13:46:08 RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act 13:46:08 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/05/21-wcag-act-irc 13:46:11 RRSAgent, make logs Public 13:46:12 Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference 13:46:42 agenda+ Introduce Method and ACT Rules 13:46:53 agenda? 13:47:11 zakim, clear agenda 13:47:11 agenda cleared 13:47:25 agenda+ Introduce Method and ACT Rules 13:47:46 agenda+ Quantitative and Qualitative tests 13:48:02 agenda+ Do Methods need applicability? 13:48:22 agenda_ Viability of AND/OR relationship (Outcomes have AND, Methods have OR) 13:48:33 s/agenda_ Viability of AND/OR relationship (Outcomes have AND, Methods have OR)// 13:48:41 agenda+ Viability of AND/OR relationship (Outcomes have AND, Methods have OR) 13:48:58 agenda+ Passing rules vs. failing rules 13:49:10 agenda+ Expectations vs. Test Procedures 13:49:19 agenda+ Next Steps 13:53:00 present+ 13:54:17 present+ 13:54:41 shadi has joined #wcag-act 13:57:04 trevor has joined #wcag-act 13:57:34 is there a link to the meeting in zoom ? 13:57:42 present+ 13:58:06 nevermind, found it : ) 13:58:24 present+ 13:58:31 KenP has joined #wcag-act 13:58:37 present+ 13:58:43 agenda? 13:58:50 present+ 13:59:00 chair: Wilco and Jeanne 13:59:07 Chuck has joined #wcag-act 13:59:30 Unable to join the meeting 13:59:35 JF has joined #wcag-act 13:59:48 Present+ 14:00:27 Lauriat has joined #wcag-act 14:00:44 agenda? 14:00:50 JakeAbma has joined #wcag-act 14:00:58 Present+ 14:00:59 I figured the issue. Thanks Wilco 14:00:59 present+ 14:01:04 kathyeng has joined #wcag-act 14:02:17 scribe: Daniel 14:02:28 present+ 14:02:29 sheri_b-h has joined #wcag-act 14:02:30 present+ 14:02:34 present+ 14:02:37 present+ 14:02:43 zakim, take up next 14:02:43 agendum 1 -- Introduce Method and ACT Rules -- taken up [from jeanne] 14:02:54 anne_thyme has joined #wcag-act 14:03:20 present+ 14:03:34 johnkirkwood has joined #WCAG-ACT 14:03:50 aron has joined #wcag-act 14:03:56 present+ 14:04:11 present+ 14:04:14 Wilco: Last time we had close look at outcomes. We came to the conclusion that outcomes needs to be defined, and those definitions hopefully could be written in collaboration with ACT 14:04:50 ... feting we wnat to have acloser look at some ACT rules, specifically those related to headings and how they can be applied to the current methods for WCAG3 14:04:55 https://act-rules.github.io/rules/b49b2e 14:05:03 CarlosD has joined #wcag-act 14:05:20 Francis_Storr has joined #wcag-act 14:05:40 ... First is "Heading is descriptive". Checks that anything marked up as semantic heading describes the next piece of content in the document 14:05:51 Q+ 14:06:06 present+ 14:06:17 ... We link to definitions developed in ACT 14:06:18 ack jf 14:06:19 present+ 14:07:18 JF: When you say the semantic role is h1-h6 as well as aria role="heading"? 14:07:20 q+ 14:07:22 Wilco: Yes. 14:08:05 ack ja 14:08:06 ... We currently don't have a rule testing that things looking like headings are coded as headings 14:08:18 q+ 14:08:35 Jake: Captions and legends that look like headings are part of the rule or there are alternatives to those? 14:08:50 Wilco: No, this rule is about what ARIA calls a heading 14:09:08 SuzanneTaylor has joined #wcag-act 14:09:19 ... A column header is not a heading as per ARIA definition 14:09:43 ... Headers or fieldsets applies to tables or forms, so different scope 14:09:45 ack ca 14:10:42 Carlos: That was our initial goal, but could not find an objective way to define a heading from what it looks like 14:11:40 Wilco: We could eventually look into it now that we have developed somewhat more complicated rules. We now have a vocabulary we can rely on as we have been working on definitions that are not even in WCAG 14:11:55 Wilco: After the applicability there are two expectations 14:12:28 SUrban has joined #wcag-act 14:12:43 q? 14:12:46 ... 1 that the visual heading describes the content< 2 that the accessibility tree bit describes the content. Those 2 need to be true for the rule to pass. 14:13:37 Wilco: Assumptions. When to use and not to use this particular rule. Mainly covering edge cases. 14:14:11 ... For example there are language that do not have a code, so they are not programmatically determined 14:14:47 ... Accessibility support: Describes if there are differences in how browsers and ATS behave. This one is about presentational role conflicts that exist. 14:14:57 ... Background: links to related technologies and WCAG techniques 14:15:02 Q+ 14:15:10 ... Then test cases: passing, failing, and inapplicable 14:15:36 ... Test cases give you examples of right and wrong practices and describe them 14:16:00 ... And also for somebody using the rule to have achance to compare expected to actual outcomes 14:16:14 ... Glossary lists definitions 14:16:16 ack jf 14:17:03 q+ 14:17:10 JF: These are mechanical testable rules, but some require human intervention. 14:17:23 Wilco: We don't specify how and when human intervention is required 14:17:38 ack sh 14:17:38 q+ 14:17:47 JF: The rules format can ber used to write machine and human testable rules? 14:17:53 Wilco: Yes 14:18:10 JenniferC has joined #wcag-act 14:18:28 Sheri: There is a project that can test headings based on the surounding content 14:18:39 ack ken 14:18:41 ... Also about contrast, keyboard focus indicators 14:19:02 https://github.com/vmware/crest 14:19:26 Ken: Pass example 7, hidden heading, but visible. I thought both expectations have to be passed. 14:19:32 We have 16 other tests that are currently not automated that we think we can automate with machine learning in the next year 14:19:41 ... Why is this passed? 14:20:10 Carlos: The rule checks that the heading is descriptive, ont that the content is described by the heading 14:20:46 ... If the heading is not included in the accessibility tree and there is no other heading that is included, then this would pass 14:21:04 q+ to say Example 7 has an impact in Outcomes 14:21:19 Ken: Was there debate about that causing issues? It seems confusing 14:21:49 ... There is counter-examples as well, where something is a heading but is not visible 14:21:52 ack je 14:21:52 jeanne, you wanted to say Example 7 has an impact in Outcomes 14:22:38 Jeanne: I think we may be handling this in WCAG3. We wrote outcomes to have and AND relationship, but the methods were talking about OR, as they are technology oriented 14:23:08 ... I think we would handle this by saying "this is a pass example for the outcomes that headings need to describe, but it would fail the outcome that they need to be semantically available" 14:23:18 ... As you have to pass every single outcomes, we would pick it up 14:23:42 q+ 14:23:45 Ken: I think I am now clearer 14:23:48 ack an 14:24:38 Anne: This rule is testing an SC which do not distinguish between visible and semantic headings. As we need to have a fail-to-fail relationship in ACT, we needed to test it that way 14:25:05 Wilco: True, WCAG does not define headings 14:25:07 https://act-rules.github.io/rules/047fe0 14:25:40 Wilco: Rule "Document is heading for non-repeated content 14:26:01 ... Part of a different rule, called "Bypass blocks" testing the SC about bypass blocks 14:26:26 ... Composite: if anyone of the rules included (atomics) passes, the composite passes 14:26:39 present+ 14:26:58 ... The applicability here is the HTML web page as bypass blocks applies to web pages 14:27:15 present+ 14:27:38 ... Expectation is similar, it has a bunch of definitions, and it looks for any element that is a heading, that is visible, that is included in the accessibility tree, and that is after a block of repeated content 14:27:40 q? 14:28:18 zakim, take up next 14:28:18 agendum 2 -- Quantitative and Qualitative tests -- taken up [from jeanne] 14:28:26 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2020/methods/relevant-headings/ 14:28:45 Jeanne: Current methods for relevant headings. It has five tabs. 14:29:09 ... It has an introduction about platform and technology. It then has a description section that connects it to the relevant outcome 14:29:30 ... It describe the methods, and then it has automated and manual tests 14:29:46 ... And last tab is resources. 14:29:49 ... We are open to changing this 14:30:32 ... We are open to including ACT format, or to linking to specific ACT rules 14:30:41 q+ 14:30:51 ... How do we change the methods format to better integrate it with ACT rules? 14:31:17 Wilco: Let's talk more about the difference between atomic and holistic testing. How do you have both in the same method? 14:31:22 ack wi 14:32:13 Reference point for current discussion https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#types-of-tests , https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#atomic-tests and https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#holistic-tests 14:32:16 Jeanne: The holistic tests would be a way to include more usability oriented testing, how to test with ATS. Probably they need to be split into different methods 14:33:26 ... We received a lot of feeedback about this design that was mostly critical. People did not like atomic tests as they could be confused with ACT testing. 14:34:25 ... Most of the comments were focused on the testing tab, so we are open to changing that 14:34:49 ... One of the proposals we have is, instead of looking at manual versus automated testing, we could look at qualitative versus quantitative testing 14:34:52 Q+ 14:35:02 q+ 14:35:24 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2020/methods/relevant-headings/ 14:36:28 Q+ to say there are 3 Methods about headings 14:37:07 JF: We have been testing for methods as opposed to outcomes. Now we have methods for relevant headings in our draft. When I look at the test procedure, it seems that we are missing that the heading needs to be exposed in the accessibility tree. Also I miss hierarchy in our test procedure. I am not sure how to address that question overall 14:37:19 ack jf 14:37:20 ack me 14:37:20 ack je 14:37:20 jeanne, you wanted to say there are 3 Methods about headings 14:38:27 Jeanne: We have anumber of outcomes under each guideline. In headings we have three methods. They are associated with different outcomes, I think John is bringing an edge case but probably not to address now in this conversation 14:38:43 ack me 14:38:44 ... If you write it down John we could either save it for later or for another meeting 14:38:47 ToddLibby_ has joined #wcag-act 14:39:40 Wilco: Subjective and unambiguous are importance concepts we apply. We have a requirement that applicability needs to be unambiguous 14:40:01 ... The number of headings is quantitative< contrast is qualitative 14:40:35 present+ 14:40:53 ... Opposed to that, we have the requirement that expectation can be subjective, but it cannot be ambiguous. When an expectation is ambiguous it will result in different people testing it in different way, thus getting different results 14:41:15 For context of JF'ss and Jeanne's comment on prior topic and how it relates to WCAG 3 - Guideline is on https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#structured-content and talks to outcomes and methods, for example - https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2020/outcomes/uses-visually-distinct-headings and https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2020/outcomes/conveys-hierarchy-with-semantic-structure 14:41:31 q+ 14:41:31 ... This allows us to be much more precise in what needs to be tested 14:41:36 ack je 14:42:59 Jeanne: It also gives us a way to pick a qualitative assessment in headings for example (how well does the description apply), as the rules does a good job defining the two extremes. 14:43:46 ... We could then set up the boundaries of how good the description is, and then describe different numeric categories or ratings as well 14:44:06 ... I would like to start with quantitative testing first, though 14:44:25 ... I am interested on members of ACT commenting about this approach and about if it would fit into what you are doing 14:44:41 +1 14:44:47 +1 14:44:48 +1 for quantitative as much as possible 14:44:55 Trevor: I am leaning towards quantitative as much as possible, qualitative tends to be more difficult 14:44:58 q? 14:45:00 q+ 14:45:14 +1 to Trevor 14:45:17 ... "Setting up those bou8ndaries" might sound a bit hard 14:45:22 ack ch 14:45:41 q+ 14:45:49 ack Ch 14:46:14 q+ 14:46:16 Jake: Same issue exists on WCAG2, this is not a unique issue that we are introducing 14:46:50 ack sh 14:46:52 Jeanne: I agree Trevor that we should use quantitative as much as possible. But we have examples in WCAG2 where we would need a better qualitative testing, that's what we need to explore 14:46:53 s/Jake: /Chuck: 14:47:35 Shadi: I think the difference between WCAG2 and first draft of WCAG3 is the multiple possibilities. I agree that makes is very complicated. 14:47:43 +1 that text alternatives covers too much 14:48:05 joesaiyang has joined #wcag-act 14:48:35 Shri has joined #wcag-act 14:48:40 ... Text alternatives currently covers too much, and it could be broken down into smaller pieces so that the decision space would be more limited 14:48:51 +1 for breaking down further to reduce decision space, wonder if that will increase or decrease barrier to entry 14:48:56 +1 that I think text alternatives should be broken into much finer outcomes as Shadi suggests. 14:49:12 related: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Problem_Statements#Human_Testable 14:49:12 +1 14:49:39 ... The heading requirements are more specific. 14:49:39 +1 14:49:52 +1 to breaking down the decision space 14:50:05 ... I would argue to break down the requirements themselves rather than to offer more qualitative choices 14:50:24 +1 14:50:30 +1 14:50:46 +1 14:51:10 q+ 14:51:15 Wilco: Qualitative from ACT perspective is that it is unambiguous, when I say something is good I must mean the same thing as somebody else that says good as well 14:51:18 q+ to note that breaking down the Outcomes to a finer state 14:51:33 ... When we introduce "better", that allows a lot of options in between, a lot of granularity 14:51:40 +1 to granularity in testing 14:51:51 q+ 14:51:58 ack wi 14:52:07 ack ca 14:53:28 ack je 14:53:29 jeanne, you wanted to note that breaking down the Outcomes to a finer state 14:53:55 Carlos: I agree with what Shadi was saying. From ACT perspective, tests need to as quantitative as possible. They need to be reputable. I wonder, if we need to have qualitative tests in WCAG3, can't it be achieved by passing certain tests but having those tests be really small in scope? 14:55:03 Jeanne: Qualitative could be giving guidance to a tester or a developer as to what makes something good and this is what makes it even better 14:55:44 ... Certain techniques are more preffered than others, so we could guide people to use these but still don't fail people who use others that are also good 14:55:51 Q+ to note that guidance and normative requirements are separate ideas. 14:55:59 ... We want to design a system to give people a better score for doing things better 14:56:15 q? 14:56:20 ... Maybe we should not do it in testing, though. 14:56:20 ack ja 14:57:11 q+ to say what I queued for 14:58:26 q+ 14:59:11 Jake: I hear two different approaches. Breaking up methods down is how testers are doing it already. How can we provide those extra rating, better, or worse, and make a difference with respect to pass/fail but still do it objectively? 14:59:20 Jennifer_strickland has joined #wcag-act 14:59:32 Jennifer_strickland has left #wcag-act 14:59:39 ack je 14:59:39 jeanne, you wanted to say what I queued for 15:00:30 Jeanne: I support braking down outcomes into detailed level. 15:00:40 Does someone have the Zoom link, please? I can't get on the telecom info page. 15:00:40 q+ to ask if we need a scribe change 15:01:02 ... We would like to work with ACT on this, we would appreciate your guidance in how to break outcomes appropriately so that they are easier to test. 15:01:03 jstrickland has joined #wcag-act 15:01:20 present+ 15:01:51 ... Back to Jake's question, many of these micro quantitative testings could be written for assessing the grade in a qualitative level 15:02:03 that's giving me a 403 page, shadi. 15:02:30 ... If a heading describes the topic but then the next piece of content has multiple topics, the heading would describe the content but won't do it very well as there are multiple topics in the piece of content 15:02:44 ... We would need very strict rules to define which goes into which category 15:02:52 ack Ch 15:02:52 Chuck, you wanted to ask if we need a scribe change 15:03:00 q+ to say qualitative is up to author 15:03:41 scribe: jstrickland 15:03:49 q? 15:04:00 shadi: thank you 15:04:00 ack jf 15:04:00 JF, you wanted to note that guidance and normative requirements are separate ideas. 15:05:00 jf: there's guidance, then normative requirements. Problem now seems to be merging those two together. When it 15:05:10 s/Breaking up methods down/Breaking up outcomes/ 15:05:27 When its easy to measure, that's one thing. Trying to use that type of measurement on subjective observations, seems to be why we get into problem. 15:05:55 ack an 15:05:58 Such as what's good alt text. Perhaps we try to stop scoring everything using the same metrics, as Bruce commented in the past. 15:06:39 +1 to Anne. 15:06:44 +1 to Anne 15:06:48 +1 to Anne 15:07:15 Kathyeng: perhaps take ambiguity out of normative text. If you read the normative text and not learn anything, then have to research to try to understand the understanding docs. Keep the important parts in normative text, and that it is unambiguous. 15:07:40 And, that we take the testing parts, have the same strictness as the ACT rules. 15:07:47 +1 to Anne 15:08:12 Easier to write the strict rule to begin, than to go in the reverse. 15:08:31 q+ Proposal: Resolution that we recommend that Outcomes are more granualar and precise at the normative level 15:08:34 Requirements have been written in too fluffy a way. 15:08:36 q+ 15:08:37 +1 15:08:39 ack ka 15:08:39 kathyeng, you wanted to say qualitative is up to author 15:08:58 Correction: That was credited to Anne, not kathyeng. 15:09:45 kathyeng: sometimes we look at … have to defer to authors, where do you want breaks, how descriptive… in the relevant headings check, it would be really difficult for a tester to say it should be divided and separated here… 15:10:06 I'd appreciate that there's guidelines to evaluate this, but I don't know that those could encounter all he scenarios a tester could encounter. 15:10:16 q+ 15:10:25 ACT examples are very clear, but we rarely encounter those in real world testing. 15:10:56 ack je 15:11:46 Jeanne: outcomes s/b more granular (seems lots of agreement). the way we've set up outcomes, you need to pass all the outcomes for a particular guideline (unless not applicable)… 15:12:09 q+ on NAs 15:12:11 I worry there will be a lot more non-applicable. 15:12:17 do ppl think that's okay? 15:12:19 If the N/A's are mostly machine-testing items, then it shouldn't matter 15:12:24 ack ja 15:12:26 q+ 15:12:50 -1 putting that detail at the outcome level can also leave gaps 15:13:14 q+ 15:13:18 Jake: if you take images and alternatives, and break them up, then still have question… breaking up a criteria doesn't solve that one. 15:13:20 +1 to no problem with NA. It's only a problem when humans look at the output, but if it facilitates more automatable testing, it's a worthy tradeoff, imo 15:14:10 what I hear in this conversation, they want to have the wording stricter, clear pass/fail, and I understand. I think the complete opposite is what silver wants, to break up, and make more loose, yet still have a way to measure. 15:15:10 q- 15:15:22 wilco: point of order: I would like this conversation to focus on if it can be done, and how act can help to do it, and less about silver scope. 15:15:41 how can we apply the lessons learned from ACT to wcag3? 15:15:51 Jake: yes, it's all about pass/fail 15:15:52 ack al 15:15:52 alastairc, you wanted to comment on NAs 15:15:57 q+ to respond to very strict hard pass fail vs open COGA testing 15:16:21 Alastair: I am constantly staggered by the ways devs can implement what would be simple things. 15:16:51 I worry that if the eventual pass/fail is restricted to… [not following]… 15:17:37 ack sh 15:17:39 I think if we go to easier to understand and easy to test, whether more outcomes or outcomes are longer… is what I'm picking up. 15:17:44 +1 to longer 15:18:18 s/restricted to… [not following]/restricted to the sub-set of requirements that are strictly quantitative 15:18:21 shadi: I don't think the n/a is an issue. … we do have principles/guidelines under success criteria. 15:19:09 I think it's a design prob, there are many ways to design this… structured in a nice way, that you find what applies to your particular situation, without these n/a in a report. conceptually, if we agree/not about making things more specific/clear. 15:19:45 ... next point, what Jake was talking about, how can we write more reqs that are not easy to test, that are ... 15:20:25 +1 shadi 15:20:56 ... I really see no reason to water down the current reqs, but we still have these differences, as Anne pointed out. I was astonished to see testers have different interpretations of requirements. I worry it will cause more inefficiencies. I'm not convinced that things aren't that different,, rather we haven't found a way of writing them. 15:21:26 ack je 15:21:26 jeanne, you wanted to respond to very strict hard pass fail vs open COGA testing 15:21:27 ... I think it w/b unfortunate if we can find a way to improve the content of wcag, since we do have act. it doesn't mean we have to leave out COGA or other. 15:22:34 Jeanne: answer Jake's point re want to do ambitiously improve the content we have, and include more complex testing. Jake is right, we do want to do that. What we want to do in this call is improve the content we have and the testing we have, then we can test against the new content we have. but is beyond scope of today's call. 15:23:23 ... today, focus on quantitative testing and a need for qualitative… as much as I like the idea, w/ alt text as an example, I don't want someone to be able to pass by putting "image", "image"… and pass. 15:23:47 ... just as heading to be descriptive, I think that's the key rule we're looking for in the example. 15:24:10 q+ 15:24:37 ... and in response to Alastair, how devs can do different things, it w/b helpful to easily create more methods. I hope that's not at an outcome level. pardon me if my thoughts are a bit blurry. I think having precise outcomes that are narrow and tech neutral… 15:24:39 Q+ to note that we can all agree that "image", "image", "image" = BAD, but defining GOOD is a lot harder 15:24:57 ... then more --- I lost my train of thought. if Alastair talks more, it make come back. 15:25:09 Wilco, check back with Jake if that answered the question. 15:25:53 Jake: I was thinking of my exact question, I guess I find in Jeanne's word, how ACT can help with Silver. I thought it was also to see if we can go a step further. I'd like to know if there's room for anything beyond pass/fail. 15:26:14 ack 15:26:15 ... I thought another way of approaching pass/fail w/b on the agenda. 15:26:35 ack jf 15:26:35 JF, you wanted to note that we can all agree that "image", "image", "image" = BAD, but defining GOOD is a lot harder 15:26:39 Wilco asking Jeanne: can we get to some conclusions on that, 15:27:08 JF: example Jeanne gave of three images on a page, can agree; yet defining what is good is what we can't come to an agreement on. 15:28:01 ... it seems we may not get to an answer on that, because it is so subjective. testing tools can help isolate instances of bad… at the end of the day, trying to score/reward good alt text, I don't see how we can do in a normative way. 15:28:03 q+ to propose that we all agree that the Outcomes should be more precise 15:28:10 Wilco, pass the ball back to Jeanne. 15:28:12 ack je 15:28:12 jeanne, you wanted to propose that we all agree that the Outcomes should be more precise 15:28:14 ack wi 15:28:35 Jeanne: I'd like to do a straw poll, if ppl agree that the outcomes at a normative level need to be more precise, and there should be more of them. 15:28:52 +1 more outcomes, more precision 15:28:54 Proposed: Outcomes should be more precise and there should be more of them 15:30:13 q+ 15:30:21 Jake: I think in the document it mentions it is not complete, that they are just to give an impression. How can we decide if we don't have a set already? 15:30:29 ... if know they already lack outcomes. 15:30:30 ack su 15:31:02 Suzanne: Risk of moving … [missed] 15:31:03 q+ 15:31:26 ... if we put it at the outcome level, where it's normative, we may not be able to catch some of these new things as they come up. 15:31:47 +1 very good point that we don't want to create a list that excludes 15:31:55 wilco: when you ask 'precise' can we say they need to be 'unambiguous', need to be more granular, is that fair to say? 15:31:57 ack wi 15:32:11 +1 to granularity 15:32:13 question for jeanne 15:32:36 Jeanne: I think 'unambiguous' is a better word than 'precise'. I'm mulling over Suzanne's point. 15:33:13 s/[missed]/methods such as the methods for different types of images up to the outcome level 15:33:26 ... I know Charles hall brings this up, that when we bring up a list, we already exclude anything in the list (is this right?). maybe table that for another meeting, I don't know. Wilco, do you see a point forward that includes Suzanne's? 15:33:35 q+ 15:34:06 ... part of the reason we lumped things together in one outcome (in alt text), because we wanted to run an alt text that didn't need to know how the image was being used, then a qual test that eval how well the image was done. 15:34:52 ... I think we can agree the outcomes s/b unambiguous… 15:35:33 ... i need to think more about what Suzanne raised. 15:35:35 ack su 15:36:20 q+ 15:36:39 Suzanne: I just wanted to say we do have tests down at the method level, as well. Maybe we could have something more general, but unambiguous at the outcome level and then more precise at the method level. that way at the outcome level, you're still covered for what may come up, then at method you're covered by specific test scenarios. 15:36:48 ack wi 15:36:54 Wilco: pointing out Anne described the opposite, and got a lot of +1s. 15:37:04 Jeanne: I think the resolution s/b 15:37:38 Proposed resolution that we agree that Outcomes need to be unambiguous 15:37:56 +1 15:37:58 +1 15:38:02 +1 15:38:03 +1 to Outcomes need to be unambiguous 15:38:05 +1 15:38:05 +1 15:38:06 +1 15:38:07 +1 / -1 15:38:09 +1 15:38:10 +1 15:38:11 q+ 15:38:12 +1 15:38:13 +1 15:38:15 +1 15:38:22 ack ja 15:39:04 JustineP has joined #wcag-act 15:39:13 Nothing communicated in human language is completely unambiguous, I think it has to be relative, e.g. less ambiguous (longer where necessary) than the 2.x criteria 15:39:40 Q+ 15:39:41 Jake: if we break up criteria… 800, 900, 1k, more clear outcomes… if that's the result, will we all still say +1? Is that more clear for ppl if we split them up to hundreds? 15:40:10 present+ 15:40:16 present+ 15:40:18 q+ 15:40:25 present+ 15:41:08 Alastair: nothing we phrase in human language is completely unambiguous, key is where are we drawing the line, on the normative aspect and the more detailed testing info beneath that. taken to extreme in either direction isn't helpful. I think we're saying outcomes will be less ambiguous, and potentially longer, than wcag 2.x. 15:41:37 Proposed: Outcomes will be less ambiguous and longer in explanation 15:42:00 +1 to JF and more automated tests and less manual 15:42:03 JF: Jake brings a good point, if the 900 gets us machine-testable idk. it's the effort to complete the tests -- like binary/boolean -- then it's good. Less concerned about number of tests, more that can be handed off to machine testing. 15:42:49 q+ to wrap up 15:42:50 q? 15:42:51 Jake: it's less about testing than about outcomes in silver. do we want a lot more outcomes, or does one outcome be divided in more tests? if that's true, then do we need them at the method level? if they are testable statement, they are already. 15:42:54 ack jf 15:43:03 A huge +1 to "testable statments" 15:43:55 Jeanne: we've gotten a fair way away from qual vs quant question… I'd like to remind we are trying to put together a proposal to be tested with data. if doesn't work, will be revised. we're trying to find something that can be tested at the method level today. 15:44:38 ... if we find something that can't, we'll come back and revisit. I'd like to focus on testing today, merging act rules and silver methods. I don't want to ignore the broader issues, but want to focus. 15:45:05 ... where we were is, do we agree that we should propose making the outcomes less ambiguous? 15:45:14 q- 15:45:17 [11:42] +1 to JF and more automated tests and less manual [11:42] ack jea 15:45:20 jeanne, you wanted to wrap up 15:45:21 +1 to JS 15:45:26 +1 15:45:29