W3C

Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

10 Nov 2017

Attendees

Present
Wilco, MaryJo, Jenn, Kathy, Anne, SteinErik, Shadi, Romain, Vivienne (Observer), Amanda (Observer)
Regrets
Chair
Wilco, MaryJo
Scribe
shadi

Contents


ACT Rules Format

[Kathy provides example of hierarchy for SC 1.1.1 checking]

[discussion on whether ACT Rules Format is too restrictive for combining using higher-level logics]

WF: selectors come over as prefering one approach over the other
... also need to look at test procedures

https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act-rules/

SAZ: suggest dropping "test mode" and adding "test cases" link to the listing, to emphasize focus on test cases as the criterion for meeting a rule

WF: people want to know what to expect

SAZ: if we link to "implementations", with matrix of tools and how they support each test cases, then users get more granular information for themselves

KW: how do rules groups work?

WF: working on that

SES: business need is to ensure transparency

SAZ: you get more granular transparency using information on test case level

SES: but tool does not necessarily implement the rules

WF: higher level question of trust
... but need to balance between being too prescriptive and providing trust

<rdeltour> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues

Comments Resolution

<scribe> ACTION: Skotkjerra to provide an example for https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/138

<trackbot> Created ACTION-24 - Provide an example for https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/138 [on Stein Erik Skotkjerra - due 2017-11-17].

[see GitHub for discussion outcomes]

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Skotkjerra to provide an example for https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/138
 

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/11/11 02:58:25 $