wilco: we complete the draft on Monday, put it on the AG agenda on tuesday, then it'll be on the survey today
<scribe> … closed on the 28th, which means publication of the draft on July 2
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: anything I missed?
maryjom: no
shadi: basically we still have a few issues
opened
... first is the so called "manifest" which is provided by the
organisations implementing rules
... what level of details should we go down?
... we said we would go down to the level of individual test cases
... implementors woudl say if they implement it manually or
automatically
... we repo owners only have a link to this manifest file and create a
representation out of it
... that's what we call "manifest", we don't have to stick to this name
... but the file still has to be developed
... the other thing is the file format and naming convention
... in auto-wcag people create rule and it's all done
... how does that translate to w3c? do people just create a file, HTML,
markdown? with a naming convention? directory structure?
... is there any metadata associated with these files?
... we need to document all this, the mechanics of this work
... from a process perspective, we can agree on the overall approach of
this document
wilco: going through the steps…
... step 1 (ACT rule creation), is it done by the CG?
shadi: this assumes there has already been
the pre-work in a CG, and links to auto-wcag as the default CG
... let's assume auto-wcag developed a rule and is staisfied
... the 1st step they do is submit a PR to our repo, to make it an ACT
rule
wilco: basically we're gonna need a requirements document, in addition to this step by step process
shadi: exactly
... or in the same document, but yes we need to define the details
wilco: should we break the process into steps for creating a rule, and steps for pushing the rule to ACT?
shadi: step 6 is really what's taken up by
the ACT TF
... I was thinking this is an overall process. we need links to the
format or conventions details, but CG itself can have its microprocess
... auto-wcag for instance has its own instructions, more finer grained
... we deliberately don't want to go to that level of details, just
clarify it more
... what the ACT TF does vs. what's done in the CG
... maybe add the info between brackets
... probably only steps 5 & 6 (although auto-wcag could do 5 as
well)
... I'll take another pass at clarifying this, which group does what
wilco: are we at a point where we can start
doing this?
... auto-wcag has completed one rule fully conforming, and a bunch of
others are about to come
... can we follow this process?
... I can do a first try and see how it works
shadi: yes. I recall there was a discussion
about the repo interface
... you assumed people would do a PR with this manifest file and that
would trigger things
... I don't remember who was gonna work on what
wilco: I don't think we decided on that
... it's gonna be difficult to find resources to do this right now
... this will have to happen very slowly. What should be the next step?
<Wilco> https://auto-wcag.github.io/auto-wcag/pages/rules.html
shadi: do you have a link to that auto-wcag
rule?
... interestingly, one of the example uses iframe; here's where directoy
structures may come into play
jey: this is dynamically generated, the
iframe content also gets dynamically generated
... changing the directory structure won't affect this
shadi: this is a very simple one, examples
don't have images or video files
... the first step would be for our group to review this rule
... less from the content perspective, but its format
... individual tests are not visually enumerated or identifiable
wilco: every test case has a link "open in a new tab" that is a unique HTML page
shadi: ok good. Did you decide to insert this yourself, or is it specified somewhere that you need to put such a link?
wilco: the most straightforward way that we
can do this is to copy what we put in auto-wcag
... we might even be able to fork the entire repository, and put it in
the pages we have now
shadi: first I think we need to decide if the rule we have here is a valid one or not
wilco: what do you mean?
shadi: we need to define, somewhere, for
instance whether the test cases need to have identifiers, if it needs to
be a heading, a link, etc
... we also need to define if there's any common metadata we want
... I can think of a few other things, about definitions for instance
... like references to a common glossary
wilco: these definitions are also generated
shadi: so there's already some level of
logic, and we need to document that
... how do you create a definition, how you include it in the rule file;
same for test cases
wilco: I'm still struggling…
shadi: let's say someone says they want to
create rules and submit to this TF
... what do you tell them, which resources do you point to?
wilco: you mean like a rule template?
shadi: yes, potentially
jey: auto-wcag also has rule design, rule
templates, etc. It also uses github
... it might need improvements, but it's there
... what's missing is probably more documentation, like shadi said
shadi: yes, thanks for pointing this out.
There is documentation in auto-wcag and now is time for the ACT TF to
review it
... basically approve that, or link to that from our review process
... then we have a "contract" to auto-wcag that we'll accept rules in
that format
wilco: so it's a matter of us copying the rule creation documentation from auto-wcag?
shadi: maybe not the detailed development
process, but certainly the rule template and test case template
... I'm looking at the rule template. You have a naming convention
defined implicitly in the template
... there's a little bit of metadata (pass/fail stuff)
... if there's a resource (image, audio) associated with the template,
where do I put it?
wilco: I think we need to do a couple things
... auto-wcag members need to look at this documentation and udpate it
... at that point the ACT TF can take this work and put it in a survey,
asking if this is something we want to adopt
shadi: exactly, it's a good process
wilco: any takers for this work?
... Anne, should we take a Monday morning meeting to work on this?
anne_thyme: yes, works for me
wilco: alright, good, we have a plan!
shadi: ok, and I'll take a pass on updating
the review process
... and when we have these resources, we can point to them from the
process document
wilco: the other thing we seem to agree on
is that we're not updating our own example rules, but move the auto-wcag
ones to our repo
... correct? can we get away with that?
romain: sounds good to me
wilco: alright. anything else on this?
[crickets]
wilco: was there only one open issue?
shadi: yes, but several comments within this
wilco: did we ever sent a response to him?
shadi: I believe we sent an email
... yes, I did ping him on May 8
wilco: OK, that covers item 3, and we may
have covered item 4 and 5 as well
... I think we're done!
... ACT is meeting at TPAC, on Thursday and Friday
... there's also gonna be an auto-wcag in London on Monday-Tuesday the
week after TPAC
... I sent out this message to auto-wcag and a couple other people
... the poll is closing tomorrow
... that's it!