W3C

Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

17 Jul 2017

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Romain, Wilco, Kasper, Anne, MaryJo, Shadi, Sujasree, Moe, Alistair, Manoj
Regrets
Chair
Wilco, MaryJo
Scribe
shadi

Contents


Rules Format pull request: Expand accessibility requirements section https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/96

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/96/files?diff=split

Wilco: expanded on section
... comments on proposed text?

Romain: looks good to me

Shadi: looks good to me too

Kasper: definitely needed - especially need for rules to be consistent
... could add more concrete example
... how does this look like on a rule for a specific technique or specific success criteria
... there is a difference between failing a failure technique and a success criteria
... what happens when one technique passes or fails - it doesn't directly map to the success criteria

<MoeKraft> what's WebEx password? Thanks

Wilco: failure of a rule is a failure of the success criteria

Anne: what about a braod success criterion like 2.4.1?
... would all these be in one rule?

Shadi: text reads like techniques and success criteria are both requirements
... but actually only the success criteria are requirements

Wilco: some organizations require certain techniques

Shadi: but these would be like new success criteria

Anne: need to check in detail

Wilco: rules need to be self-contained
... if they have dependencies on other rules then it adds complexity

<Sujasree> +1 to wilco... for example, if we used a technique to meet a success criteria then we need to have both pass and fail test rules for the same

Anne: but then you have several test rules for one success criterion?
... if one is manual then you cannot automate the process

Wilco: yes. tradeoff between making them small

Shadi: suggest you make the paragraph only about "accessibility requirements"
... then add a note to say that in WCAG 2 success criteria define accessibility requirements, not techniques

Rules Format pull request: Merge change log with version history https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/94

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/94/files

<Wilco> It is important to keep track of what has changed in ACT rules, so that users of them can work out if changes in accessibility results are due to changes in the rules used in testing, rather than changes in the content itself. It is recommended that for huge changes, a new rule is created and the old rule is deprecated.

<Wilco> An example of when a new rule should be created would be when going from a rule that tests the use of a blink element, and changes it to a rule that looks for animated style changes. This potentially adds lots of new issues that were previously out of scope. But for that same rule, adding a step to check if the blink element is positioned off screen, should be done by updating the existing rule.

<Wilco> All changes to an ACT Rule that can change the outcome of a test MUST be recorded in a change log. The change log can either be part of the rule document itself, or be referenced from it. Each new release of an ACT Rule must be identifiable with either a date or a version number.

Romain: purely editorial - would remove last paragraph to become first
... other comment is how to use the changelog
... think it was for users to see changes
... do we need a requirement, like permament links?
... for users to know which rule changed and to what version

Wilco: probably default W3C approach
... but not sure want to require it for every version

Romain: more about referencing - how can I refer to a particular version of a test rule?

Wilco: had that approach but was not liked
... decided to drop versioning

Romain: but how do we reference particular versions?

Wilco: use case?

Romain: want to compare an implementation with the reference
... but if the rule changed in between then it will be difficult to tell

+1 to romain

<anne_thyme> +1 to romain and shadi

Shadi: also comparing tools would be difficult
... need some sort of a handle, like a date or version number or such

Anne: was assuming date-space versioning, like standard W3C

Wilco: anyone disagree?

Alistair: don't you get that from GitHub anyway?

Wilco: yes. W3C uses this approach too. but should it be a requirement?

Alistair: not a huge deal
... doubt we would use the same versioning internally as W3C does
... would probably map to it

Wilco: possibly us too

Shadi: other example than "blink element"?

Wilco: will look for better example

Issue 45: Create example rules to prototype with https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/45

<Wilco> https://wilcofiers.github.io/act-rules/rules/ACT-R1.html

Wilco: want to publish in August
... want to have accompanying example test rules
... is this a good candidate?

Anne: could we also have a less technical example?

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

Wilco: good idea, want more than one example

<Wilco> https://auto-wcag.github.io/auto-wcag/rules/SC3-1-1-html.html

Wilco: maybe a rule on language?

Anne: is less scary - just "BCP47"?

Wilco: can put that in a different list

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to talk about credits

Sujasree: maybe pictorial approach like a flow chart for the steps of a test rule?
... makes it easier to understand
... do we attach test cases to these test rules?

Wilco: yes, we should
... think part of the requirements

Sujasree: I don't see the corresponding section, which is why I asked

Wilco: there should be one!

Alistair: test rules have to be ironclad
... these seem to have issues

[Alistair lists several issues with aria test rule]

scribe: but also needs to look attractive

<Sujasree> I was talking about something like this - for pseudo code flow chart - http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~ceng303/manuals/fortran/FOR3_3.html

Wilco: will look for other rules as well

<kasper_isager> Possible option: https://knsv.github.io/mermaid/

Shadi: like the idea of flow chart - is there a generator or a simple way to create them?

Sujasree: will look for it

Shadi: what about a credit section in the test rules template too?

Wilco: like that

Alistair: what if it is two people

Shadi: both listed as contributors?

Alistair: gets gray who did what

Wilco: maybe not that complicated

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/07/17 16:47:54 $