Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

Develop list to advertise ACT Framework FPWD

WF: preparing for FPWD, and want to announce broadly to get feedback

SAZ: WAI announcements sent to WAI IG
... are there other lists like on QA?
... maybe people are involved in QA beyond a11y?
... not sure how active OpenAjax Alliance is?

WF: will set up a wiki page with the lists and who will forward announcement to these lists

MK: another automation group

<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/List_of_related_groups

public-test-infra@w3.org

<MoeKraft> https://spec-ops.github.io/atta-api/

Early comments received from AG WG on the ACT Framework Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTFrameworkFPWD/results

WF: comment on relying too much on CSS selectors

<Wilco> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-framework.html#test-proc-selector

SAZ: maybe people not finding test cases

CP: seems specific to CSS Selectors

WF: not explicitly saying we can use different syntax, although example shows that
... maybe can make sentence explicit

SAZ: maybe also add a second example with a different type of selector?

WF: could do
... next comment on wording

<Wilco> "This framework is intended to provide a central point where accessibility experts can agree on how accessibility requirements should be tested so as to avoid conflicting results of accessibility tests. It is intended for both manual accessibility tests as well as for automated testing done through accessibility test tools (ATTs)."

CP: like approach

<MoeKraft> This framework is intended to provide a consistent interpretation of how to test for accessibility requirements so as to avoid conflicting results of accessibility tests. It is intended for both manual accessibility tests as well as for automated testing done through accessibility test tools (ATTs).

+1

<Wilco> +1

<Charu> +1

WF: wonder if name is throwing people off?
... are created expectations that we can't meet?

SAZ: loaded word

WF: can we make changes?

SAZ: better not during review
... but make pull requests and get back to the commenters

MK: will add pull request

Test case repository discussion

WF: missing Alistair for this

Rule repository discussion

<Wilco> https://auto-wcag.github.io/auto-wcag/

CP: rule repository different from auto-WCAG plain-english rules?

WF: no, about moving them to W3C space

SAZ: looks really great!
... one question is how we validate such test rules to ensure they are inline with WCAG interpretation
... other question is about test cases associated with these rules

WF: just started to write test cases

CP: some have commented that this is an important part

SAZ: also heard focus should be on test cases not on the procedures
... for example if someone has a different way to achieve the same results

WF: concerned about tools becoming black boxes again

SAZ: criteria should be test cases not test procedures
... but I think we need to keep test procedures for other uses cases
... like someone trying to build a tool from scratch