Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

26 Jun 2017

See also: IRC log


Shadi, Sujasree, Chris, Wilco, Romain, MaryJo, Charu, Anne, Alistair
Wilco, MaryJo


2017 ICT Accessibility Testing Symposium (26-27 Oct.)

<shadi> https://ictaccessibilitytesting.org/home.html

Wilco: anyone attending the ICT Accessibility Testing Symposium, then they can be on a panel with me

Shadi: the paper will be to present the work done by this group

ACT review process https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/ACT_Review_Process

Wilco: Shadi put together a proposal to publish ACT rules

Wilco: we have a bunch of questions in the agenda

Shadi: has anybody not seen the review process? hope everyone has seen it
... the whole modal is built on the approach that will drive the process which a high threshold
... provide rules, test cases and you have to implement it
... the idea being that developer will have the motivation to go through the process to validate the rules.
... there may be a bottle neck if there are conflicts
... So the question is would the developers would have the incentive to go through such a process or do we want to develop a different approach

Wilco: i would like to get a take of everyone on the call

Alistair: i have a copy right kind of question, if someone contributes then does W3C get that copyright

Shadi: yes, when you contribute to W3C, it is patent free and everyone gets to use it patent free and you do not have to pay to use it
... W3C will list the contributors as editors

<MoeKraft> https://github.com/IBMa/Va11yS/blob/master/NOTICE.md

Alistaire: On the open source licensing

Shadi: there is a legal answer and i will have to get that for you

<MoeKraft> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document

Shadi: thanks Alsitaire fo for the questions, will you still go through the process

Alistair: prob no, how much speed it there in the process? we need to fix bugs or implement something new, it would be higher if open source

<MoeKraft> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-testsuite-copyright.html

Shadi: Moe just pasted the link to the W3C Software copy right
... Moe has pasted the test suite copy right license
... so we have answers in these documents

Alistair: Do we want to think in terms of the duration review period

Shadi: Good points, so lets say you have a test rule to contribute, your tool will implement and then put in Github for others to implement
... that is to reduce the bottleneck through a group
... i am looking at Auto WCAG
... The idea is the techniques will be developed outside and bring into the group
... SInce i have you on the line, what are your thoughts?

Romain: I can't commit but this is close to something we do, so mostly positive

Wilco: I have put lot of thought, i would put rules in Auto WCAG, though it is slow, the review process is good and feedback that come out is good

Shadi: would the feedback be fast

Wilco: It would be a month for the feedback to come through as we have monthly meetings
... the bottle neck is not we can't process the rules fast enough, we do not have enough contributors
... if we have enough contributors, it would speed up the process
... i have a second point, looking at our process, we review, fix bugs and implement the rule
... we contribute a rule, we have test cases and we let the ACT WG to approve

Shadi: we have Ann on queue

Anne: Ilike the new suggestion, will have the opportunity to speak up

<Sujasree> +1 for Wilco on "we contribute a rule, we have test cases and we let the ACT WG to approve"

Anne: So far we have not had developers to contribute, so they can write the rules and contribute

<Sujasree> after ACT WG approval, may be probably we can open it for Auto WCAG group to comment ?

Anne: This will solve our problems for our developers to contribute due to timing conflicts with the Auto WCAG

Shadi: The other approach is to write a rule and reach out to others to implement, more work

Anne: So if we know who to reach or have a list it would be easy

Romain: The practicality of the process as described with Github tracking for reviews and comments would be familliar for developers and would be easy to reach out to devlopers

Wilco: i see it is a familiar approach but it should not be the only one, it would have the bottle neck risk
... there could be organization that will contribute but maintained by W3C

Shadi: By have a central process there are advantages on the know hows

Alistair: Reflecting on what people said, It would constrain people heavily with a format
... how do we deal with rejections? I spend a year to get my technique through and it was a lot of effort

Shadi: There are 2 aspects, the logistics and the contents
... thats is why my suggestion is to work on test cases, rather then deal with hypothetical questions

Sujasree: I like the approach of have the working group to approve within a certain time frame

Shadi: My concern is the WG has too much responsibility to approve
... so i am suggesting is a hybrid approach

Sujasree: If the group approves we can move faster

Shadi: What if it put for review and do not receive feedback
... Moe

Moe: I agree with Shadi, i like the idea that the WG reviews and fallows a set process, but i do not want it to be too prescriptive
... It is more a honor system where folks contribute and gets reviewed
... to require a author to get approval from the central authority will be too slow

Wilco: I like Sujasree's suggestion of having a review process, make it more a test case driven process
... you contribute test cases to demonstrate the change
... We have a rule that may have bug, while IBM may have the same rules implemented in a different way, how do we resolve

Shadi: good feedback, there is some thought of having a central group drive rather then self implementation
... Auto WCAG wll support the contributors
... i will take another stab to update and email the group

Wico: any last comments

Wilco: do want someone to work with you on this

Shadi: will take another stab, please do not be shy to provide feedback

Wilco: Next Monday is holiday in US so we will skip next week meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/06/26 17:45:48 $