Minutes of AUWG teleconference of 15 October

Minutes:
http://www.w3.org/2012/10/15-au-minutes.html


Text of Minutes:

    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/


   Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

15 Oct 2012

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2012/10/15-au-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Jeanne, Tim_Boland, Jan

    Regrets
    Chair
           Jan

    Scribe
           Jan

Contents

      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Using the WCAG test harness
      * [5]Summary of Action Items
      __________________________________________________________

    <trackbot> Date: 15 October 2012

    [6]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012OctDec/00
    06.html

       [6] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012OctDec/0006.html

    A.3.1.3 Efficient Keyboard Access: The authoring tool user
    interface includes mechanisms to make keyboard access more
    efficient than sequential keyboard access. (Level AA)

    <jeanne>
    [7]http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2-10April2012P
    ublicWD-Tests-rev20120924

       [7] 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2-10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20120924

Using the WCAG test harness

    <jeanne> JS: I was talking with Michael Cooper (who wrote the
    WCAG CR Test Harness) about creating a new instance of the WCAG
    test harness and tests for ATAG's CR use.

    [8]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012OctDec/00
    06.html

       [8] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012OctDec/0006.html

    <jeanne> JR: This seems to be a very large project for a
    tester.

    0. Determine if the platform on which the authoring tool is
    running supports a keyboard interface. If it does, then proceed
    to Step 1. If not, then skip to Step 8.

    1. Document all mechanisms of the user interface for the
    authoring tool under test (from authoring tool documentation or
    from experience). If there are no such mechanisms, then skip to
    Step 8. Otherwise proceed to Step 2.

    2. Document all keyboard access capabilities (via mechanisms
    from Step 1) supported by the keyboard interface (from Step 0)
    of the authoring tool(from authoring tool documentation or from
    experience). If there are fewer than two keyboard access
    capabilities supported, or if sequential keyboard access is not
    included, then skip to Step 7. Otherwise proceed to Step 3.

    3. Determine/document the efficiency criteria (including
    rationale?) for evaluating keyboard access mechanisms that you
    will use for this particular authoring tool, platform, etc. Go
    to Step 4.

    4. Document the "before state" of the authoring tool user
    interface on this platform. Use a sequential keyboard access
    mechanism (from Steps 1 and 2) that navigates the focus
    one-by-one through all of the items in an ordered set (e.g.,
    menu items, form fields) until the desired item is reached and
    activated. Record the "after state" of the authoring tool user
    interface at this point....

    scribe: Determine the "efficiency" of this keyboard access
    mechanism using your criteria from Step 3. Then go back so the
    "before state" of the authoring tool user interface (using any
    mechanism available from Step 1 to do this). Go to Step 5.

    5. From the "before state" specified earlier, use a -different
    from sequentlal-? keyboard access mechanism (from Step 1) (such
    as keyboard shortcuts and the use of bypass links) on the same
    objects as used in Step 4. Record the "after state" of the
    authoring tool user interface at this point, and verify that
    this "after state" is the same as the "after state" from Step
    4. Determine the...

    scribe: "efficiency" of this access using the same criteria as
    used in Step 4. Go to Step 6.

    6. Compare/evaluate the "efficiencies" determined from Step 4
    and from Step 5. If as a result of this comparison/evaluation,
    Step 5 is more "efficient" than Step 4, then this authoring
    tool "passes" this SC on this platform. If Step 5 is more
    "efficient" than Step 4, or the "efficiencies" are the same for
    Steps 4 and 5, then this authoring tool fails this SC for this
    platform. Go to Step 7.

    7. If the only keyboard access method supported (from Step 2)
    is sequential keyboard access, then this authoring tool "fails"
    this SC for this platform. Go to Step 8.

    8. If the authoring tool has not been evaluated as "pass" or
    "fail" on this platform in previous steps up to this point,
    then the authoring tool is "N/A" for this SC on this platform.

    JR: Is in favour of failure tests.

Summary of Action Items

Received on Monday, 15 October 2012 21:18:49 UTC