W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > July to September 2012

ATAG 2.0 test writing assignments

From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocadu.ca>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 20:16:44 +0000
To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB03AECBC2@ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca>
See format here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0035.html

Guideline A.3.1: (For the authoring tool user interface) Provide keyboard access to authoring features - Tim
Guideline A.4.2: (For the authoring tool user interface) Document the user interface including all accessibility features. - Jan (also doing B.1.1 and 2)
Guideline A.3.7: (For the authoring tool user interface) Ensure that previews are at least as accessible as in-market user agents. - Greg
Guideline A.3.6: (For the authoring tool user interface) Manage preference settings. - Jeanne

Cheers,
Jan


(MR) JAN RICHARDS
PROJECT MANAGER
INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)
OCAD UNIVERSITY

T 416 977 6000 x3957
F 416 977 9844
E jrichards@ocadu.ca


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richards, Jan
> Sent: September-17-12 4:07 PM
> To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> Subject: Minutes from AUWG Teleconference on 17 Sept 2012 3:00pm-
> 4:00pm ET (Today)
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2012/09/17-au-minutes.html
> 
> Full text:
> WAI AU
> 17 Sep 2012
> 
> Agenda
> 
> See also: IRC log
> Attendees
> 
> Present
>     Jan, Jeanne, Alex, Jutta, Cherie, +1.571.765.aaaa, Greg, Tim_Boland
> Regrets
>     Jutta, T.
> Chair
>     Jan Richards
> Scribe
>     jeanne
> 
> Contents
> 
>     Topics
>         1. What to do with B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information
>         2. Other issues from the larger group?
>     Summary of Action Items
> 
> <scribe> scribe: jeanne
> 
> <Jan> scribe: Jeanne
> 
> <Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0040.html
> 1. What to do with B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information
> 
> JR: This came up while writing tests.
> 
> <Jan> B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information: If the authoring tool supports
> production of any web content technologies for publishing for which the
> authoring tool does not provide support for the production of accessible web
> content (WCAG), then this is documented. (Level AA) Note: This success
> criterion concerns the presence or absence of support features, such as
> accessibility checkers, not...
> 
> <Jan> ...any intrinsic property of web content technologies.
> 
> JR: Tools come in many formats, so you need to document in the tool that
> any formats that do not meet ATAG need to be documented.
> ... this is difficult to do from a testing viewpoint
> 
> <Jan> 6. A list of the *web content technologies produced by the authoring
> tool that are included in the claim*. If there are any web content
> technologies produced by the authoring tool that are *not included* in the
> conformance claim, these must be listed separately. <NEW>If the authoring
> tool produces any web content technologies by default, then these must be
> *included*.</NEW>
> 
> JR: and the documentation can be buried in a manual, so it would not be
> useful.
> ... So if a tool produces a web content technology by default, then that must
> be included for ATAG conformance.
> ... you cannot side-step the ATAG conformance.
> 
> GP: If the default content is NOT a web content technology, then it does not
> apply.
> 
> JR: Example: a word processing program does not produce a web content
> technology by default, but does have a save as HTML option ... it can conform
> for the HTML, but does not have to file on the .doc document format
> 
> GP: it seems ok
> ... On the flip side, the default format can be accessible, even if it is not a web
> content technology.
> 
> AL: I know what a "default" is, but I can anticipate that some people might
> ask what the default is for that tool. Other tools may produce many different
> formats without a default.
> 
> <Jan> 6. A list of the *web content technologies produced by the authoring
> tool that are included in the claim*. If there are any web content
> technologies produced by the authoring tool that are *not included* in the
> conformance claim, these must be listed separately. <NEW>If the authoring
> tool produces any web content technologies by default, then these must be
> *included*.</NEW>
> 
> <Jan> All: No objections heard...
> 
> JR: SO B.4.1.3 will be deleted and this will be added to B.4.1.1
> 
> <Jan> Resolved: Add the new sentence to 6. A list of the *web content
> technologies produced by the authoring tool that are included in the claim*.
> If there are any web content technologies produced by the authoring tool
> that are *not included* in the conformance claim, these must be listed
> separately. <NEW>If the authoring tool produces any web content
> technologies by default, then these must be...
> 
> <Jan> ...*included*.</NEW>
> 
> <Jan> Resolved: To remove SC B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information 2.
> Other issues from the larger group?
> 
> GP: Can you recap where we are?
> 
> JR: We have finished Last Call and we could go into CR at any time, but we are
> settling our testing before we set up our exit criteria from CR.
> 
> GP: so how many test cases have to go through this before we are satisfied
> and W3C is satisfied.
> 
> JR: We set a test cases, a test approach and our exit criteria.
> ... then we go and talk to those powers.
> 
> JS: An important part of the Exit Criteria is idenfying problem areas and what
> we will do about them. otherwise we have to go back to Last Call to change
> the document.
> 
> AL: then we need to be very flexible and accept tools that only do a few
> things
> 
> JR: well, we need to write the exit criteria so that we are credible.
> 
> JS: We can't just cherry pick implementations to find 2 implementations, we
> have to show that types of tools meet the criteria that apply to that tool .
> 
> JR: Those of you who are not writing test cases, please go through the
> document and look for the success criteria that are either hard to test, or
> may not have sufficient implementations.
> 
> <Jan> We will discuss on Dept 24
> 
> JR: We will discuss this next week. Look for at-risk success criteria.
> 
> <Jan> End of the first part of the call
> 
> <Greg> Provide link to the test location?
> 
> <Jan> This is the most recent:
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2-
> 10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20120730
> 
> <Jan> There were some more tests submitted after that point...
> 
> <Jan> e.g. from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-
> au/2012JulSep/0035.html
> 
> <Jan> Guideline A.3.1: (For the authoring tool user interface) Provide
> keyboard access to authoring features - Tim Boland
> 
> <Jan> Guideline A.4.2: (For the authoring tool user interface) Document the
> user interface including all accessibility features. - Jan Richards
> 
> GP: A.3.7.1 & 2 - Greg will take them
> 
> <Jan> Guideline A.3.7: (For the authoring tool user interface) Ensure that
> previews are at least as accessible as in-market user agents. - Greg Pisocky
> 
> A.3.6 to Jeanne
> 
> <Jan> Guideline A.3.6: (For the authoring tool user interface) Manage
> preference settings. - Jeanne Spellman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (MR) JAN RICHARDS
> PROJECT MANAGER
> INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)
> OCAD UNIVERSITY
> 
> T 416 977 6000 x3957
> F 416 977 9844
> E jrichards@ocadu.ca
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richards, Jan [mailto:jrichards@ocadu.ca]
> > Sent: September-17-12 1:08 PM
> > To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> > Subject: AUWG Teleconference on 17 Sept 2012 3:00pm-4:00pm ET (Today)
> >
> > There will be an AUWG teleconference on Monday 17 September 2012 at
> > 3:00 pm- 4:00 pm ET:
> > Call: (617) 761-6200 ext. 2894#
> > Zakim: +1.617.761.6200       (Boston)
> > IRC: server: irc.w3.org, port: 6665, channel: #au
> >
> > If people think they will arrive more than 15 minutes late, please
> > send me an email beforehand.
> >
> > Last Call Drafts
> > ===========
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20/
> >
> > Agenda
> > ======
> > 1. What to do with B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0020.html
> >
> > 2. Other issues from the larger group?
> >
> > (then the meeting will pass over to the testing sub-group)
> >
> > 3. brief testing approach description (Jan)
> >
> > 3. Tests so far:
> > http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2-
> > 10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20120730
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jan
> >
> > (MR) JAN RICHARDS
> > PROJECT MANAGER
> > INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC) OCAD UNIVERSITY
> >
> > T 416 977 6000 x3957
> > F 416 977 9844
> > E jrichards@ocadu.ca
> >
> >
Received on Monday, 17 September 2012 20:17:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 September 2012 20:17:08 GMT