IRC log of wcag-act on 2017-09-11
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 13:41:29 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act
- 13:41:29 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/09/11-wcag-act-irc
- 13:41:31 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 13:41:31 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #wcag-act
- 13:41:33 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference
- 13:41:33 [trackbot]
- Date: 11 September 2017
- 13:42:21 [maryjom]
- chair: Mary_Jo_Mueller
- 13:42:46 [maryjom]
- agenda+ Upcoming publication of ACT Rules Format working draft
- 13:43:03 [maryjom]
- agenda+ ACT Review Process - discussion on level of requirements/detail in the process vs. prevention of making it too burdensome
- 13:43:28 [maryjom]
- agenda+ WCAG-ACT rules repository - Need to create a document on how to contribute (volunteers?)
- 14:02:45 [cpandhi]
- cpandhi has joined #wcag-act
- 14:04:41 [skotkjerra]
- skotkjerra has joined #wcag-act
- 14:04:53 [MoeKraft]
- MoeKraft has joined #wcag-act
- 14:06:00 [skotkjerra]
- present+
- 14:06:28 [maryjom]
- present+ MaryJoMueller
- 14:06:38 [MoeKraft]
- present+
- 14:06:57 [anne_thyme]
- anne_thyme has joined #wcag-act
- 14:07:09 [anne_thyme]
- present +
- 14:07:44 [maryjom]
- https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/Scribing_Instructions
- 14:08:32 [maryjom]
- scribe: skotkjerra
- 14:08:34 [martin_]
- martin_ has joined #wcag-act
- 14:08:45 [martin_]
- present+
- 14:08:47 [cpandhi]
- present+
- 14:10:11 [maryjom]
- zakim, take up next
- 14:10:11 [Zakim]
- agendum 1. "Upcoming publication of ACT Rules Format working draft" taken up [from maryjom]
- 14:11:24 [MoeKraft]
- q+
- 14:11:38 [skotkjerra]
- Mary-Jo: The public draft is ready to publish, and there are still a few minor things to sort out before it will be published on Wednesday/Thursday
- 14:12:38 [skotkjerra]
- Action: Shadi: where are we with the accessibility issues in the draft
- 14:12:38 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-22 - Where are we with the accessibility issues in the draft [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2017-09-18].
- 14:13:12 [maryjom]
- zakim, take up next
- 14:13:12 [Zakim]
- I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, maryjom
- 14:13:52 [maryjom]
- q- MoeKraft
- 14:14:15 [maryjom]
- zakim, next item
- 14:14:15 [Zakim]
- agendum 2. "ACT Review Process - discussion on level of requirements/detail in the process vs. prevention of making it too burdensome" taken up [from maryjom]
- 14:14:21 [maryjom]
- https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/ACT_Review_Process
- 14:15:29 [skotkjerra]
- MaryJo: Shadi wanted to have a short discussion on the review process - i.e. the process of making sure that the rules are ready for publication as ACT-rules. Contribution, review, review with the AG etc.
- 14:16:22 [skotkjerra]
- MaryJo: We have to find the balance between openness and rigourous submission and review process, and wants to know what peoples views are on this
- 14:18:57 [skotkjerra]
- Sharu likes the flow where rules go through review, then implemented and then wetted and tested. On the comment: can we reject something? If something doesn't meet the requirements it automatically gets rejected
- 14:19:58 [skotkjerra]
- Would we accept something that doesn't contain all the parts from the rule format
- 14:20:56 [skotkjerra]
- MaryJo: do we want to document these things in the process document - i.e. potential reasons for not accepting
- 14:21:00 [skotkjerra]
- q+
- 14:21:55 [rdeltour]
- rdeltour has joined #wcag-act
- 14:22:22 [skotkjerra]
- Stein Erik: Thinks it is important to require a minimum of information to ensure a higher standard to the ocntributions
- 14:22:40 [skotkjerra]
- MaryJo: Thinks we should accept only submissions that contain the required parts of the ACT format
- 14:23:25 [skotkjerra]
- Sharu: We currently have certain points, but doesn't think they are explicit enough to discard contributions or to decide if they are accurate enough to be accepted
- 14:23:27 [MoeKraft]
- s/Sharu/Charu/
- 14:23:46 [skotkjerra]
- MaryJo: we need to define a level of requirements for accpetance
- 14:24:33 [skotkjerra]
- Action: Shadi: Establish a minimum level of requirements for accepting a contribution
- 14:24:34 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-23 - Establish a minimum level of requirements for accepting a contribution [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2017-09-18].
- 14:26:08 [skotkjerra]
- MaryJo: Shadi didn't put in an action number of implementation. We would need a number of implementations before passing on to the AGWG. Typically for most things in the W3C two implementations are required.
- 14:27:06 [skotkjerra]
- Mo: Isn't it two for a success criteria or specification. Should this apply to a rule? It could be accepted as a draft until a second implementation is in place
- 14:27:59 [skotkjerra]
- Sharu, Shadis responce is that we should work into the criteria; reasons for acceptance/non-acceptance.
- 14:29:17 [skotkjerra]
- Charu: We have to define what lack of quality means
- 14:29:51 [skotkjerra]
- Charu: criteria would fall under submission
- 14:30:27 [skotkjerra]
- MaryJo: reasons for rejecting could fall under the peer review to know what we are looking for
- 14:31:02 [skotkjerra]
- Charu: should go in both. We do not want to waste everyones time if it doesn't conform to certain criteria - also after peer review
- 14:32:43 [skotkjerra]
- Anne: does it say anywhere that we are looking for the balance between false positive and false negatives?
- 14:34:59 [skotkjerra]
- MaryJo: where the rule make generate more false positives the number of implementation may have to be higher
- 14:37:10 [skotkjerra]
- Mo: suggests to include in the maintainance section a clause on the process if implementations of rules show too many false positives/negatives
- 14:39:14 [skotkjerra]
- Anne: Going back to adding the reasons to drop a rule if it lacks quality. Should that be its own sections since rules could be dropped at all stages in the process - e.g. in maintainance phase
- 14:39:42 [skotkjerra]
- Mo: Instead of deleted we deprecate or quarantine
- 14:40:33 [skotkjerra]
- MaryJo: Would be nice to have states of the rule going through this process. By attaching to the rule in submission which state it is in. Are there issues? Is it in implementation etc
- 14:40:50 [skotkjerra]
- Anne: Didn't we agree to use tagging for the state rules are in?
- 14:41:13 [tobias]
- tobias has joined #wcag-act
- 14:41:16 [skotkjerra]
- MaryJo: It should be added to this review process document
- 14:44:04 [maryjom]
- zakim, take up next
- 14:44:04 [Zakim]
- I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, maryjom
- 14:44:11 [maryjom]
- q
- 14:44:21 [maryjom]
- q?
- 14:44:32 [maryjom]
- ack sk
- 14:44:39 [maryjom]
- zakim, take up next
- 14:44:39 [Zakim]
- agendum 3. "WCAG-ACT rules repository - Need to create a document on how to contribute (volunteers?)" taken up [from maryjom]
- 14:44:45 [skotkjerra_]
- skotkjerra_ has joined #wcag-act
- 14:44:51 [maryjom]
- https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules
- 14:45:43 [skotkjerra_]
- MaryJo: Looking for volunteers to expand the README with a section on how to contribute
- 14:46:01 [skotkjerra_]
- Mo: We do have a contribute.md for the rules format to use as a guide for the rules
- 14:46:29 [MoeKraft]
- https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/blob/master/contribute.md
- 14:48:17 [skotkjerra_]
- MaryJo: looking for volunteers to ajust this. We would want to point to the review process and define what are the required parts of a rule som submitters will know what we are expecting
- 14:49:09 [skotkjerra_]
- Stein Erik: Suggests criteria should be kept in the review process document
- 14:49:30 [skotkjerra_]
- Mo: It is important to have a reference to the requirements and keep it fairly short
- 14:51:17 [skotkjerra]
- MaryJo: give contributors q pointer to the resources they will need, an example, and anything to make the process simpler. There has to be a balance between "learn by doing" and being to prescriptive
- 14:53:11 [skotkjerra]
- MaryJo: TPAC registration still open with a deadline for early registration in October.
- 14:53:38 [skotkjerra]
- MaryJo: Our next meeting will be on 18th of September
- 14:55:07 [MoeKraft]
- rrsagent, generate minutes
- 14:55:07 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/11-wcag-act-minutes.html MoeKraft
- 14:56:43 [skotkjerra]
- Thanks, Mo
- 14:58:30 [skotkjerra]
- trackbot end meeting
- 14:58:30 [trackbot]
- Zakim, list attendees
- 14:58:30 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been skotkjerra, MaryJoMueller, MoeKraft, martin_, cpandhi, (22, mins, late)
- 14:58:38 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes
- 14:58:38 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/11-wcag-act-minutes.html trackbot
- 14:58:39 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 14:58:39 [RRSAgent]
- I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2017/09/11-wcag-act-actions.rdf :
- 14:58:39 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Shadi: where are we with the accessibility issues in the draft [1]
- 14:58:39 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/09/11-wcag-act-irc#T14-12-38
- 14:58:39 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Shadi: Establish a minimum level of requirements for accepting a contribution [2]
- 14:58:39 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/09/11-wcag-act-irc#T14-24-33