<Wilco> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JVmquc7mLJaxZhypPbBhR99fEFBmc0YDn1Wz2Jcl_oY/edit?usp=sharing
WF: several of us have been working on how to merge ACT Rules with WCAG 3 Methods
... looked at "Text alternative" outcome
... specifically on "Decorative Images"
... have a new section called "Data requirements"
... listing input needed to test the outcome
... testing is exclusive to one method, so if tested in one method should not be tested in another
... turned out to be relatively straight-forward
... added "Input Aspects" from ACT Rules
... and put the test cases from ACT Rules as "Examples"
... then added "Tests", which basically comes from ACT Rules
... the mapping is different from the current ACT Rules Format
... if we decide we want to go that way, we will likely need to change that
... added section called "Background"
... has the background, accessibility support, and assumptions from ACT Rules
... finally also a tab with the "Glossary", also from ACT Rules
TB: does decorative images have percentile?
WF: yes, this has 1-4 scoring based on percentages
TB: data requirements is list of images
... these get sorted into correct and incorrect lists
... then that generates the score, ratio of correct (appropriate) vs total
WF: correct, that roughly how it works
DM: assuming decorative images is just a subset of all images
WF: yes, each image would be tested by *exactly* one method
KE: data requirements is for entire outcome or for method?
WF: for entire outcome
... outcome needs these two lists
... each method contributes to these two lists
KE: have thoughts on scoring
... maybe number of images *tested* rather than *all* images
... because cannot test all images
... is that for discussion here?
WF: outcome as currently written is all images within the view
... that conversation is out of this scope
... question was, if we can fit ACT Rules into methods
... and the answer seems to be yes
... another thing to point out
... one method would be essentially one rule
... for atomic rules, we might need a composite rule to sit between
... for example to combine all language rules
SAZ: like the approach of excluding scoring from this particular discussion
... having these granular tests allows for broader discussions on scoring and conformance models
... important is to get this basis first
KE: will we be changing the ACT Rules Format?
WF: would really like methods to qualify as ACT Rules
... if we continue this approach, then may need to make some changes
... could make certain things optional
... next steps is to wrap up this proposal and bring it to AGWG
... then figure out what would need to change if there is a go-ahead
TB: mentioned methods would map to rules
... so would methods be disjoint sets
WF: solves a problem in this case
... not sure would be the same approach in all outcomes
... would need to try out more outcomes
... but would also want to avoid every data requirement being different
... that would be complicated
SAZ: AGWG Charter runs out end October 2022
... expect re-chartering discussions in about a year from now
... expect this Charter will be to finalize standardization of WCAG 3
... so would be good to get structured testing (aka ACT) as part of the consensus model
WF: "Document has heading for non-repeated content" was discussed in AGWG
... but was a heated discussion
... not clear consensus, quite some opposition
... need to see how this works out
... if it stays under Bypass Blocks
... so we're really on hold for that
AJ: have 3 approvals but can't merge
WF: yes, needs approvals from 3 members
... people with write access
AJ: but then you or Carlos need to merge?
WF: correct
... just let us know
TB: so you had a comment on the videos rule
... need to check cross-browser support for MP4
<dmontalvo> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1647
TL: didn't get to work on mine yet
... will get to it in the coming few days
WF: all have assignees
... looking good!
WF: #1658
AJ: going to final call now
WF: great!
... #1649
... can also be merged
... #1510
DM: probably outdated
... close and I'll open a new one
WF: closed
SAZ: #1548?
WF: need to meet with Aron
AJ: have some updated thoughts, will try to get to it this week
WF: been discussing in the planning group
... to get the current implementation data we have
... will be manual for now and slightly out of date
... but show the world how it could look
... and work in parallel on automation
... also migrating rules into the new design
... would like to announce in September, after the holiday period
... stay with current implementation matrix design
... and refine it as we go along
KE: talked about dividing up tasks
WF: yes, bunch of coding needed
... if anyone wants to chip in
AJ: not a developer but can try to help
TB: have spare couple of hours, depending on the effort
WF: need to figure out which bits can be handed off
... but scheduling 3 days next week to focus on this
... meeting with Hidde to learn about W3C side of mechanics
... would be good for more of us to know how this software works
SAZ: also need to do more outreach and attract involvement
KE: trying to get more participants
... people busy but more room for participation
... let us know if you have ideas on who we can contact
WF: agree!
... hope also implementation matrix will help attract participation