W3C

Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

5 Oct 2018

Attendees

Present
Wilco, Anne, Shadi, SteinErik, Jey, MaryJo, Kathy
Regrets

Chair
Wilco, MaryJo
Scribe
Kathy

Contents


Issues 272: Clear split between requirements for rule authors vs. rule implementers https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/272 -

wilco: this ticket is by Anne, separate requirements for rules and implementers. this is a requirement for rules and not for implementers so we should make that clear
... some things should be made informative (not removed).
... rule aggregation should describe how test results impact conformance to accessibility requirements. data format is minimal. only relevant piece is the definitions: identifier, test subject

there aren't real implementation requirements in the document

(previous was wilco)

wilco: aggregation section needs to be removed and merge under accessibility requirements
... be clear for every result that comes from a rule what it means for accessibility req. write up relationship of rule to req
... the how is up to implementers

anne: aggregation should be more restrictive to compare results across rule implementers. removing aggregation will make it hard to compare results

wilco: information in appendix

steinerik: move to informative?

anne: output format should show relationship

shadi: to wilco - why don't you want reqs for implementations

wilco: to stay within scope. w3c shouldn't put reqs on how to write acc tools. rules should just define a common language

shadi: scope is to harmonize how tools and implementations implement wcag, a common understanding. w3c does make recommendations but does not want to limit approaches of tools
... do we want how implementations of rules behave? quality reqs have been removed that force rule developers to harmonize

steinerik: agrees with shadi's points. is it just a format but also harmonization in ACT

shadi: a separate spec for implementers? would like to see an example

wilco: will work on one. question is do we think rules format should have reqs for implementers?

wilco says no, shadi says yes, steinerik undecided

maryjo: scope includes harmonization but isn't stated as normative and a req in spec
... if ACT rule passes or fails a SC, it should be harmonized

wilco to shadi: what would you add to the tests for harmonization?

shadi: w3c acceptance criteria for ACT rules idea: how many independent orgs have to agree on a rule, what is rate of false pos/negs, what is format of output, is output in machine-readable format
... certain commonality is expected.
... maybe put in a working group note...
... determine acceptance criteria for rules

wilco: i don't like 3 implentations for a rule. In informative section on harmonization - act rule becomes a "harmonized" rule if it passes the review process

shadi: rule acceptance has quality requirements. we can bypass implementations with test cases. if a rule has test cases that can demo as accurate, it is clear. Author of rules must include test cases and show accuracy
... for now, is ok with wilco's suggestion of a "harmonized" rule
... accuracy and acceptance will need to be specified as normative; details can be in a non-normative note

steinerik: sounds good. we are crossing rule format and rule writing/implementing. move implementing to informative section

anne: ACT output should be normative so results can be comparable.

wilco: propose leaving in appendix

anne: let's try it

wilco: will make updates

Requirements for implementation

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/275

wilco: earl test subject one pointer?

shadi: unlimited pointers but one test subject

wilco: test 3 images on page. test subject is page with multiple outcomes?

shadi: each image is an assertion

wilco: every assertion has a result
... 3 images example, what is the test subject and what is the pointer?

shadi: test subject is page. 3 pointers to images. element can be test subject if it is the only thing being tested but usually the page is tested
... pointer can be used in test subject to point to location

Issue 225: ACT security checks https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/225

wilco: no changes needed

shadi: no issues

RESOLUTION: ACT TF did not identify any relevance to the security checks

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/10/09 12:45:33 $