Accessibility Minutes 2010 04 14

From MemberWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Present

  • Mike Squillace (IBM - Co-Chair)
  • Rich Schwerdtfeger (IBM - Co-Chair)
  • Ann Abbott (IBM)
  • Dylan Barrell (Deque)
  • Jon Gunderson (University of Illinois)
  • Prasanna Bale (University of Illinois)
  • Nathan Jukubiak (Parasoft)
  • Shawn Lauriat (IBM)

Minutes

  • <slauriat_> Shawn Lauriat here as well, just on mute.
  • <slauriat_> Loud environment here for a bit.
  • JG: Scribe JG
  • MS: Welcome back everyone
  • MS: PB are you the mail list
  • PB: Yes
  • MS: DB are you on the list
  • DB: I only got it because you sent it to my e-mail
  • RS: He needs to contact JF
  • DB: Feedback on the CSUN presentation
  • MS: Did anyoe else have any comments or feedback
  • AA: How did it go? I was not there
  • MS: It was very nice, 5000 people attended, it will be at SD for the next 5 years
  • RS: At our presentation it was standing room only
  • MS: There was a time for QA
  • RS: There were questions on the rule sets
  • RS: There was interest in some of the tooling
  • DB: there was questions about when rules would be triggered, there is not consensus yet
  • RS: I went to a number of session and this was the largest
  • MS: It was definitely the fullest
  • MS: GV the NPII was the only one where they were turning people away
  • MS: The rule and rulesets, DB had an issue of access to the repository
  • DB: That issue has been resolved, there has to be testing
  • MS: The next bullet is tracking defects there is now a an issue, there is now an a11y-tools
  • MS: JG you found a bug
  • DB: We also found some bugs in Firefox 3.6.3, there are definitely some problems with FF 3.6.x
  • MS: How does the group want to proceed, usually it is something in the tracker
  • JG: I can add our issue to the tracker, but i bet is related to DB issue
  • DB: We will be addressing the issue soon
  • DB: We want to make sure we have enough information to file the bug
  • MS: It is important to get information in the tracker
  • MS: Next issue is test suites
  • MS: JG and DB have developed test suites
  • JG: I would like to set it up so that people could have meta information on the rule pass/fail information
  • MS: There is a ben to web project was developed for WCAG 2.0, it is currently not being developed, but there is lots of data
  • JG: We are developing the test s in coordination with the test suites
  • MS: You could probably use ben-to-web
  • MS: The ER group has taken over the rules
  • JG: My experience with W3C is that they deal with static pages which are hard to manage when it gets large
  • MS: I talked to Shadi about using the test suites
  • JG: Developing test suites, right now we are looking to hire someone
  • DB: There are two different issues of setting up pages one it setting up pages with a set of rules and the other is rules based
  • DB: You could embed a rule in the page to verify that the page satisfied on the page
  • MS: If you are looking for more resources, and if you are open source we could share the work
  • DB: we need resources to pull out what we have already done
  • DB: We are looking to hire
  • MS: NJ what do you do for test suites
  • NJ: we have existing functionallity to point at a page and capture a page and then do a regression on it, it is already in our tool already
  • NJ: Our test cases are in our format
  • <slauriat_> Chiming in, I'd like to have a set of rules callable so that I can have Selenium just fire off a check at given points.
  • MS: Lets look at JG test suites and see if we can help out
  • <slauriat_> Will look into that on my own.
  • MS: Notion of a validation results, is that is either true and false
  • MS: Two other sates: error and not applicable
  • MS: In any rate there are other results that could occur
  • JG: The return a value of < 0
  • DB: It is suppose to return an object
  • JG: I can talk more about this next time
  • DB: It explicitly returns a boolean
  • JG: There maybe a issue with rule translation
  • MS: There are is only boolean results in the OAA
  • MS: There is a message array...
  • DB: There seems to be rudundency, you can get access to attributes
  • DB: Given that you know the node and the rule, do need to know about the attributes
  • MS: You wanted to parse the element attributes that you wanted the value for, it seems like more processing
  • DB: We are not sure how we will use them
  • MS: We tend not to use them either
  • MS: The main ones are the node list and the message arguements
  • MS: If youa re not paying attention to the parameters
  • DB: There seems to be a hard coded relationship between the rule and the message
  • MS: It was part of the rule, we split them for localization
  • DB: I understand the localization, but the message is unknown, they need to be bundled in some way, this might be some work
  • DB: Maybe we we should send in the language, it should not be much work to pass the langauge
  • MS: based on the rule set may want different messages
  • DB: We have return information on the requirement ..... and report generated based on the rule and the node, maybe the other information may not be useful
  • MS: Can you send an example of what you have done?
  • DB: The important thing is that you tell the user what failed and the severity and what node it was on and maybe even more specific information on the node or nodes
  • DB: and some type of best practices, which rule, whcih guideline and which node are the most important things
  • MS: The guideline does not need to be part of the rule .....
  • MS: If people have ideas about what the results object should be we would like to see examples
  • DB: We could make it a superset, what we need is what rule and what nodes and also did the rule execute properly
  • MS: The other information you don't need
  • DB: We would like to know what the other nodes could be
  • MS: If the rule applied to several nodes it would be reported several times
  • MS: We need at least three states pass, fail or error (maybe na)
  • MS: we also want node
  • DB: Do the rules return more than won node
  • JG: There is no list no list of nodes associated with a rule
  • MS: The rule with same link text for different urls is an example of a list of nodes
  • DB: So we want to know about the nodes that fail JG: That is a good example
  • MS: Are ok with pass, fail and error?
  • DB: I think it should stay a boolean and there should be other attributes for testing these condition
  • DB: We could return null
  • MS: It it returns null then we don't have an object
  • MS: I think a tri-state might be similar
  • DB: If we are going to do that lets use constants to define the states
  • DB: I think we should leave the result boolean and add a status property that would state whether the rule was executed oK
  • MS: You could add a message
  • MS: The proposal is to add a status property
  • MS: I suggest the exception object and the status property
  • MS: status boolean?
  • DB: I could change the a11y code
  • MS: That would be great

Next call on 21 April 2010

Personal tools