W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2003

Minutes for AUWG Conference Call (May 19,2003)

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 17:17:02 -0400
Message-ID: <1053379022.3ec949ce1120e@webmail.utoronto.ca>
To: WAI-AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>

Minutes for AUWG Conference Call (May 19,2003)

JT: Jutta Treviranus
TB: Tim Boland
KB: Kynn Bartlett
JR: Jan Richards
PJ: Phill Jenkins

JT: ACTION: classify checkpoints accoring to whether external tester is 
required and send to list
TB: ACTION: to draft some test cases

TB: describes purpose of test suite principles - intended to stimulate 
discussion. Not a testing process document. Comments are welcome - this is a 
draft. Intended to be consistent with QA activity documents - not replace them.

JT: Would you see the test suite as a series of test cases?

JR: Do you see anything specific to tools opposed to content?

TB: Not really...

JT: Would structure be that user would perform a task and then there be an 
evaluation of the task.

TB: More or less.

JT: That would work well for our Rel Priority checkpoints. But what about 
integration, etc. that goes beyond a single tester. 

JT: For WCAG, one person could evcaluate.

JT: For some ATAG checkpoints , we may need to separate author and tester.

JR: Could be an automated tester.

KB: We might need to be more explicit about types of author. Checkpoints apply 
to 3 types of authors [naive (check, correct), advance (i.e. allow 
accessibility), author with disabilities]. This will have an impact on the 
design of the test suites. TB has a good doc.

TB: What's the best way to move forward?

JT: The priciples are general enough to take account of the various types of 

KB: That comments applies more to ATAG doc.

TB: Should we start on a sample test case.

JT: Would be good to select some representative checkpoints for that.

KB: Will this be a vague set of instructions for the author? ATAG is about a 

@@Phill Jenkins joins.@@

JT: AERT exists to check correction and repair.

JT: We can use instructions in some cases. The more difficult cases will be 
the guiding and support type guidelines.

TB: could you classify the checkpoints

JT: ACTION: classify checkpoints accoring to whether external tester is 
required and send to list

TB: ACTION: to draft some test cases

PJ: Question on some of the terms. "Edge testing"?

TB: To determine the behaviour at limits.

PJ: Test suite is more like WCAG suite, and then we have other authoring tool 
specific requirements.

JT: We reached a balance in which we don't explitly say what needs to be done 
to prompt. We are not prescriptive when it comes to UI.

KB: Difficult to make absolute judgements whhen users differ so much.

JT: we are trying to get around that with "average author of the tool"

JT: can we start tailoring it for ATAG.

TB: It began generic, but would like to add ATAG specific wording.

KB: What about requirement for validity? Will this rule out exception tests?

TB: Did not mean to rule this out.

JT: We can make a note of this.

All: discussion of validity of test files. Moved on to 250 HTML test files - 
may or may not be public. WCAG1.0 files are public.


E-GOV Discussion (PJ has a potential BOF opportunity during E-Gov)

Next meeting June 2nd - we will discuss (1) Kynn's proposal, (2) Janina's 
structure checkpoint concern and (3) finalize F2F agenda.
Received on Monday, 19 May 2003 17:58:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:48 UTC