W3C

Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

15 Feb 2017

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Wilco, Moe, MaryJo, Shadi, Kathy, Alistair
Regrets
Chair
Wilco, MaryJo
Scribe
Kathy, Shadi

Contents


Draft section 6.1 Output Data https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/41/files?diff=split

Wilco - question from Roman on labeling for input data and whether or not it needs to be there

Wilco - how strictly do we want to stick with Earl

Wilco - if we are then we should base everything on Earl

Shadi - Earl is incomplete, we did not have enough implementations. There is no requirement to do this. Suggestion is to stick with Earl unless there is a reason to deviate

Wilco - one of the reasons could be that we need different terminology

Shadi - web content and test subjects are terms are in Earl

Shadi - what do you mean by web content

Wilco - really about what is the thing that we are testing and what name we give to that

Shadi - Earl is like object oriented programming

Wilco - question for Allistair is that web content clear enough term

Alistair - usually say something under test

Wilco - go with test subjects as a term

Wilco - no objections so will make the change

Wilco - second comment from Mary Jo - use the term in Earl

Wilco - any other comments?

Wilco - no, so we will merge this in

Draft section 4.2 Accessibility Support Data https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/32/files?diff=split

Wilco - no comments on this

Moe - there were 6 responses in the survey

<MoeKraft> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTTF8Feb2017/results#xQ5

<MoeKraft> Accessibility experts often disagree on how accessibility requirements should be tested. These disagreements on how a requirement should be tested, lead to conflicting results of accessibility tests. This is true for both manual accessibility tests as well as for accessibility testing done through automated test tools (ATTs).

AG: by reference alone, test includes everything you are testing for
... no need to repeat in the supported bit
... seems repetitive

WF: optional?

AG: useless

WF: suggest to keep for now until we figure out accessibility support
... if it turns out repetitive, then we can keep it

AG: accessibility support woven in could be useful
... worried about maintance of accessibility support

WF: idea is that rules won't have to change
... but tools may change which rules are running
... depending on environment of the testing

SAZ: doesn't evaluator need to know what is accessibility supported or not?

AG: best is owner to define that

SAZ: WCAG recognizes accessibility support

WF: need to move on

KW: compatibility testing as black-box testing
... testing for requirements is more white-box
... really two different ways of testing
... WCAG 2 requirements are testable
... but support changes in ATs and browsers

WF: agree that accessibility support may not apply to majority of tests

<MoeKraft> I have to drop. Have a good week.

WF: and the approach suggested by AG makes sense to some extent
... but also other approaches being used
... where people look at what is supported or not
... want to find a way to support the second, if possible

KW: maintaining that is very difficult
... changes very frequently

WF: we don't have to maintain anything
... just making the accessibility support assumptions explicit
... then evaluators can select matching rules

SAZ: do we have an auto-wcag rule as an example?

KW: not against this idea but concern is that how the code fits in the entire page can also be an issue
... cannot always be definitive

MJM: in some languages AT implementations are far behind

WF: but that is exactly the reason for this approach

MJM: how can evaluators keep up with all this?

WF: they don't have to
... just making "relied upon" more explicit
... if AT does not support this feature, then they know they can exclude the rule

KW: add editor note to explain concerns and considerations?

WF: absolutely, good idea

<Kathy> +1

+1

<maryjom> +1

<agarrison> +1 for editors note

Alan: +1

Extra meetings to get spec ready for FPWD by CSUN

WF: need additional meetings to catch up on schedule
... meeting *in addition* on Thursday 16 and Thursday 23
... keeping Wednesday 22 as well
... all same time

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.148 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/02/15 16:08:45 $