– DRAFT –
Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

Rename test cases to examples

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/596/files

Kathy: This is renaming our term "test cases" to "examples"

Wilco: This is really just aligning our terminology. We've been using both interchangeably. For the rules, we used examples consistently so this aligns the rules format.

Kathy: I did a quick find and replace in the PR. Take a look and see if there is anything I missed.

<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/73f2c2/#test-cases

Wilco: This is a rule picked at random. There is the same consistency in every rule we have. I think this is a fairly unimpacful change. Are we ok with this?

<Kathy> +1

Wilco: can I get a +1 if in support? -1 if opposed?

<Rachael> +1

<Helen> +1

<Wilco> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 596 as is

Kathy: Do we need to get PR approved?

Wilco: Yes.
… to go to CR, we will need a review.

<Shunguo> +1

Backward compatibility

<Wilco> w3c/wcag-act#597

Wilco: This is an issue that Trevor raised. Please read.
… any comments?

Shunguo: We have several repos. Which are we working in?

Wilco: Reviewed repos. Comments on the rules should go in the rules repository. Comments on rules format should go into rules format repository. If they end up in the wrong place, I move them.
… Any comments on this? Is it in scope or should it be elsewhere?

Kathy: I think its ok where it is? We do have a 4.11 ACT rules format version.

Wilco: That is where I first put it and it felt off to put in that section too.
… that is the other place it could go.

Rachael: Are you ok with it here?

Wilco: I think its good here. My question is whether this is where people would expect it? I considered the introduction but that felt like an edge case. Likely would be lost under the rules. I think Scope is where people would expect it.

Shungua: It feels difficult to trace backwards. It is useful but difficult to do

<Kathy> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-rules-format.html#act-rules-format-version

Wilco: There are rules around versioning for the rule. We approve each version of the rules and once it gets approved it gets a version. We change the drafts pretty regularly.

Kathy: I like it under the rules format version slightly more.

Helen: I was thinking backward compatibility should say we'r enot going to update all the rules straight away once approved. It seems like a note just in case. Where it is is fine.

Helen: I am full scope and anti all the rest.

Rachael: Had you considered making it its own section. I have no strong opinion.

Wilco: I hadn't and kind of like that suggestion.
… makes it more findable. Between scope and ACT Rules Type. Does that seem reasonable to everybody?

Kathy: In our changes section, we do mention compatibility under 4.11. I haven't let go of 4.11 yet.

<Kathy> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-rules-format.html#changes-since-1.0

Kathy: Under section 4.11 it says New requirement to idetnify ACT rules format version compatibility so backward compatibility seems to fit. I will link to it.

Kathy: The changes section describes that 4.11 was added to describe version compatibility.
… so backwards compatibility makes sense to me to put in 4.11

Wilco: I can live with that. I prefer a subsection below scope but I am OK with that.
… additional suggestion that we add a link from 4.11 to the backwards compatibility under scope.

Wilco: We add a heading for section 2.1 Backwards Compatibility. Then in 4.1 we mention that this is not backwards compatible and link back to 2.1.

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/597#pullrequestreview-2900584305

Wilco: Does anyone disagree?

RESOLUTION: accept PR 597 with suggestion

New term for input aspects

requirements for examples

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/598/files

Wilco: added a requirement that examples need to be consistent with conformance requirements

<Shunguo> have a conflict and have to run. Good day/evening.

Wilco: a rule for images cannot have an inapplicable example that fails 1.1.1

<Shunguo> (~Shunguo@9cd7628a.publics.cloak) has quit

rachael: this sounds for the pass requirement

kathy: looks good

wilco: will email group to review

wilco: have enough reviews, will merge

New term for input aspects

<Wilco> w3c/wcag-act#530

wilco: not sure I understand his point

kathy: "input aspects" link in issue is not working

<Wilco> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-rules-format.html#input-aspects

wilco: input aspects defines what a tester needs to run a rule but hasn't been particularly useful
… should it be removed?

<Helen> https://frontmeans.github.io/input-aspects/

helen: input aspects search says data you put in, like edit field

wilco: that was the concept in mind of what to test with in this rule

helen: HTML input types might be confused with input aspects

wilco: input aspects for atomic rules, input rules for composite rules
… don't like removing "input" as it is rule input
… Mike suggests "atomic aspects"

rachael: sensitivity around the word "atomic"

wilco: will check if not making Mike's suggested change is acceptable

<Wilco> w3c/wcag-act#594

Secondary requirement disclaimer

wilco: moving sentence from bullet to paragraph above won't work because it isn't true of all bullets

helen: agree. suggestion makes it more complex

wilco: suggest my comment be feedback from task force