Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

23 May 2019


MaryJo, Wilco, SteinErik, Alistair

MaryJo, Wilco


Outreach to get reviews of the spec

Wilco, Outreach has not been particularly successful so far. Review closes on 28th of May. So far seen 0 comments in the public forum. Two personally messages. Else, not a whole lot of progress

AG: We'll send three or four comments shortly. Mostly clarifying around a couple of sections

Wilco, I imagine there will be other last minute comments to.

AG: One of the biggest problem of implementing it is the output format - expectation is people have some understanding of EARL. Siteimprove and Deque use slightly different formats

Wilco, EARL is not a part of the rules format, but maybe a community group task. Wilco working on documentation.

Publishing ACT Rules on w3.org/WAI https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/353

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/353#issue-428734105

Wilco, Not had a chance to update the post. Get rid of community group etc…Are there other things that need to happen?

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/353#issuecomment-492577332

Wilco, only other recent feedback is from Anne.

SES: We are concerned whether there is any value in being a part of the TF if tasks are primarily administrative

Wilco, could the TF take over some tasks from CG or AG?

MAryJo: Silver would like help with test cases

SES: Concerned about the readiness of the Silver work. Might be challenging for the TF to work with since it is still under work

MaryJo: Impression is that they are progressing, and they really are wanting to focus on the testability of things
... There is also work going on in completing test techniques for WCAG 2.1. If we could contribute to the test parts of those. They have a goal of finishing all those techniques by TPAC 2019. Somehow we could contribute to that work

MAryJo, those are the types of things I see

AG: What is the three step model Anne refers to?

Wilco, taken out in an update

AG: the way we view it is that our CAO would be reviewing the test that are contributed to the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group.

Wilco, going through the documentation to ensure consistency would require knowledge

AG: We will definitely be interested in being in an ACT TF

Wilco, AG gets the final say anyway.

AG: This group pre-filters it.

SES: We need to keep people interested in the ACT work

Wilco, should we share the proposal with the AG or are further changes needed?

Ag: We we want people also to provide a technique as well as a rule if it doesn't exist already

SES: failure techniques or sufficient techniques

AG: Mostly sufficient techniques.
... when talking to e.g. companies we can show them techniques to use in replacing the code we flag as issues

AG, somebody can claim conformance using sufficient techniques to cover a full SC, and we would test for those techniques

AG: What we find historically is that we rewrite custom solutions, but should instead use sufficient techniques

Wilco, Deque have internal technique-like documents to show how things work

Wilco, no major concerns, so will share with AG chairs

Unintended "should" in background section https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/355

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/355

Wilco, An unintentional should is found in the background section.

SES: the section is still optional, so it only means that if you include section, you SHOULD include a relationship to the relevant reading

Wilco, an explainer is lacking. We can add more context about it

MaryJo: We can include an editorial note

AG: What level of editorials can we make?

Wilco, Things that doesn't change meaning of the requirement.

Wilco, if you could send comments before Tuesday, that would be great, and we'll put it on the agenda next week

MaryJo, would you take a stab at adding an explainer around that SHOULD

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: 2019/05/29 17:40:36 $