Re: ACT TF Meeting Agenda Thursday 7 February

Hi ACT TF,

I haven’t been able to find any rules that would be impossible to write within either of the scenarios.
The “meets/doesn’t meet expectations” is basically covering what was previously the passed/failed outcome for test targets, just less clear, in my opinion.

Since we cannot join the ACT TF meeting today, Siteimprove will support whatever option you decide on.

However, I do have a bit of input for the discussion, and a few clarifying questions:

Outcome mapping for test targets?
I guess I just don’t see what we gain by having the outcome of rules be only for the test subject, and not for the test target.
I believe that if we let the mapping apply to a test target level, the test subject level can always be inferred from this, using a general mapping.

Our suggested outcome mapping definitions:

  *   Inapplicable: No test targets found within the test subject, since no part of the test subject matches the applicability
  *   Passed: All expectations are true for the test target
  *   Failed: Some expectations are false for the test target
(here we would expect to report either just one “inapplicable” outcome for a test subject, or a “passed”/”failed” outcome for each test target in the test subject).

How the test target outcome mapping relates to conformance for test subject:

  *   If the rule returns “failed” for any one test target (that could also be a group of elements, if option 3) within a test subject, the outcome for the test subject is always “not satisfied”.
  *   If all test targets in a test subject returns outcomes that map to “satisfied”, this always means that the accessibility requirement is satisfied for the test subject.
  *   If any test target in a test subject return an outcome that maps to “further testing needed”, further testing is needed to know if the accessibility requirement is satisfied for the test subject.

If this “test subject conformance mapping” can always be inferred using some general rules, as long as we have the mapping on a test target basis, I don’t see why we shouldn’t keep the suggested outcome reporting level as granular as possible for the individual rules, if the end goal is comparable and exchangeable test results.

… and then a  few clarifying questions in relation to the 3 proposed options:

  *   Does option 1 involve expectations that apply to each test target individually?
  *   We have previously discussed using composite rules for “aggregation logic”. Is that completely out of the picture? (I guess that could be an option 4). EXAMPLE:
     *   Rule 1 (input rule
        *   Applicability: The rule applies to each HTML img element or any HTML element with the semantic role<https://auto-wcag.github.io/auto-wcag/rules/SC1-1-1-image-has-name.html#semantic-role> of img that is included in the accessibility tree<https://auto-wcag.github.io/auto-wcag/rules/SC1-1-1-image-has-name.html#included-in-the-accessibility-tree>.
        *   Expectation: Each target element has an accessible name<https://auto-wcag.github.io/auto-wcag/rules/SC1-1-1-image-has-name.html#accessible-name> that is non-empty<https://auto-wcag.github.io/auto-wcag/rules/SC1-1-1-image-has-name.html#non-empty> or is marked as decorative<https://auto-wcag.github.io/auto-wcag/rules/SC1-1-1-image-has-name.html#decorative>
     *   Rule 2 (composite rule)
        *   Applicability: All test targets from Rule 1 within a single test subject
        *   Expectation: 85% of test targets within a single test subject lives up to the expectation from Rule 1


Best Regards,


Anne Thyme Nørregaard
Digital Accessibility Product Expert

[cid:image002.png@01D3AA4A.C3084FC0]<http://siteimprove.com/da/>

Sankt Annæ Plads 28  |  DK-1250 København K
Mobile +45 23 28 53 91  |  
ath@siteimprove.com<mailto:ath@siteimprove.com>

Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/Siteimprove>   Twitter<https://twitter.com/Siteimprove>   LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/siteimprove>

Unsubscribe<http://go.siteimprove.com/hs/manage-preferences/unsubscribe-simple>


From: Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com>
Date: Monday, 4 February 2019 at 21.12
To: Accessibility Conformance Testing <public-wcag-act@w3.org>
Subject: ACT TF Meeting Agenda Thursday 7 February
Resent-From: <public-wcag-act@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Monday, 4 February 2019 at 21.12


The ACT TF will be meeting on Thursday at 15:00 Central European Time (Length: up to 60 minutes). See:
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=ACT-TF&iso=20190207T15&p1=16&ah=1<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.timeanddate.com%2Fworldclock%2Ffixedtime.html%3Fmsg%3DACT-TF%26iso%3D20190207T15%26p1%3D16%26ah%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Cath%40siteimprove.com%7C111b35ca61874ab047bf08d68add18a4%7Cad30e5bc301d40dba10a0e8d40abe0f9%7C1%7C0%7C636849079545010330&sdata=DR9Xj6sa6WryqawosZ4Q2QPUrPCLHt5kRaBjEWD2u1U%3D&reserved=0>

Active surveys for this meeting:
- Availability survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTAVAIL2018/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F93339%2FACTAVAIL2018%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cath%40siteimprove.com%7C111b35ca61874ab047bf08d68add18a4%7Cad30e5bc301d40dba10a0e8d40abe0f9%7C1%7C0%7C636849079545020335&sdata=dluG1zJ5ugVv%2BPru%2Fby5B4bnpW2wYqx%2FZftMMx2aTTk%3D&reserved=0>

Scribe list: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/Scribe_Rotation_List<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FGL%2Ftask-forces%2Fconformance-testing%2Fwiki%2FScribe_Rotation_List&data=02%7C01%7Cath%40siteimprove.com%7C111b35ca61874ab047bf08d68add18a4%7Cad30e5bc301d40dba10a0e8d40abe0f9%7C1%7C0%7C636849079545020335&sdata=6Gh7Ht6YJ0MOdIWCbbW%2F368KdUpxN8z88%2BrBRYf2S4k%3D&reserved=0>
IRC: http://irc.w3.org?channels=#wcag-act<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Firc.w3.org%3Fchannels%3D%23wcag-act&data=02%7C01%7Cath%40siteimprove.com%7C111b35ca61874ab047bf08d68add18a4%7Cad30e5bc301d40dba10a0e8d40abe0f9%7C1%7C0%7C636849079545030335&sdata=tJvvU6k%2BdCL0DIufOyW0pREzppxixa7xnH95FdRysXg%3D&reserved=0>  (port: 6665 channel #wcag-act)

Agenda:
- Discussion: The three options we've been discussing to address the current issue - can we reach consensus on one?
See pull request 322: https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/322<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag-act%2Fpull%2F322&data=02%7C01%7Cath%40siteimprove.com%7C111b35ca61874ab047bf08d68add18a4%7Cad30e5bc301d40dba10a0e8d40abe0f9%7C1%7C0%7C636849079545030335&sdata=SE8dw%2FjplqiVK0RfPlusAKTUcu997iGNnSHIm4ODffY%3D&reserved=0>
1. Roll back decision on accessibility mapping to pre-TPAC where it could contain more complex logic and aggregation
2. The rule only applies on the test subject level and in the report you can output whatever you want about the test target
3. Have rules that apply to individual test targets and have other rules that apply to sets of test targets

- Make a choice on how to proceed
a. Take a decision on one of the above options and go into CR
b. Not take any of the options above and work on a different solution
c. Put out another working draft with one of the above options to get wider review

Teleconference information (both webex and dial-in):
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/telco/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F93339%2Ftelco%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cath%40siteimprove.com%7C111b35ca61874ab047bf08d68add18a4%7Cad30e5bc301d40dba10a0e8d40abe0f9%7C1%7C0%7C636849079545040345&sdata=cLU%2FW8OzgScPyaGRjNM0J%2FwPhbFrAoNSu2Ut4girVtM%3D&reserved=0>

Best regards,

Mary Jo
_____________________________________________
Mary Jo Mueller
Accessibility Standards Program Manager
IBM Accessibility Research, Austin, TX
Phone: 512-286-9698 | Tie-line: 363-9698





"If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." ~John Quincy Adams