Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

03 May 2018


Kasper, SteinErik, Wilco, Anne, Charu, MaryJo, Shadi, Trevor, Moe, Anthony

Wilco, MaryJo


Resolve reviewed items https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3AReviewed

WF: #196?

Jey: working on it

WF: #180?

SAZ: started with Overview GitHub page but needs some further work

WF: when?

SAZ: will try tomorrow

WF: #174?

SAZ: didn't get to it

WF: easy one...
... #138 can be closed?

SteinErik: yes

Update Introduction Section https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/199

<maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/199

<Kasper> +1

<anne_thyme> +1

<cpandhi> +1

<maryjom> +1

<MoeKraft> +1


<trevor> +1

<Skotkjerra> +1

<MoeKraft> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/200

Update Accessibility Support Section https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/200

Anthony: don't understand "accessible uses"

SteinErik: think it is more accurate

Wilco: not sure it is correct

Anthony: maybe another word?

Anne: test accessibility requirement in website

Moe: what about "accessibility of web technology"

Anne: but not technology that we are testing but use of technology

Charu: agree what people are getting at
... maybe say "to test if web technology is accessible"?

<MoeKraft> Definition: accessibility supported supported by users' assistive technologies as well as the accessibility features in browsers and other user agents To qualify as an accessibility-supported use of a Web content technology (or feature of a technology), both 1 and 2 must be satisfied for a Web content technology (or feature):

SAZ: not testing the web technology, testing the web content

<MoeKraft> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#accessibility-supporteddef

SteinErik: want to keep word "accessibility requirements" because this is what we are testing to
... probably testing "web content" but that leaves out "technology"

Moe: we're talking about accessibility support here
... the definition talks about "use of technology"

<Wilco> "ACT Rules are designed to test that the applications of web technologies is accessible."

Shadi: getting more complex?

Wilco: that was my fear
... Anthony can you take an action to rework your proposal

Anthony: will do

Feedback: Introduction and 3.5 Limitations, Assumptions or Exceptions #201 https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/201

Wilco: think the suggestion here is to document whether a rule is a complete or partial test of a requirement?

Anne: think there are two points here
... first documenting the interpretation of the requirement
... secondly what you just said
... Difi has documentation for each Success Criterion from which they develop their rules

Wilco: have done some of this documentation in Auto-WCAG
... for example assumptions around links
... so I would agree but not sure we need a change

SteinErik: agree, not sure it needs a change in the format spec itself

Wilco: maybe we can be a little more explicit in section 3.5

<Wilco> If there are multiple plausible interpretations, the chosen implementation should be documented as an assumption.

Wilco: something like "if there are multiple plausible interpretations, the chosen one should be documented"

Shadi: makes sense, seems like a similar approach to the Glossary
... to draw out common terms and interpretations

<Wilco> https://auto-wcag.github.io/auto-wcag/pages/structure/aggregation.html

Wilco: on the second point, are there any rules that cover entire Success Criteria?

Anne: possibly the keyboard trap rule group

Kasper: though that's an exception to the rule

Wilco: maybe via aggregation

Charu: agree that this is a source of ambiguity
... think documenting the aggregation could help

Wilco: combination of individual results can get fairly complicated
... for example, could pass "has transcript" but fail "descriptive transcript"
... then there are other ways of aggregating

Charu: this video example is good
... can we describe that in the assumption?

Wilco: not sure if part of the assumption
... hesitant to re-introduce inter-rule dependency
... they should be stand-alone
... dependency will increase maintenance overhead

Shadi: what's the benefit of highlighting partial vs full coverage?

Wilco: tells you if you need additional testing

Anne: helps visualizing coverage
... to see how much of the requirements are addressed

SteinErik: also helps you understand how broadly a success criteria is covered by checks

Shadi: concerned we're adding logic back into the rules?

Anne: we already relate rules to success criteria
... could do it the other way round too

Wilco: not wanting to couple rules

Anne: not suggesting coupling the rules, just the mapping

Wilco: does not tell you if fully addresses the requirement

Anne: no, would need this on a meta-level

Wilco: can we keep this out of the rule format itself?
... could document the rare cases where rules cover entire success criteria

Shadi: like the idea of indicating it in the aggregation file

Wilco: can definitely do that, but gets complicated very quickly
... we have specifically designed the rules not to cover this
... not like techniques, rules do not confirm adherence to the spec

Charu: agree
... can indicate the rare cases

Wilco: propose we indicate where relevant, but keep it out of the format spec

<Kasper> +1

<Skotkjerra> +1

<cpandhi> +1

<trevor> +1

<maryjom> +1


<AnthonyF> +1

<anne_thyme> +1

Shadi: understand from Alistair that Level Access is happy with the current approach of Assumptions and Expecations in the spec

Feedback: Accessibility Requirements #202 https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/202

SteinErik: we say one rule maps to one accessibility requirement
... but what about rule groups?
... the group itself maps to individual requirements
... but the individual rules within that group could map to additional requirements

Kasper: so aggregated results may map to multiple criteria
... and consistency of mapping is kind of lost in that
... need to ensure that the group as whole should be consistent with the requirement

Wilco: not sure I agree
... example is the video group we will be talking about in Auto-WCAG
... transcript is not enough
... have several test, for example separate track, etc for Level A
... but does not pass the transcript part

Anne: maybe rules in rule groups should not map to requirements at all, only the rule group

Wilco: certainly needs more explanation
... can I assign this to you?

Kasper: yes, sure

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/05/03 14:29:17 $