<Wilco> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act-rules/rules/ACT-G1-R2.html
<Wilco> https://github.com/auto-wcag/auto-wcag/issues/67
<Mark2> Does anyone have a sense of what does failure of a rule mean? a) this particular technique does not meet the success criteria or b) the success criteria is violated?
<Wilco> https://auto-wcag.github.io/auto-wcag/
<wendy> Howdy! For the results format, have you looked at formats created for testing in general? For example, sarif from OASIS: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=sarif
<Brian_Bors> Question: How would a manual implementation look like? Would that be a set of steps an evaluator would go trough (like in the first ACT rules format draft)?
<antonio> I am very interested in understandable principle, not only from a formal point of view. I mean the accessubility to web content to people with cognitive difficulties, just little covered by wcag 2, even 2.1. Is there space to contibute at this level in writing act rules, do you think?
<JenniferChadwick> I second the question about cognitive issues - is there more understanding about how to test this?
<Keng> Trusted Tester is being updated right now to include WCAG 2.0 A and AA. Still in progress...
<Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to discuss EARL v SARIF
<Charles> Has there been any discussion on the possibility of a percentage outcome or other model in addition to a simple pass / fail outcome?
<antonio> many thanks, Saudi, for your answer
<shadi-web> https://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics/
<charadani> From the manual testing perspective, I think something could be done to reflect assistive technologies actual behavior according to the different rules’ outputs: that is to say, when the rule concludes that aria-describedby is used correctly, we might add something documenting what the screen reader output with the aria-describedby reference value would be, what the end-user should be hearing first and what next, and so on.
<Glenda> 2.1 Validity
<Glenda> 2.2 Reliability
<Glenda> 2.3 Sensitivity
<Glenda> 2.4 Adequacy
<Glenda> 2.5 Complexity
<Charles> The question was in reference to the work we are doing in the Silver CG.
<Charles> Yes.
<Keng> I'm curious how automated and manual tests will be one set of ACT rules. Is there an ACT section that will identify if a test must be done manually (where human judgment is part of the evaluation?)
<Keng> sorry, it doesn't sound like you heard me talking
<Keng> I'll try to call in again.
<Brian_Bors> I was glad to see that categorization go personally.
<Glenda> auto vs semi vs manual…helps when you are trying to achieve efficiency…what can you do NOW that requires your mind…what other tests should you use auto tools (because they are faster and accurate)
<Glenda> ahhhh…first we are going to agree on a defined test/failure. later…we can swing back thru for efficiency of human time :)
<charadani> In the Auto-WCAG github repository I saw references to the abilities that a user profile needs to have to complete semi-automated testing for the rule that require such type of testing. User_pforile: requires hearing, for instance. Do you plan to continue with this categorization in ACT?
<Zakim> Glenda, you wanted to voice my support for this ACTion
<cpandhi> +1 on the catogorization
<Glenda> (smiling because Wilco is still gathering the categorization data in a smart, smart way)
<Zakim> cpandhi, you wanted to voice my support of this effort as well :-)
<Diane_Margaretos> +1 thumbs up on Charu's thoughts
<Brian_Bors> I am trying to get some of my collagues (and myself really) up to speed so we can help develop rules. What skills should we train ourselves in to create these rules? What documents should we read? etc.
<Luis_Garcia> I'd like to contribute. Doing stuff with W3 always seemed a bit confusing because of org overhead. I don't know that my company is currently a W3 member...does that mean I can't contribute? etc. etc.
<Noemi_Fernandez> +1 on Brian_Bors related to what Wilko asked about what me need to start
<Luis_Garcia> thanks
<Shiv> I would like to join this community Shiv
<Noemi_Fernandez> I would like to join Auto-WCAG too!
<Wilco> Shiv, Noemi I'll reach out to you as well
<Noemi_Fernandez> Thanks so much Wilco
<Diane_Margaretos> Thank you so much!
<cpandhi> Thank you!
<Chris_Law> Keep me in the loop please!
<Eric_Gateau> Thank you very much Shadi and all
<Stephanie_Jagl-Posch> Thanks a lot for this interesting session!
<JenniferChadwick> Thank you so much. Looking forward to discussions as part of the community group.
<wendy> Thank you!
<Chris_Law> ict2018.org
<Chris_Law> For the testing symposium
<Rhea> Thank you all very much. @Wilco, please keep me in the loop as well - I am open for participation.
<Shiv> Thank you for this fantastic event!
<Noemi_Fernandez> Thanks so much! A great webinar!
<Olivier_Nourry> Thanks Shadi, looking forward to seeing this initiative succeed!
<Luis_Garcia> Thanks!
<Brian_Bors> Thanks Shadi.
<DagfinnRomen> Thanks, Shadi!
<maria> thanks!!!
<Aaron_Kaminski> thanks for a great presentation