Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

21 Aug 2017

See also: IRC log


Kathy, Tobias, Romain, Anne, Wilco, Moe, Sujasree, Shadi, SteinErik
Wilco, MaryJo


Upcoming public working draft of the ACT Rules Format

<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTTF21AUG/results

Wilco - main topic is that we want to publish

scribe: we got some feedback

Stein Erik - two main comments

scribe: first one is about versioning, change from first draft.
... could be introducing a mess, a check in a rule you should have version number and then you can check the results
... second is test case types, we believe there are only two types tests - in the browser or http/non-rendered
... simplification would be good because the document is complex already

Tobias - some people have been confused about the types; the document already says that there could be other types

Wilco - versioning, the comment is to not do two methods but sticking to one

<shadi> +1 to one consistent method of versioning

Shadi - put in an editor note for public review

scribe: we don't have to do a decision right now
... editor note will give the options

Wilco - we can do an editor note to collect feedback

Moe - we should try not to be too prescriptive, we should not select one over the other

<Wilco> Editor note: The task force is considering different methods of identifying the version, either by number, date or other, and is looking for feedback on the subject from reviewers.

Wilco - what about this for the note

<rdeltour> +1

<tobias> +1

<MoeKraft> +1

scribe: does this address the concerns


<anne_thyme> +1

<shadi> +1

Romain - minor comment, ACT data format the Earl format specification does not match

Wilco - they are grouped by property

Romain - does this make it incompatible with Earl

Shadi - I don't think so, it is how it is translated

Shadi - we should remain compatible with Earl

Wilco - let's make a issue to update the appendix

Review: https://wilcofiers.github.io/act-rules/rules/ACT-R1.html

Wilco - the input types are over complicating the spec

scribe: the reason we have these 5, I have seen tests use all these types
... dom tree tests are doing this (react has own dom library)
... template and script testing; more speculative
... can analyze JS code
... all of them are valid environments
... what are your thought on this

Stein Erik - in our world it is tested in browser or not

scribe: your arguments are fair

Tobias - what Wilco said makes sense

scribe: didn

t see that these were common types

scribe: people not technical, this could be confusing and we may want to elaborate and add examples

Wilco - should we add an issue to look at this

scribe: should we add an editor note

Tobias - no just an issue

Wilco - the issues is that some of these are too specific

Shadi - wanted to mention something about a person who is trying to write text for manual rules in this format. The bookmarklet is to look at headings. This is a mixed mode. Should these be two separate tests? They are getting permission to send the tests

scribe: we may be making this too specific

Kathy - two separate rules

Shadi - there could be other scenarios, where they could be mixed rules. Some thing to keep in mind

Wilco - can we get approval to send this to AG

Sujasree - there are still issues to fix

scribe: there are 200 issues in the examples

with color contrast

<Wilco> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-rules-format.html#output

Shadi - is this the spec?

Wilco - see example 5

scribe: this is the default CSS
... there is also issues with the paragraph markers

Shadi - will follow up

Wilco - any objections to sending it to the AG


<Sujasree> +1

<anne_thyme> +1

<tobias> +1

<rdeltour> +1

<shadi> +1

RESOLUTION: send to the AG group

Wilco - we are agenda item 2

Wilco - text updated and examples added

<MoeKraft> rejoining...

Wilco - any objections to this going out to the AG

Review: https://wilcofiers.github.io/act-rules/rules/ACT-R2.html

Tobias - cleaned up the assumption section

scribe: added in test cases

Wilco - need to add in the text alternative

scribe: anything else on this one?
... no comments

Re-word Test cases to Test execution steps https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/107

Moe - we should use test execution not test case

Wilco - we are using test steps

scribe: only in the second one


ACT-R3 https://wilcofiers.github.io/act-rules/rules/ACT-R3.html

Wilco - took out step 5 text about video

scribe: few wording changes
... changed the selector

to check for source

scribe: examples page has a warning since the video/audio starts automatically
... any other comments

Wilco - do we need to move this to the W3C site?

Shadi - let's take this offline to figure out where it needs to go

Reword test cases

Moe - the section that we had with test cases, changed to test execution

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/107/files?diff=split

Wilco - this will not go into the draft

scribe: looks good to me

Moe- some language updated to clarify step vs. execution


<tobias> +1

<shadi> +1

<rdeltour> maybe just "Outline of the actions neccessary to..." ?

Moe - should we merge? Hold off until published

Wilco - update with the last change and we will hold

<shadi> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. send to the AG group
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/08/28 14:05:49 $