14:56:44 RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act 14:56:44 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/01/18-wcag-act-irc 14:56:46 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:56:46 Zakim has joined #wcag-act 14:56:48 Zakim, this will be 14:56:48 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 14:56:49 Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference 14:56:49 Date: 18 January 2017 14:58:17 agenda+ Availability survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/availability/ 14:58:28 agenda+ Approval of last week's meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2017/01/11-wcag-act-minutes.html 14:58:34 agenda+ Draft Section 4.2 Accessibility Support Data https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/32/files?diff=split 14:58:37 agenda+ Draft Section 6.1 Output Data https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/41/files?diff=split 14:58:40 agenda+ Rework of Rule Description Section https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/42/files?diff=split 14:58:43 agenda+ Possible F2F at CSUN 14:58:46 agenda+ Progress on issues assigned last week - ready to survey? 14:58:50 agenda+ Open Issues in Github, Feedback from WCAG WG https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues 14:58:55 agenda+ GitHub demonstration https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/GitHub_Resources_and_Information 14:59:19 Charu has joined #wcag-act 15:00:02 Kathy has joined #wcag-act 15:02:22 Scribe: Charu 15:02:26 present+ Kathy 15:03:04 present+ Charu 15:03:25 present+ Mary Jo 15:03:36 maryjom has joined #wcag-act 15:03:49 present+ wilco 15:04:01 present+MaryJoMueller 15:04:05 Alan_S has joined #wcag-act 15:04:48 zakim, takeup next 15:04:48 I don't understand 'takeup next', Charu 15:04:49 MoeKraft has joined #wcag-act 15:04:59 zakim, take next 15:04:59 I don't understand 'take next', Charu 15:05:17 zakim, next 15:05:17 I don't understand 'next', Charu 15:05:39 Zakim, take up next 15:05:39 agendum 1. "Availability survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/availability/" taken up [from Wilco] 15:06:22 agarrison has joined #wcag-act 15:06:45 Wilco: we have the survey, if you have not please do so 15:06:54 Zakim, take up next 15:06:54 agendum 2. "Approval of last week's meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2017/01/11-wcag-act-minutes.html" taken up [from Wilco] 15:07:03 Present: Alan 15:07:14 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTTF18Jan2017/results 15:07:47 Zakim, take up next 15:07:47 agendum 2 was just opened, Charu 15:08:11 minutes approved 15:08:19 Zakim, take up next 15:08:19 agendum 3. "Draft Section 4.2 Accessibility Support Data https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/32/files?diff=split" taken up [from Wilco] 15:09:47 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTTF18Jan2017/ 15:11:24 Wilco: how do we define accessibility support? 15:11:52 Moe: is there a defination or a clause in WCAG we can refer to? 15:12:11 https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-accessibility-support-head 15:12:25 Using a technology in a way that is accessibility supported means that it works with assistive technologies (AT) and the accessibility features of operating systems, browsers, and other user agents. Technology features can only be relied upon to conform to WCAG 2.0 success criteria if they are used in a way that is "accessibility supported". Technology features can be used in ways that are not accessibility supported (do not work with assistive technologies[CUT] 15:12:35 Wilco: let me grab the WCAG defination 15:13:10 s/defination/definition 15:14:34 Shadi: i have not seen any work on the notation of accessibility support 15:14:58 Wilco: i want to standardize the input 15:15:16 Shadi: do we need this at this stage 15:16:13 Shadi: we could end having the notation in text later, we may not have to worry about it now 15:16:38 regrets: Katie_Haritos-Shea, Detlev_Fischer 15:17:20 Wilco: you would set up accessibility support to compare 2 tools or implementation of the rule, you have to compare input matches for the same output 15:19:30 q+ 15:19:44 Wilco: this is tricky, we could set up support function that would check what is supported, the rule might go if aria-describedby is supported on text, a support clause in the rule to support the outcome 15:20:07 Wilco: what that means is check if x is supported 15:21:04 Wilco: if we have to do it it has to be super light so it can adapt 15:22:03 Alistair: It is very complicated, i would not worry about it 15:22:31 Wilco: the alternative would be to hard code it 15:23:38 present+ 15:23:59 Alistair: Over thinking this, blending WCAG and ACT, not a big issue, not writing a light weight support 15:24:02 q+ 15:24:52 Alistair: We just have to maintain what is useful and what is not 15:25:55 q+ 15:26:13 Alistair: Allen writes a test after research and i don't have that rule, then i would just take Allans, then we find out it is not accessibility supported then we all dump it collectively 15:26:21 q- 15:26:44 Shadi: i am all for trying to find simpler ways and may be need to look at this later 15:27:28 ack s 15:28:01 Shadi: the assumption that this is accessibility supported is always there, it could change, it could be supported in one region or with one screen reader but may not be uniform 15:29:23 ack k 15:29:28 q+ 15:29:31 Alistair: if i adopt WCAG then we have to write the test in the same way, if we pool resources we make the determination of what test 15:30:39 Kathy: Different countries have different standards, based on te content any rule can have compatibility issues 15:31:09 ack s 15:31:23 Kathy: i agree with Alistair, people will choose what rules to pick and support based on the customer and content 15:31:54 q+ 15:32:12 q+ 15:32:16 Shadi: Picking and choosing, we have to make some assumptions, we have to agree that people can make selections 15:33:32 Shadi: What i understood, are there test written independently and then make the assumption if it is accessibility supported 15:33:35 ack a 15:34:21 Alistair: i don't think it is useful, it will be too much to maintain, lot of extra work with no benefit 15:35:07 Shadi: Interesting proposal, 2 tools run on the same site with different assumptions and have different results 15:35:59 Shadi: the important question is will the user understand why the results are different 15:36:56 Shadi: The more tranperency we can provide the more clear the results will be or reasons why they not same 15:37:51 Alistair: it is common sense to select the same tests for rsame esults 15:39:39 Wilco: fasinating discussion, we have to make some meta data available on which rules are accessibility supported, if that has to be explicit or can be in the rules description 15:39:52 s/rsame esults/same results/ 15:40:08 q+ 15:40:24 Alistair: we write the test in plain english and not say anything about accessibility supported, has that will change 15:40:50 ack w 15:40:52 ack m 15:40:57 Wilco: That was what i am trying to get at, it can be implicit 15:41:41 Moe: We can identify the clause for accessibility supported data and rule can be independent of that 15:41:53 q+ 15:42:32 q- 15:42:46 Wilco: that sounding like leave it implicit and not explicitly state 15:43:07 Moe: Can you give me an example 15:43:31 Moe: may be i am misunderstanding 15:44:25 Wilco: Input field have label rule, implicit as well as explicit label and certain AT supports one 15:44:55 Charu + 15:45:20 Wilco: it has to be defined in the baseline 15:45:33 Wilco: the code is being tested 15:46:02 Moe: if the client supports a configuration 15:47:12 Wilco: We can not outline what user agent or what AT will the rule supports 15:47:26 I think the rule should be independent of the assistive technologies. 15:47:51 Shadi: The goal is to have all tools interpret standards same 15:47:54 We are trying to confirm that the code meets success criteria and not validate the AT. 15:48:16 Sorry, need to drop. 15:48:38 Shadi: one could write a test can raise an issue on a code and someone else will write a rule that passes based on their interpretation 15:49:14 Shadi: the end user will not know the difference, how can we make that more transparent 15:49:54 Alistair: the results can show why one fails one the other does not 15:50:36 Shadi: the report will say 2 tools ran and one is failing and other is passing, it will not be clear 15:51:15 Wilco: i would say if it is different rule then it will show different results 15:52:27 Wilco: 3 options, we say, you must explicitly define what accessibility supports the rule, or we can make it optional and let it be implicit 15:53:01 Wilco: last option is don't include accessibility support 15:53:35 Alistair: lot of overhead to optionaly define 15:54:47 Wilco: input text has a label, what are the accessibility supported assumptions, implicit labels, explicit labels, aria-label ..etc 15:55:43 Shadi: another use case is, if there is a different way to test, rule, description, assumptions, steps, expected results 15:56:26 Shadi: what if someone has different procedure or steps to test, so that has to be defined 15:56:54 +1 to specific examples! 15:56:55 Wilco: lets work this through via email and end it here 15:57:26 Wilco: i want to mention F2F at CSUN 15:58:13 Wilco: like to hear, do we want to meet or not and the second thing is where? we need a host 15:58:36 Wilco: We have talked to IBM and Deque, with no luck 15:59:39 Wilco: Alistair, can you explore if we can host, or any other ideas for half day or full day meeting 16:00:00 Wilco: Jumping toopen issues 16:01:06 not sure what happened to my audio 16:01:39 still trying to understand what we want to include in the section of exception 16:02:15 Wilco: thanks everyone, talk soon 16:05:40 trackbot, end meeting 16:05:40 Zakim, list attendees 16:05:40 As of this point the attendees have been Alan, shadi 16:05:46 Zakim, bye 16:05:46 Zakim has left #wcag-act 16:05:47 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been Alan, shadi 16:05:48 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:05:48 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/18-wcag-act-minutes.html trackbot 16:05:49 RRSAgent, bye 16:05:49 I see no action items