IRC log of wcag-act on 2017-07-31

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:50:31 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act

13:50:31 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/07/31-wcag-act-irc

13:50:33 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs public

13:50:33 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #wcag-act

13:50:35 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be

13:50:35 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot

13:50:36 [trackbot]

Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

13:50:36 [trackbot]

Date: 31 July 2017

13:50:47 [Wilco]

agenda?

13:50:57 [Wilco]

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

13:51:05 [Wilco]

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

13:51:10 [Wilco]

agenda+ Use of the term "Test case" in the spec

13:51:27 [Wilco]

agenda+ Example rules

13:51:35 [Wilco]

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

13:52:00 [tobias]

Hi, Wilco.

13:52:01 [tobias]

It seems my stored password for the teleconference is out-of-date. Do you have the correct password?

13:56:10 [tobias]

Wilco, I'm in, thanks.

13:59:35 [anne_thyme]

anne_thyme has joined #wcag-act

14:01:15 [rdeltour]

rdeltour has joined #wcag-act

14:02:16 [maryjom]

maryjom has joined #wcag-act

14:02:51 [Wilco]

present+

14:02:56 [rdeltour]

present+

14:03:00 [shadi]

present+

14:03:04 [maryjom]

present+

14:03:04 [tobias]

present+

14:03:06 [anne_thyme]

present+

14:03:20 [MoeKraft]

MoeKraft has joined #wcag-act

14:03:23 [Wilco]

zakim, take up item 1

14:03:23 [Zakim]

agendum 1. "Rules Format pull request: Expand accessibility requirements section https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/96" taken up [from Wilco]

14:03:29 [cpandhi]

cpandhi has joined #wcag-act

14:03:33 [anne_thyme]

scribe: anne_thyme

14:04:26 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: I have added some text to the accessibility requirements section

14:04:40 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: I can see Moe added something 15 minutes ago

14:04:45 [cpandhi]

has meeting password changed?, it use to be act

14:04:49 [anne_thyme]

Moe: Yes, it's mostly editorial

14:06:01 [anne_thyme]

Moe: I have cleaned it up a bit

14:06:59 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: The reason why I used the word "fail" there is because it's a fail result

14:07:18 [anne_thyme]

Moe: I wonder if we should have an uppercase F in fail

14:07:59 [shadi]

q+

14:08:09 [anne_thyme]

Moe: I added 2.0 for WCAG

14:08:34 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: I used WCAG 2 on purpose, since it will be true for 2.1 too

14:09:12 [anne_thyme]

Moe: so, you are using 2.0 in the first paragraph because you are referring to a specific success criteria...

14:09:34 [shadi]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/102/files

14:09:52 [anne_thyme]

Shadi: I also added editorial comments

14:10:25 [anne_thyme]

Shadi: so I just started rewriting the whole thing, I hope I didn't go overboard

14:12:41 [anne_thyme]

Shadi: I was looking to use the keywords "pass" and "fail" here

14:13:25 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: so you can pass headings for 1.3.1, but you cannot pass the whole accessibility requirement

14:14:33 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: specifically what parts of the text is proposed, what didn't you like?

14:14:54 [anne_thyme]

Shadi: I found it a bit confusing talking in some parts about what the ACT Rule does and doesn't

14:15:09 [anne_thyme]

Shadi: first of all, I think the first paragraph can be droppen completely

14:15:38 [anne_thyme]

Shadi: does not have to test a whole accessibility requirement, is a double negative

14:16:36 [anne_thyme]

Shadi: Next paragraph I found confusing, "a rule must be consistent within a rule"...

14:17:15 [anne_thyme]

Shadi: I think we all agree what we want to say here, we just don't know how to say it

14:17:46 [anne_thyme]

Shadi: I didn't even understand the part about the mapping. And then I tried to put the note into the text itself

14:18:13 [anne_thyme]

Shadi: basically what I tried to do was an editorial change, and maybe editors should look at it

14:19:23 [anne_thyme]

Shadi: do we really want to include organizations' accessibility requirements, like we always want to have the logo in the top left? Are these accessibility requirements?

14:19:51 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: examples: only have one H1, never skip heading levels - these are accessibility criteria

14:20:45 [cpandhi]

q+

14:21:32 [anne_thyme]

Shadi: what is in scope of ACT Rules and accessibility? Do we need to call this "Accessibility Requirements", or could we call it "Testing Requirements". It's often unclear what is accessibility requirements or usability requirements

14:21:41 [shadi]

q-

14:21:48 [MoeKraft]

q+

14:21:52 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: it's not a testing requirement per se

14:22:18 [Wilco]

ack c

14:22:26 [anne_thyme]

Shadi: another name, so that we don't define the accessibility requirements

14:23:26 [anne_thyme]

Charu: if we have particular rules that go beyond WCAG or is coorperate specific, we can make it clear to everyone that this tests for certain cooperate criteria

14:23:36 [shadi]

q+

14:23:55 [anne_thyme]

Charu: but I think we should stick with accessibility criteria, or else it will become too much, if we try to include every kind of testing

14:24:10 [Wilco]

ack moe

14:24:15 [MoeKraft]

Our original intent of this section "Accessibility Requirements Explain the accessibility requirement being tested such as the WCAG 2 Success criterion and / or the technique the rule maps to; For example WCAG 2.0 Technique H67."

14:24:16 [anne_thyme]

Charu: ... make it clear that it maps to WCAG

14:25:14 [Wilco]

ack sh

14:25:16 [anne_thyme]

Moe: +1 to Charu, we should stick to that we want to define an accessibility rules format

14:25:46 [anne_thyme]

Shadi: I hear the concern, and I agree. I am only concerned about the very last sentence: "Often organizations have accessibility requirements in addition to the WCAG success criteria. These too can be tested using ACT Rules."

14:26:57 [anne_thyme]

Shadi: I have difficulties with the way it's being phrased, like it's accessibility criteria on the same level as WCAG, when it's in fact techniques being brought up to the same level as Success Criteria

14:27:37 [anne_thyme]

Moe: It's a requirement for that organization, but how can it be mapped to something else...

14:27:58 [MoeKraft]

Some organizations may have particular requirements, such as specific implementation techniques to meet WCAG 2 Success Criteria; in this cases these would be accessibility requirements. -

14:29:20 [anne_thyme]

Shadi: it's just a way of implementing, a technique that become mandatory

14:30:24 [anne_thyme]

Charu: two different things, a technique that is required, but still maps to WCAG, but also sometimes requirements that go above and beyond WCAG

14:30:49 [Wilco]

This section explains the accessibility requirements to which the rule maps, (for example, WCAG 2.0 success criterion 1.1.1). An ACT Rule MAY be a complete or partial test for any number of accessibility requirements.

14:30:51 [Wilco]

Outcomes from an ACT Rule MUST be consistent with the accessibility requirement, e.g. if the rule returns a Failed result, this MUST be a failure for the accessibility requirement. This means that the rule maps to the accessibility requirement, as opposed to it merely being related to the requirement, thematically or otherwise.

14:30:56 [Wilco]

The actual definition of specific accessibility requirements is beyond the scope of ACT Rules and of this document. For WCAG 2, Success Criteria are considered to be accessibility requirements. Some organizations may have particular requirements, such as specific implementation techniques to meet WCAG 2 Success Criteria; in this cases these would be accessibility requirements.

14:31:01 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: I have no problems with the first paragraph Shadi put in, but I think the first one loses some of it's nuances...

14:31:12 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: I wrote a hybrid (above)

14:33:33 [anne_thyme]

Shadi: "related requirement" what does that mean? And "maps"...

14:33:50 [anne_thyme]

Shadi: ... I'm happy to go with it

14:33:53 [Wilco]

"Each ACT Rule MUST explains the accessibility requirements "

14:34:08 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: for the first sentence, I meant this (above)

14:34:37 [anne_thyme]

Charu: do you mean more "validate" the accessibility requirements?

14:34:48 [anne_thyme]

... maybe "identify"...

14:34:56 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: I'm fine with that

14:35:02 [Wilco]

Each ACT Rule MUST identify the accessibility requirements to which the rule maps, (for example, WCAG 2.0 success criterion 1.1.1). An ACT Rule MAY be a complete or partial test for any number of accessibility requirements.

14:35:14 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: then the section becomes this (above)

14:35:46 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: I'll send out an update for this, I want to get it merged in

14:36:44 [anne_thyme]

Moe: "In these cases these would be considered accessibility requirements" - it almost makes it sound like these would be instead of WCAG success criteria. Make it sound non-exclusive

14:37:39 [anne_thyme]

zakim, take up next

14:37:39 [Zakim]

agendum 2. "Rules Format pull request: Merge change log with version history https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/94" taken up [from Wilco]

14:38:25 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: so I got a request to take out the word "huge", which is fine

14:38:53 [anne_thyme]

Moe: I made some grammatical changes

14:39:41 [MoeKraft]

It is important to keep track of changes to the ACT rules so that users of the rules can understand if changes in test results are due to changes in the rules used when performing the tests, rather than changes in the content itself.

14:39:41 [anne_thyme]

I don't like to use the word "them"

14:39:55 [rdeltour]

q+

14:40:02 [Wilco]

qck rd

14:40:09 [Wilco]

ack rd

14:40:58 [anne_thyme]

Romain: maybe we should require that all versions are linked from the change log. With this requirement it seems that we create a chain of links

14:41:28 [anne_thyme]

Romain: in this way you will have one entry point to all of the versions

14:41:59 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: you are certainly allowed to do that, but I don't think it should be required, it will get messy

14:42:52 [anne_thyme]

Romain: ... ignore what I just said...

14:43:28 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: taking in Moes rewritten paragraph, removing the word "huge"

14:44:10 [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, to a rule that looks for animated style changes.

14:44:17 [anne_thyme]

Tobias: I think Anne had a comment for the next paragraph. There is something wrong with the sentence

14:44:45 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: So the sentence would look like this. Change made

14:44:51 [Wilco]

zakim, take up next

14:44:51 [Zakim]

agendum 3. "Use of the term "Test case" in the spec" taken up [from Wilco]

14:45:26 [Wilco]

https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#test-proc-cases

14:46:11 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: Our current ACT Rule Format includes a section on test cases

14:46:40 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: problem is that we have started using the word "test cases" differently. Like a sub test or test step

14:47:14 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: where in other places we are using "test case" for a html snippet that should either pass or fail when using the rule on it

14:47:27 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: So I think we should change the wording here

14:47:48 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: in auto-wcag we call it test steps, in aXe core we call it tests

14:48:02 [rdeltour]

I like "steps", it's pretty explicit

14:48:28 [anne_thyme]

aXe core: checks. Steps imply an order

14:48:41 [anne_thyme]

Charu: in IMB we have test stepts

14:49:25 [anne_thyme]

Moe: but a rule could have multiple tests, right? But a test could have multiple steps

14:49:30 [shadi]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_case

14:49:34 [Wilco]

https://auto-wcag.github.io/auto-wcag/rules/SC1-1-1-longdesc.html

14:49:45 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: looking at a random auto-wcag rule...

14:50:16 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: you kind of break it up into higher level procedures...

14:50:34 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: Shadi dropped in a wikipedia article of test case

14:51:10 [anne_thyme]

Shadi: "execution steps"

14:51:41 [shadi]

s/execution/test

14:51:53 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: so we have got "test procedure", made up of "steps"

14:52:16 [anne_thyme]

Wilco: anyone having a problem with calling it test steps?

14:52:49 [anne_thyme]

Moe: to me it seems that the steps have steps themselves

14:53:10 [anne_thyme]

Moe: I mean to test that it's a valid URL, it will have to go through steps themselves

14:53:47 [anne_thyme]

Moe: each test case is a seperate test inside the rule

14:54:26 [anne_thyme]

Moe: we can use step as long as it's consistent and we explain it... we can call it test execution steps

14:54:32 [anne_thyme]

Moe: I'll take a stab at it

14:56:25 [anne_thyme]

Shadi: We are using "test cases" in the review process too

14:57:04 [anne_thyme]

Moe: I'll open an issue for this as well

15:01:58 [shadi]

trackbot, end meeting

15:01:58 [trackbot]

Zakim, list attendees

15:01:58 [Zakim]

As of this point the attendees have been Wilco, rdeltour, shadi, maryjom, tobias, anne_thyme

15:02:06 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, please draft minutes

15:02:06 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/07/31-wcag-act-minutes.html trackbot

15:02:07 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, bye

15:02:07 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items