pandhi - due 2017-02-01].
Wilco: come right after the description
Shadi: how far away are we from the
auto-WCAG rules?
... previously we said we will have one or two example rules
... to have something specific to look at
<Charu> +1 to Shadi, like the idea to have a rule that follows the markup
Shadi: kind of rapid prototyping as we go along
Wilco: can try to put a rule or two
Wilco: test results include "can't tell"
and "unknown", we need to pick one
... going with "can't tell" unless other thoughts
Wilco: still looking for a host
Wilco: [checks on open issues]
Charu: section on limitations and assumption
Wilco: we just decided to take that
direction
... both concepts are quite similar
Charu: why have a rule if you can use it?
Wilco: may need to look at the terminology
Shadi: sometimes also called
"pre-conditions"
... depends on it is phrased
Charu: don't use that approach in our tests
Wilco: sometimes no solution to conflicting requirements for a rule to work
Charu: then we define the rule as possible
violation
... for confirmation by manual testing
Wilco: may be interesting to explore this approach too
<Kathy> I have to sign off
Shadi: depends on how the tests are
designed
... would be good to check how others approach it