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

RE: Minutes from AUWG Teleconference on 26 Nov 2012 3:00pm-4:00pm ET

From: Boland Jr, Frederick E. <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:21:31 -0500
To: "Richards, Jan" <jrichards@ocadu.ca>
CC: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D7A0423E5E193F40BE6E94126930C4930BAD02190C@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov>
I joined the meeting 15 minutes late..
Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST

PS - NIST has a resource on combinatorial and pairwise testing in an attempt to reduce the cost of testing - Some links are: http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SNS/acts/index.html
and
 http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SNS/acts/documents/SP800-142-101006.pdf
would some of these ideas be potentially applicable to ATAG2.0 testing?
  

-----Original Message-----
From: Richards, Jan [mailto:jrichards@ocadu.ca] 
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 4:06 PM
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Subject: Minutes from AUWG Teleconference on 26 Nov 2012 3:00pm-4:00pm ET

http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-au-minutes.html

Full text:
WAI AU

26 Nov 2012

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Regrets
Tim_B._(Partial), Alex_L.
Chair
Jutta Treviranus
Scribe
Jan
Contents

Topics
1. Review of where we stand with test creation, including potential discussion of some of these issues 2. The authoring tool may run on any number of platforms.- the ATAG2 tests will not specify precisely how to make an application accessible on each particular platform. Instead, the tests will specify that the evaluator must have a "Platform Accessibility Service Test Procedure" ready before they start (@@@and that the test procedure should be described).
3. in many places, ATAG 2.0 refers to WCAG 2.0 as the recommendation that authoring tools and authors should be seeking to meet in the produced content (and with the authoring interface). However, WCAG 2.0 itself points to its WCAG 2.0 for implementation guidance with respect to particular formats, but with the important proviso that techniques are non-normative. Furthermore, not all...
4. in many cases, for clarity, the ATAG 2.0 SCs are written in uncompromising language, but this could see even well-implemented products fail for bugs or pockets of little used functionality that have not yet been updated for accessibility.
Summary of Action Items
<scribe> Scribe: Jan
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012OctDec/0035.html
1. Review of where we stand with test creation, including potential discussion of some of these issues

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0041.html
JT: Takes group through the email...
... 1. the conforming entities are authoring tools, which may be extensive and which may consist of compiled code, making testing whole-tool statements (e.g. that all controls implement accessibility APIs) very difficult, especially for outsiders.
... the ATAG2 tests may require the type of access that only a developer might have ... Has implications in terms of who could do the test...different from WCAG in which anyone can do it
GP: More a question of thoroughness....
... An outsider could run a few tests .... and then perhaps make an assumption
JT: Brings up a very good point....parts A nad B are different
GP: Implies that source code might have to be turned over JR, GP: Discuss
JR: Maybe better to say that developers may have an efficiency advantage ... But I won't say it can only be done by developers
JS: What's point?
JR: Huge number of tests to perform...eg every component in whole UI
JS: So maybe best to say that
JT: OK
... What we want to migiate is false expectations about hard this will be
GP: To answer "what do we gain?" On flip side there may be a casual tester who makes a false claim 2. The authoring tool may run on any number of platforms.- the ATAG2 tests will not specify precisely how to make an application accessible on each particular platform. Instead, the tests will specify that the evaluator must have a "Platform Accessibility Service Test Procedure" ready before they start (@@@and that the test procedure should be described).

GP: I don't think we would be prepared to describe our test procedure
JT: Would it be useful to provide a sample description?
JR: I think so
... I can do that
3. in many places, ATAG 2.0 refers to WCAG 2.0 as the recommendation that authoring tools and authors should be seeking to meet in the produced content (and with the authoring interface). However, WCAG 2.0 itself points to its WCAG 2.0 for implementation guidance with respect to particular formats, but with the important proviso that techniques are non-normative. Furthermore, not all...

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: formats have WCAG 2.0 Techniques yet:- the ATAG2 tests will not specify precisely how to meet WCAG 2.0. Instead, the tests will specify that the evaluator must have a " Web Content Accessibility Test Procedure" ready before they start (@@@and that the test procedure should be described).
JR: I could provide a short sample description.
4. in many cases, for clarity, the ATAG 2.0 SCs are written in uncompromising language, but this could see even well-implemented products fail for bugs or pockets of little used functionality that have not yet been updated for accessibility.

GP: Change for bugs to due to bugs
JR: Idea in law of reasonableness
JS: I know that won't fly for W3C
JT: Maybe some way of benchmarking what is the majority...just thinking alout aloud
JS: I don't think these help us at the start
GP: I think industry participation is contingent on not facing liability which would come from expectation of perfection
JS: How does it relatatre to testing?
GP: If perfection is required, we wouldn't be able to be involved
JS: OK but this really hasn't happened with WCAG
GP: In the case of website errors, when they are pointed out they are quickly and easily fixed
JS: In CR, we are the ones testing tools
GP: Makes sense if tests are written such that any tool could be programmed to pass... my concern is just about bugs
JT: Next week - let's have the same potentially mixed meeting.



(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: November-26-12 10:36 AM
> To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> Subject: AUWG Teleconference on 26 Nov 2012 3:00pm-4:00pm ET
> 
> There will be an AUWG teleconference on Monday 26 November 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.
> 
> Most Recent Editors Drafts
> =====================
> ATAG 2.0
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ED-ATAG20-20120924/
> Implementing ATAG 2.0
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20121011/
> 
> Agenda
> ======
> 1. Review of where we stand with test creation, including potential 
> discussion of some of these issues:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0041.html
> 
> 2. Any other issues for the larger group?
> (then the meeting will pass over to the testing sub-group)
> 
> 3. Tests so far:
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2-
> 10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20121119
> 
> 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, 26 November 2012 21:21:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:03 UTC