Wilco: we got a couple of plus ones on last week's CFC
... no objections, this is accepted
... no comments, resolution is accepted, pass on to AG
RESOLUTION: no objections, rule is accepted, ready to pass on to AG
Wilco: we discussed this last week, want to start tracking rule implementers on the W3C web site
... we briefly discussed this and need to continue, who are the primary users?
<shadi> +1
Wilco: users would include those interested in accessibility tools, main interest would be seeing which tools align which rules
Trevor: most people will not understand most of the ACT rules
Shadi: could include evaluators, purchasing/acquisition decision-makers non-technical
... might need technical and non-technical language
Wilco: avoided using the term methodology
... would also include the developers of the tools themselves
... could also be a good competitor comparison tool
Kathy: agrees with adding tool developers
Maryjo: ARIA and some browser developers publish this type of implementation data publicly online
<shadi> aria-at.w3.org
Kathy: if someone is testing with a methodology on a VPAT, can the list be used to validate it?
... when someone receives a VPAT, reviewing the testing methodology, the implementation list could be a resource to confirm the tools and accuracy of the reporting
Wilco: would this be a compliance officer role?
Kathy: more likely a procurement role
Wilco: is there a difference between an owner and developer of a tool?
Levon: would that information come from this list?
Wilco: possibly
... what else do we need in terms of methodology? how does a procurement person know the testing is consistent with standards?
Shadi: does a tool implement checks automatically or semiautomatically vs manual?
Shadi/Daniel: we're documenting the methodology in combination with the tools used
Shadi: what incentives to organizations have to provide this info?
Kathy: for trusted tester, the tool may or may not have ACT implementation
... so worth documenting
Wilco: also helps improve internal company testing and reporting processes
Kathy: for using multiple tools, could be a good resource for better coverage, overlapping features of multiple tools
Wilco: a use case is someone doing evaluations
Shadi: we have tools that maximize coverage, and there are others that are focused on specific tests like contrast or detecting Flash
Wilco: tools that make assumptions have better coverage, but higher false positive potential, need to be cautious not to emphasize one over another
<shadi> +1 to balancing accuracy and coverage claims
Trevor: how do we determine the level?
Wilco: tools that allow for false positives and not being too strict with test cases
Mary Jo: there were differences in tool results that had a negative business effect
Wilco: is that a use case?
Shadi: how is this different from the procurement situation?
Wilco: might be a refinement of that
... do we want to know what rules and procedures were not covered by ACT?
... ACT rules are a subset, how does someone evaluating a product knows if something goes beyond WCAG?
Shadi: not unless it contradicts an ACT rule
... might need to expand understanding document
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/understanding-act-rules
Wilco: what if a tool requires landmarks to pass
Shadi: maybe having passing rules would be helpful
Daniel: adding test cases to existing rules would be helpful
Kathy: ACT rules are still being written, so this needs to be written explicitly somewhere
Wilco: next step is collecting and putting this into a page