See also: IRC log
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/Accessibility_Conformance_Testing_for_W3C#Organization
Wilco: Updates to proposal. Organization section.
Judy: Informed WAI that Auto WCAG would
like to be a task force under WCAG. We will need to address concern for
resources.
... We are lacking a clearer description of what we propose to build.
Wilco: Agreed. We need more concrete plan to proceed.
<EmmaPR> Hi @shadi ... what is the password to join today?
<EmmaPR> Thanks
Judy: We need to be able to express exactly what we are building. For example, is it a specification or a repository.
Wilco: We need some flexibility. The rules could be viewed as a repository. It could be a specification. It could be a wiki.
<shadi> [[
<shadi> #1. A spec defining the framework (format, logic, any conformance requirements) for the tests -- this is to happen in a TF or WG.
<shadi> #2. A validation approach and content for validating the tests. This would happen openly in auto-WCAG in accordance to the above spec.
<shadi> #3. The repository of actual tests that meet the specification and validation checks. Also this is to happen openly in auto-WCAG.
<shadi> ]]
Shadi: Shares possible deliverables for consideration on IRC
wilco + david: agree with shadi
Judy: We should lock down those target deliverables and provide a few examples.
Wilco: we should be able to draw from existing content to provide the examples.
shadi: task force or charter?
judy: task force work statement is what has been discussed in the past
wilco: agreed, task force model is probably best
david: Do we clarify the existing deliverable statement in the wiki to include better description of the form of deliverables and provide examples?
Wilco: yes, I think that is the direction
Judy: Need to make sure there is visibility
into the level of commitment to the group.
... Are there organizations willing to make public commitments to the
group and either contribute rules to repository or commit to using the
rules in practice
<EmmaPR> For me, I think that might be both use what auto-wcag produces and possibly contribute to its development
<shadi> +1 emma
wilco: Working to see if Deque would be able to leverage the repository in some fashion within the Axe suite.
annika: What is the relationship between the proposed task force and the auto-wcag group.
wilco: auto wcag will continue to work on the rules while the specification and validation specification would be the work of the task force
<shadi> +1 to graphic idea!
judy: there are massive rule sets out there which we can help bridge under this effort and we need to be sure to articulate when and how that happens
wilco: would make a great graphic
emma: we will leverage the rules!
<Judy> +1 to Romain's concern about precision of the deliverables
ramon?: Deliverables can be clarified to indicate what is a specification, what is a tech note, what is rec...
<shadi> +1 to Romain
romain: Walked the call through a few of the bullets under the deliverable section, indicating what is a tech note, or recommendation, or specification
shadi: leaning towards red track for the core spec, but we need to examine this more closely. Also, the term "test rules" seems to imply automated only. Should we consider a broader term that is inclusive of non-automated?
emma: bbc is considering semi-automated and manual templates in their own efforts
<shadi> [+1 want to avoid terminology that may restrict us later on]
wilco: a rule should not imply a particular level of automation
<shadi> [I really don't know if "rules" has any implications regarding automation or not]
<Judy> [JB: BTW, Shadi was right with regard to team resources for community groups; after I got the exception for the proposal development stage of this CG work, W3M (w3c management) re-visited the question and broadened the terms for allowing team contact support.]
judy: perhaps we speak of "test rules and procedures" which may also help encompass the human testing
George: Sample pages to demonstrate how the rule works - yielding success and failure cases
wilco: such samples can be treated as supporting content for a rule
wilco: Next meeting on June 2
judy: encouraged by idea of better defining deliverables, grabbing commitments to rule sets, commitments to use what we create.
Digital publishing announcement of combining with W3C - potential for our work to apply to other forms of content such as ePub, PDF etc.
annika: voluteers to work on task force work
shadi: agrees with all of the above
Wilco: have a good weekend!
<rdeltour> +1 on the collective final thoughts!