14:56:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act
14:56:07 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/11/16-wcag-act-irc
14:56:09 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:56:09 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wcag-act
14:56:11 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
14:56:11 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:56:12 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference
14:56:12 <trackbot> Date: 16 November 2016
14:56:39 <shadi> present+ Alan
14:56:45 <shadi> present+ Katie
14:56:49 <shadi> present+ Shadi
14:57:53 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #wcag-act
14:58:16 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie Haritos-Shea
14:58:28 <shadi> agenda+ Framework: Update management
14:58:38 <shadi> agenda+ Framework: Introduction  (no link yet)
14:58:57 <shadi> agenda+ WCAG WG Requirements feedback
14:59:12 <shadi> agenda+ Open Actions Items
14:59:16 <Alan_> Scribe: Alan
15:00:28 <Alan_> Moe made pull request for update to the introduction prior to the meeting and emailed the list.
15:01:39 <rdeltour> rdeltour has joined #wcag-act
15:02:42 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag-act
15:02:47 <shadi> present+ Moe, Charo, MaryJo, Romain
15:02:58 <shadi> present+ Jemma
15:03:25 <MoeKraft> MoeKraft has joined #wcag-act
15:03:34 <Alan_> Chair: Shadi
15:03:48 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag-act
15:03:54 <jemma> jemma has joined #wcag-act
15:04:18 <cpandhi> cpandhi has joined #wcag-act
15:04:25 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #wcag-act
15:04:31 <MoeKraft> present+ MoeKraft
15:04:35 <shadi> present+ Alistair
15:04:36 <maryjom> s/Charo/Charu
15:05:01 <cpandhi> present+ CPandhi
15:05:01 <jemma> present+ JaEunJemmaKu
15:05:26 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:05:27 <Alan_> Agenda: WCAG WG Requirements feedback   https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_DPUB_Review_Nov_2016/results
15:06:26 <Alan_> See what the response where from the review.
15:06:35 <shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ACT_DPUB_Review_Nov_2016/results
15:07:24 <Alan_> Katie: People not sure about metadata in this instance and confused about it. Will have another meeting next week.
15:07:55 <Alan_> Also concerned that this would be a requirements. It can be just a best practice. Perhaps in 2.1.
15:08:34 <Alan_> Now for electronic docs and other things not same as in 2006.
15:08:41 <MoeKraft> q+
15:08:48 <Alan_> More discussion needs to be conducted next week.
15:09:23 <Alan_> Discussed some of Andrew's comments.
15:09:54 <Alan_> Shadi: we need to do more work on this.
15:10:13 <Alan_> Katie: people say this will take a bunch of time and slow things down.
15:11:06 <Alan_> Shadi: replied to Alistar's question about this.
15:11:21 <Alan_> WCAG has a discusion after the survey.
15:11:51 <Alan_> Katie: it was the last thing on the agenda and not enough time to cover this. Hopefully start with this next week.
15:12:30 <Alan_> Moe: Clarity the survey that went out was Testing Framework and 2 topics on the metadata.
15:12:53 <Alan_> Ist item was Testing Framework.
15:13:19 <agarrison> agarrison has joined #wcag-act
15:13:30 <Alan_> Moe: Andrew concerned we don't cover WCAG and other requirements.
15:14:00 <Alan_> Why are we leaving this opened ended we are providing a framework of testing a11y standards in general.
15:14:28 <Alan_> Shadi: intent here we did not want to nail down actual wcag number.
15:14:38 <Alan_> May have opened it too much.
15:15:06 <Alan_> May need to find a balance of content standards. or for wcag but can be applicable to other guidelines.
15:15:32 <Alan_> Moe to open github issue on this.
15:16:16 <Alan_> Katie added comment on teams comments?
15:16:23 <Alan_> Missed actual text.
15:16:48 <Alan_> Shadi: We should specific how this works.
15:16:57 <Alan_> Katie: yes, make it clear and what tools do.
15:17:37 <Alan_> Shadi: open another that req doc should specific relationships to failures and techniques
15:17:48 <Alan_> Open another issue.
15:18:32 <Alan_> Shadi: suggested others to review survey results.
15:18:46 <shadi> q+ jemma
15:18:50 <shadi> ack moe
15:19:07 <shadi> scribenick: Alan_
15:19:14 <shadi> scribe: Alan
15:20:42 <rdeltour> q+
15:20:54 <Alan_> ---
15:21:03 <shadi> ack je
15:21:27 <Alan_> Jenna: Choice is wide open.
15:21:52 <Alan_> What should we get from this?
15:22:32 <Alan_> Katie: Andrew clarified his comments and that topics were mixed.
15:22:38 <jemma> s/jenna/jemma
15:22:49 <MoeKraft> Open GitHub Issue #5: ACT Framework Requirements document is too general, https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/5
15:22:56 <Alan_> Shadi: some copy paste issues. Sent to the chairs with questions for them to look at.
15:23:29 <Alan_> Perhaps we should be more specific on what working group should review. This one was a "are we on the right track" communicatoin.
15:24:16 <Alan_> More importantt to look at their reaction. Thier first look and what they think.
15:24:17 <MoeKraft> q+
15:24:39 <cpandhi> q+
15:24:42 <Alan_> Jenna: they seem to look at metadata.
15:25:19 <Alan_> Romain:Mike C made some specific comments. Should we look at these?
15:25:54 <Alan_> Can we make this more clear from his questions?
15:27:05 <jemma> s/they seem to look at metadata/most comments are more focused on 'negative rules"
15:28:02 <Alan_> I'm having a hard time hearing Romain
15:28:30 <shadi> ack rd
15:28:35 <shadi> ack moe
15:28:58 <Alan_> Moe: looking at survey results there are clear issues we can put in github. won't get lost that way.
15:29:41 <Alan_> I have hearing loss of certain frequecies. Sorry.
15:30:05 <Alan_> Shadi: we can put in Github and assign and record.
15:30:07 <agarrison> q+
15:30:13 <shadi> ack cp
15:30:57 <Alan_> Charu: on negative texts may be some confusion. Only report negatives but will test for all requirements. It is doing all positive tests. Only tell you when it fails.
15:31:28 <Alan_> Shadi: this is a testing framework as a reply to othes concern about this.
15:32:32 <Alan_> Alistair: That is not what it means. We will test for things but when you write in the negative ways. Positive test: does car have doors: Negative test: test car does not have doors example.
15:33:00 <Alan_> Shadi: can we make it more clear.
15:33:12 <Alan_> Alistair: it is just a way we write the tests.
15:33:33 <Alan_> Charu: we are going to test postive and negative and only report on negative?
15:34:03 <Alan_> Alistair: No, it depends on what we want to test for: to conform or not conform.
15:34:26 <Alan_> ---
15:34:43 <Alan_> dont confuse what we test for with how we write the test.
15:35:29 <jemma> rrsagent, make minutes
15:35:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/16-wcag-act-minutes.html jemma
15:35:36 <Alan_> Charu: you have a rule to test does the link have link text? rules will check for all ways to provide it. If it passes all you will not see errors. only if it does not pass a condition it will fail.
15:35:44 <jemma> make log public
15:36:16 <Alan_> May be a matter of clarifying rule descriptions.
15:36:17 <jemma> rrsagent, make log public
16:07:31 <jemma> s/jenna/jemma
16:07:31 <jemma> s/Jenna/jemma
16:07:31 <Alan_> Alistair: you have to write some failure reason. Claim you have a skip link: if true it is possitive. or does not have a skip link and this is false.
16:07:31 <Alan_> Shadi: can Alistair send his suggested differences between positive and negative testing wording.
16:07:31 <shadi> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-fr-reqs.html#28-rules-test-for-failures
16:07:31 <jemma> +1
16:07:31 <MoeKraft> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/7
16:07:31 <Alan_> Shadi: can you add it to the rules to test for failures?