13:51:53 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act
13:51:53 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/10/23-wcag-act-irc
13:51:55 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:51:58 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference
13:51:58 <trackbot> Date: 23 October 2017
13:52:00 <Wilco> agenda?
13:52:05 <Wilco> clear agenda
13:52:18 <Wilco> agenda+ Doodle poll for new meeting time https://doodle.com/poll/668bk8xeyqyxpg4t
13:52:35 <Wilco> agenda+ Consistency: Possible outcome values - suggestion to use EARL terminology   https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/117
13:52:43 <Wilco> agenda+ Avoid hard statements about rules not being automated https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/120
13:52:50 <Wilco> agenda+ Relationship between ACT rule and an accessibility requirement - one to one only or is one to many allowed? https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/122
13:52:57 <Wilco> agenda+ Section 4 - Test Subject Types (input) - would like to see more than just HTML types https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/123
13:59:49 <rdeltour> rdeltour has joined #wcag-act
14:00:13 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag-act
14:02:29 <anne_thyme> anne_thyme has joined #wcag-act
14:03:51 <cpandhi> cpandhi has joined #wcag-act
14:04:07 <Wilco> present+
14:04:08 <rdeltour> present+
14:04:14 <rdeltour> scribenick: rdeltour
14:04:14 <cpandhi> present+
14:04:16 <maryjom> present+
14:04:17 <rdeltour> scribe: Romain
14:04:17 <anne_thyme> present+
14:04:23 <rdeltour> zakim, takeup next
14:04:23 <Zakim> I don't understand 'takeup next', rdeltour
14:04:29 <rdeltour> zakim, take up next
14:04:29 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Doodle poll for new meeting time https://doodle.com/poll/668bk8xeyqyxpg4t" taken up [from Wilco]
14:04:34 <skotkjerra> skotkjerra has joined #wcag-act
14:04:41 <skotkjerra> present+
14:05:10 <rdeltour> wilco: I think that this time isn't working for everyone. Please fill up the form
14:05:24 <rdeltour> … looks like Thursday is currently the best option
14:06:03 <rdeltour> zakim, take up next
14:06:03 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Consistency: Possible outcome values - suggestion to use EARL terminology   https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/117" taken up [from Wilco]
14:06:38 <rdeltour> wilco: right now, we've got this weird thing called "undetermined" in section 8.2
14:06:48 <rdeltour> … it's not part of EARL, we made it up ourselves
14:07:05 <rdeltour> ... first question is do we even need this concept?
14:07:28 <rdeltour> … we answered that last week. next quesiton is should it be "undetermined" or "canttell" as is used in EARL?
14:07:43 <rdeltour> Stein Erik: in my perspective, OK to use EARL's technology
14:07:50 <rdeltour> wilco: sounds right to me
14:08:14 <rdeltour> Stein Erik: we said we needed a dinstinction between "inapplicable" and "undetermined"
14:08:40 <rdeltour> Charu: I think we add a discussion earlier, trying to remember why we didn't kept "canttell"
14:09:12 <rdeltour> … we have "untested", and "not fully tested". isn't that the case when a fully automated tool isn't able to figure out the resulsts?
14:09:23 <rdeltour> wilco: there's a bunch of terms, we just have to pick one
14:09:38 <rdeltour> … another way we could use is to have an explicit mapping to EARL
14:10:02 <rdeltour> ... "canttell" may read  a bit weird, which is why I think we used "undetermined"
14:10:13 <rdeltour> … but I do personally prefer sticking with EARL terminiology
14:10:27 <rdeltour> Stein Erik: either way we need a definition
14:10:39 <Manoj> Manoj has joined #wcag-act
14:11:13 <rdeltour> wilco: I think the reason the EARL group came up with "cannot tell" is that it's not technology specific
14:11:18 <MoeKraft> MoeKraft has joined #wcag-act
14:11:51 <rdeltour> Charu: when we get the "undetermined" outcome it's that it's not fully tested. can we use "not fully tested"? we'd need to map that to "cannot tell"
14:12:10 <rdeltour> wilco: are you OK sticking with "cannot tell" and put a definition in our document?
14:12:37 <rdeltour> charu: EARL's definition is not very specific, so if we have our own definition it should be OK
14:13:24 <rdeltour> wilco: ok, let's stick with "cannot tell", we'll work on a definition
14:13:34 <rdeltour> anne: ??? [bad audio]
14:14:43 <rdeltour> wilco: I think the reason we put it in there is that it's not a result from a rule. An aggregation can be "inapplicable"
14:15:32 <rdeltour> … it's not described explicitly in 8.2, you can find it in appendix
14:15:57 <rdeltour> anne: we can think of cases where we can have "inapplicable" for the rule itself. we have tests like that
14:16:01 <rdeltour> wilco: example?
14:16:36 <rdeltour> anne: one where we start out by searching a constant and test if it's included in landmark. if it's not there, the rule is inapplicable
14:17:09 <rdeltour> … we do have tests where for us it would be necessary to have inapplicable as an outcome
14:17:27 <rdeltour> Stein Erik: [clarifies the use case]
14:18:06 <rdeltour> anne: we don't start out from a CSS selector
14:18:33 <rdeltour> Stein Erik: what you need to test is a parent element instead of searching all children elements
14:18:53 <rdeltour> … you pass a parent, but then figure it's not relevant when testing the children
14:19:43 <rdeltour> wilco: are you saying one test could impact the result of another test?
14:20:01 <rdeltour> Stein Erik: yes, which may already be possible. it depends on how you split tests into steps
14:20:15 <rdeltour> wilco: maybe you can explore this further and come back to the group
14:20:35 <rdeltour> … hopefully the time change will allow the developer to attend our calls as well
14:20:46 <rdeltour> anne: this was one of the results from our internal testing
14:21:28 <rdeltour> wilco: [musings about the format not requiring CSS selectors]
14:21:58 <rdeltour> wilco: the conclusion stands, use "canttell" and add a definition for it, better than the one in EARL
14:22:02 <rdeltour> zakim, take up next
14:22:02 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Avoid hard statements about rules not being automated https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/120" taken up [from Wilco]
14:22:58 <rdeltour> wilco: we may not be too explicit about which rule may be automated and which may not, technology is evolving
14:23:05 <rdeltour> … I kind of agree
14:23:24 <rdeltour> ... I had several people asking that explicitly, to make it easier to undertsand one or the other might fall
14:23:37 <rdeltour> … it's more "we think it's this one", not a necessity
14:23:46 <rdeltour> stein erik: can you give an example?
14:24:59 <rdeltour> wilco: this is mentioned in 5.2
14:25:09 <rdeltour> stein erik: OK. I think it's a valid point
14:25:50 <rdeltour> wilco: we could either remove it altogether, that doesn't mean that the test mode can't be part of the eventual result, it's left up to the implementor
14:25:55 <rdeltour> … not even sure it's required by EARL
14:26:03 <rdeltour> ... the other option is to have a suggested test mode
14:26:09 <rdeltour> charu: I like that
14:26:15 <rdeltour> +1
14:27:06 <rdeltour> charu: in my thinking, if you have some tests that used to be manual but somebody found a way to automate that, the rule cam be revised
14:27:22 <rdeltour> wilco: you don't much care how you implement it as long as you get to the same results
14:27:30 <rdeltour> stein erik: makes sense
14:27:50 <Wilco> Decision: Update 5.2 to say "Suggested test mode"
14:28:13 <rdeltour> stein erik: is it even necessary
14:28:46 <MoeKraft> I prefer recommended too
14:28:57 <rdeltour> rdeltour: maybe "suggested" mean "recommended"? so "indicative" or "informative" is more appropriate?
14:29:44 <rdeltour> moe: I just think "recommended" carries more weight.
14:29:53 <rdeltour> wilco: what about "indicative"
14:30:35 <rdeltour> moe: somewhat vague. indicated by whom?
14:30:45 <rdeltour> rdeltour: [clarifies]
14:30:45 <MoeKraft> defined maybe
14:31:06 <rdeltour> stein erik: maybe "this rule has been designed or tested using this mode" ?
14:31:17 <rdeltour> … something like "known test mode"
14:31:35 <rdeltour> wilco: what about "default test mode"?
14:31:55 <rdeltour> stein erik: I like the idea of default.
14:32:05 <rdeltour> moe: I was thinking "defined"
14:32:19 <rdeltour> … you would need to define what the default is
14:32:36 <rdeltour> ... in the rules format, we have a specified mode
14:32:50 <rdeltour> charu: I was more leaning to "indicative" or "specified"
14:33:08 <rdeltour> stein erik: isn't it very decided in a way? very firm?
14:33:21 <MoeKraft> 5.2 states: Test case mode identifying whether test case steps are automated, semi-automated or require manual testing.
14:33:34 <rdeltour> anne: to me "specified" suggests that you don't follow the spec if you don't do this.
14:34:05 <rdeltour> stein erik: "proposed"?
14:34:12 <rdeltour> wilco: +1
14:34:15 <rdeltour> charu: +1
14:34:17 <MoeKraft> default: a preselected option adopted by a computer program or other mechanism when no alternative is specified by the user or programmer.
14:34:18 <rdeltour> +1
14:34:23 <maryjom> +1
14:34:44 <MoeKraft> proposed: put forward (an idea or plan) for consideration or discussion by others.
14:34:45 <rdeltour> zakim, take up next
14:34:45 <Zakim> agendum 4. "Relationship between ACT rule and an accessibility requirement - one to one only or is one to many allowed? https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/122" taken up [from
14:34:48 <Zakim> ... Wilco]
14:36:06 <rdeltour> wilco: pretty easy one I think
14:36:27 <rdeltour> … are Rules a 1 to 1 relationship to SC?
14:36:48 <rdeltour> stein erik: isn't it explcit in the text that they can be 1-1 or 1-many?
14:36:56 <rdeltour> charu: yes, we have rules like that
14:37:28 <rdeltour> anne: yes, in section 3.3 Accessibility Requirements
14:38:57 <Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/135
14:39:09 <rdeltour> rdeltour: [describes his comment on #135]
14:40:19 <rdeltour> moe: we were trying to replicate WCAG verbage
14:42:31 <rdeltour> all: [debating an appropriate rewording]
14:43:31 <rdeltour> wilco: what about "An ACT Rule MUST be …"
14:44:01 <rdeltour> rdeltour: what about then "An ACT Rule is a complete or partial test…"
14:44:07 <rdeltour> wilco: sounds ok to me
14:44:12 <MoeKraft> An ACT Rule MAY test only part of an accessibility requirement, or MAY cover more than one requirement.
14:44:53 <rdeltour> moe: there are several places where we use MAY, should we replace all of them?
14:45:32 <rdeltour> … ok, let's just focus on this occurrence for now
14:45:50 <MoeKraft> Conformance requirements are expressed with a combination of descriptive assertions and RFC 2119 terminology. The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in the normative parts of this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. However, for readability, these words do not appear in all uppercase letters in this spe[CUT]
14:46:16 <rdeltour> zakim, take up next
14:46:16 <Zakim> I do not see any more non-closed or non-skipped agenda items, rdeltour
14:46:26 <Wilco> agenda?
14:47:14 <Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/139
14:49:57 <rdeltour> rdeltour: [rephrases what he put in #139]
14:50:13 <rdeltour> wilco: kinda like the idea, helpful to get the full picture. Moe WDYT?
14:51:06 <rdeltour> rdeltour: the idea is to have a section dedicated to describe the logic of evaluating a rule
14:51:24 <rdeltour> … rather than have it conflated with the Rule description
14:52:02 <rdeltour> ... like in the "Test cases" section, which starts with statements on thte rules description itself, but ends with describing the logic on how the rule is processed an resutls aggregated
14:52:27 <rdeltour> moe: romain, you're self assigned, do yo want me to wokr with you?
14:53:05 <rdeltour> romain: sure, happy to propose something, I can try before TPAC
14:53:09 <rdeltour> wilco: sounds fine
14:53:49 <Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/133
14:55:14 <rdeltour> rdeltour: not even sure if we want each rule to be universally identified or not?
14:55:34 <rdeltour> wilco: in auto-wcag we're using string IDs that we can put in URLs
14:57:11 <rdeltour> rdeltour: for isntance, I'm developing a rule set, am I allowed to use "image-description" as a rule ID?
14:57:42 <rdeltour> wilco: one solution is to mandate a URL
14:58:02 <rdeltour> rdeltour: or just be permiissive and state that we allow anything
14:58:33 <rdeltour> anne: in my experience, we'd have question on what is the fornat for this identifier
14:59:53 <rdeltour> rdeltour: +1, we could have a clarification that defining the identifier is left to the implementor
14:59:57 <rdeltour> wilco: we can add a note
15:00:03 <rdeltour> rdeltour: +1
15:00:22 <rdeltour> wilco: I think we're done!
15:08:26 <rdeltour> trackbot, end meeting
15:08:26 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:08:26 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been anne_thyme, shadi, wilco, Mary_Jo_Mueller, tobias, rdeltour, cpandhi, MoeKraft, maryjom, skotkjerra
15:08:34 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:08:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/23-wcag-act-minutes.html trackbot
15:08:35 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:08:35 <RRSAgent> I see no action items