Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference -- 14 Jun 2018

<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTJUNE2018/results

wilco: overviewing results of the above item

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/217/files?diff=split

wilco: https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/217/files?diff=split#r194998174 - for this comment review any negative language.

anne: contradicts that it loses consistency

<Wilco> "and promote consistent results of accessibility tests"

wilco: leaves comment and will edit later

going through comment - https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/217/files?diff=split#r194999378

anne: emphasis that wcag should be links/ hyperlink

wilco: to do the changes...

anne: should we add `user-agent` as requirements?
... we should emphasise that the rules format are for web based technologies
... and not for content created for non-web technologies..

wilco: correction = `non web-based content`

<Wilco> d"However, the ACT Rules Format would not necessarily be suitable to describe tests for non-web-based content."

alistair: we are looking to use wcag2.1 for testing native mobile applications

<anne_thyme> Or this: "However, the ACT Rules Format would not necessarily be suitable to describe tests for the conformance of content created using non-web technologies"

wilco: wcag primarily is for web based, unsure if it will work for all other content, no gurantees.

*guarantees

alistair: correction `may not be` in above suggestion from anne.

<Wilco> "However, the ACT Rules Format may not always be suitable to describe tests for the conformance of content created using non-web technologies"

alistair: act rules may not be the right way to write rules for other standards, meaning non-web.

<Wilco> "However, the ACT Rules Format may not always be suitable to describe tests for requirements of non-web based technologies"

alistair: wcag2.1 is agnostic to a variety of standards out of just web based.

wilco: editorial - `other types of accessibility requirements`

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/217/files?diff=split#r195002757

<Wilco> "In some cases conformance can be inferred from the absence of failures. Unlike WCAG sufficient techniques, ACT Rules should not be used for conformance claims unless the rule explicitly states it can be used that way."

alistair: questioning the usage of conformance, based on absence of failures...

wilco: with out going into greater detail, refers wcag definition of conformance directly correlates to absence of failures.

<Wilco> satisfies a success criterion

<Wilco> the success criterion does not evaluate to 'false' when applied to the page

<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-satisfies

<Wilco> vhttps://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/217/files?diff=split#r195408944

https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/217/files?diff=split#r195408944

wilco: going through https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/217/files?diff=split#r195003214

anne: questions, do we explain failing in the rules (as in is it a precise definition)

wilco: expectations covers it...

going through https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/217/files?diff=split#r195398340

wilco: purposely avoided using the word `technique`