See also: IRC log
<shadi> https://ictaccessibilitytesting.org/home.html
Wilco: anyone attending the ICT Accessibility Testing Symposium, then they can be on a panel with me
Shadi: the paper will be to present the work done by this group
Wilco: Shadi put together a proposal to publish ACT rules
Wilco: we have a bunch of questions in the agenda
Shadi: has anybody not seen the review
process? hope everyone has seen it
... the whole modal is built on the approach that will drive the process
which a high threshold
... provide rules, test cases and you have to implement it
... the idea being that developer will have the motivation to go through
the process to validate the rules.
... there may be a bottle neck if there are conflicts
... So the question is would the developers would have the incentive to
go through such a process or do we want to develop a different approach
Wilco: i would like to get a take of everyone on the call
Alistair: i have a copy right kind of question, if someone contributes then does W3C get that copyright
Shadi: yes, when you contribute to W3C, it
is patent free and everyone gets to use it patent free and you do not
have to pay to use it
... W3C will list the contributors as editors
<MoeKraft> https://github.com/IBMa/Va11yS/blob/master/NOTICE.md
Alistaire: On the open source licensing
Shadi: there is a legal answer and i will have to get that for you
<MoeKraft> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document
Shadi: thanks Alsitaire fo for the questions, will you still go through the process
Alistair: prob no, how much speed it there in the process? we need to fix bugs or implement something new, it would be higher if open source
<MoeKraft> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-testsuite-copyright.html
Shadi: Moe just pasted the link to the W3C
Software copy right
... Moe has pasted the test suite copy right license
... so we have answers in these documents
Alistair: Do we want to think in terms of the duration review period
Shadi: Good points, so lets say you have a
test rule to contribute, your tool will implement and then put in Github
for others to implement
... that is to reduce the bottleneck through a group
... i am looking at Auto WCAG
... The idea is the techniques will be developed outside and bring into
the group
... SInce i have you on the line, what are your thoughts?
Romain: I can't commit but this is close to something we do, so mostly positive
Wilco: I have put lot of thought, i would put rules in Auto WCAG, though it is slow, the review process is good and feedback that come out is good
Shadi: would the feedback be fast
Wilco: It would be a month for the feedback
to come through as we have monthly meetings
... the bottle neck is not we can't process the rules fast enough, we do
not have enough contributors
... if we have enough contributors, it would speed up the process
... i have a second point, looking at our process, we review, fix bugs
and implement the rule
... we contribute a rule, we have test cases and we let the ACT WG to
approve
Shadi: we have Ann on queue
Anne: Ilike the new suggestion, will have the opportunity to speak up
<Sujasree> +1 for Wilco on "we contribute a rule, we have test cases and we let the ACT WG to approve"
Anne: So far we have not had developers to contribute, so they can write the rules and contribute
<Sujasree> after ACT WG approval, may be probably we can open it for Auto WCAG group to comment ?
Anne: This will solve our problems for our developers to contribute due to timing conflicts with the Auto WCAG
Shadi: The other approach is to write a rule and reach out to others to implement, more work
Anne: So if we know who to reach or have a list it would be easy
Romain: The practicality of the process as described with Github tracking for reviews and comments would be familliar for developers and would be easy to reach out to devlopers
Wilco: i see it is a familiar approach but
it should not be the only one, it would have the bottle neck risk
... there could be organization that will contribute but maintained by
W3C
Shadi: By have a central process there are advantages on the know hows
Alistair: Reflecting on what people said,
It would constrain people heavily with a format
... how do we deal with rejections? I spend a year to get my technique
through and it was a lot of effort
Shadi: There are 2 aspects, the logistics
and the contents
... thats is why my suggestion is to work on test cases, rather then
deal with hypothetical questions
Sujasree: I like the approach of have the working group to approve within a certain time frame
Shadi: My concern is the WG has too much
responsibility to approve
... so i am suggesting is a hybrid approach
Sujasree: If the group approves we can move faster
Shadi: What if it put for review and do not
receive feedback
... Moe
Moe: I agree with Shadi, i like the idea
that the WG reviews and fallows a set process, but i do not want it to
be too prescriptive
... It is more a honor system where folks contribute and gets reviewed
... to require a author to get approval from the central authority will
be too slow
Wilco: I like Sujasree's suggestion of
having a review process, make it more a test case driven process
... you contribute test cases to demonstrate the change
... We have a rule that may have bug, while IBM may have the same rules
implemented in a different way, how do we resolve
Shadi: good feedback, there is some thought
of having a central group drive rather then self implementation
... Auto WCAG wll support the contributors
... i will take another stab to update and email the group
Wico: any last comments
Wilco: do want someone to work with you on this
Shadi: will take another stab, please do not be shy to provide feedback
Wilco: Next Monday is holiday in US so we will skip next week meeting