<Wilco> scribe: thbrunet
Wilco: Aria-hidden where are we?
thbrunet: Took a look through the two PRs, some more changes. Please review
kathy: PR for taskforce comments. Carlos has another PR and asked for assistance. Not sure if necessary for this rule, but can talk about later
Wilco: Is it something we need for feedback?
kathy: Related to live streaming
Wilco: I don't want to wait on that. Carlos can work separately on that.
kathy: Carlos can do as a separate PR?
Wilco: agree
thbrunet: I opened PR on the Pass to N/A
Wilco: There's one by Tom, one by Helen, I have one more to open
Wilco: I'll review 1835. Helen
and Daniel also to review.
... 1834 already approved. Can go to call for review
Helen: I wasn't sure what to do. Same process?
Wilco: Yes
... 1833 - Unify expectations - Why combining two
expectations?
Helen: Unifying it because there are two rules. Jean-Ives issue. This is about making sure the same format is used for rules on the same subject basically.
Wilco: I would go the other way. If there are rules that split it, split it.
Helen: He wanted that grouped.
Wilco: I'll assign myself as a reviewer. Anyone else? Kathy?
Kathy: Ok
Wilco: That was 1832
... 1831 - Will this needs some attention from you, some
requests for changes
Will_C: Will reach out if I need help
Wilco: 1829 - I should fix typo.
I would like some reviewers.
... Tom, Will, Daniel
... 1828 - Needs a review from Will.
kathy: I fixed something, so it needs a re-review
Wilco: 1827, 1826 are approved,
so I need to send those out
... 1822 - I think this has been a week
... Tom changes requests on 1819, 1820. Please dismiss the
reviewers next time.
thbrunet: Will do that next time
Wilco: Also true for the other I
assume.
... Helen said 1809.
Helen: I'm not reviewing. Waiting on Wilco
Wilco: Will do tomorrow
... Busy working on WCAG charter.
... Anything else?
kathy: Do we want to look at
1661?
... Carlos said he's blocked. Need live stream example.
... He's run out of ideas
<Will_C> I just approved Kathy's change in #1828. It should be good to go
Wilco: I know I've looked at that too. I wrote those originally. Brian and I looked and found nothing. We talking about this on the task force before. Does anyone know of free to use live streams that don't have lots of terms of use on it? That's what we need. An always on stream that you can embed anywhere that is royalty free. Short of that, not sure what we can do other than not have examples.
trevor: All I can think of are some music channels that are just on constantly
Wilco: NASA has some feeds.
Webcams. BBC has some things. But, none of it is free to
use.
... always some terms that prevent you from embedding
Helen: Are they allowed to have adverts?
Wilco: Not sure how they could. Needs to be a stream. Don't want a bunch of 3rd party code. We just need the audio stream.
Helen: When it's free, there are always adverts that break it up
Wilco: Usually not just a stream, but a player with it that complicates the examples.
kathy: I was looking at this one because of the note under the play button. This seems to try to fix it in many places for different roles. I was thinking I'd ask Carlos to pull it out of this PR. I'll ask him how to best do that.
Wilco: This play button definition?
kathy: Yes.
Wilco: I think we take this
definition out and put it in its own PR. Adds another rule.
That's great, but don't need to wait on this to move
forward.
... I don't know what answer to give about the audio stream.
There's live radio, but again terms of service.
kathy: I'll let him know we talked about it.
Helen: 1832?
Wilco: I did miss that. Sorry. I'll assign myself. Any other takers?
kathy: Can add me
Wilco: Thank you. I think we're
good
... any other PRs?
Wilco: handing it to Trevor for this.
trevor: Won't be super long. Will
assign some homework
... Last time we started talking about gap analysis.
<trevor> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1836
trevor: Started talking about
stateful rules. I threw a lot out at the group without a lot of
background. Spent some time putting together what had been done
before.
... I compiled what I see as the main resources that we have to
build off of as we look at more state in the ACT rules.
... To go through what's in here, my preference would be to let
you all look through it for a week and come back after everyone
has had a chance to look through and has questions.
... the couple of things in the issue is the ACT state draft.
Myself, Jean-Ives, Carlos, Will, Lionel sat down for several
session and discussed what it would take to put state into ACT
rules
... Inside of there, we discussed about how we need stateful
elements for applicability and expectation because you might
need to describe state you start and end, and expectation is
that the transitions between state exist and you meet some
expectation
... Just for historical reason, I included this issue by
jean-ives that is the furthest back I could find on this
discussion. He has a lot of good thoughts.
... Can get you started and understand the basis.
... And finally, just to show examples, for some of the changes
proposed. Both Carlos and Jean-Ives proposed some that follow
this format.
... Somewhere in here it has the state definition. In
Jean-Ives. Subheading of applicability, what states it's
applicable for.
... For this one, we did not have to change the expectation to
work with the stateful rules.
... Please read through these resources on what state means and
what we've looked at in the past. I don't think me talking
about state for a half hour will get that across. Some
questions I thought, I've posted at the bottom of the issue. 1)
What rules are going to need state? I think this question is
trickier and where I got us confused last time. Some rules
require state explicitly. Some can use it implicitly.
... Blocks of content, I can foresee state changing, but it's
implicitly handled. I'd like to find that line where state is
happening vs implicit and feel okay about it. Tangential to
that, if there are rules that are not using state where it
would be better to make explicit. With block of repeated, would
it be easier if we explicitly include states. Would be a good
discussion to have.
<Will_C> got to drop, sorry
trevor: And with the subjective
applicability, in our draft, we only used CSS pseudo classes
for state definition. We said we could not handle JavaScript
manipulation because too subjective. With subject applicability
considered, opens that up. Challenge - still need to figure out
how to structure the language to describe those JavaScript
manipulations or it becomes a free-for-all
... I'm of the opinion everyone should do some background
reading and we circle back to this when everyone's on the same
page.
Wilco: We can send it out to the mailing list to read for next week's meeting
trevor: I may not be at the next two week's meetings
Wilco: Let's not schedule until
you're available again.
... When we're reading for that conversation, we'll send out a
notice. A week we don't have surveys would be good also.
trevor: I'll let you know. I might be around, but uncertain
Wilco: I want to ask though. This
topic seems a little nebulous. When we have these
conversations, it gets quiet on the line. Is this problem
making sense?
... Or too vague and need concrete examples?
thbrunet: I think I need to read through that issue and get a sense of what's already covered.
Wilco: Example I like related to
state is color contrast that doesn't account for state. Just
says 4.5:1. Challenge there is if you're actually strict about
how you're doing this and you have an animation, during that
fade, contrast will drop below 4.5. So there's this actual
weird exception that everyone understands exists, but it isn't
written anywhere that you don't test during animation - you
test after it's done.
... I think one of the topics that the subgroup touched on is
that there's a transition period and need to understand what a
transition is and say that rules don't apply during a
transition - maybe some don't and some do. Not sure which
do.
... Does that frame one angle?
thbrunet: Is something like hover covered here?
trevor: Carlos's issue is sort of along those lines. If you have a link in a paragraph and it's hovered, what do you do?
Wilco: The difficulty with that. I'm digging a little deeper. WCAG doesn't say to apply it to all states. Should we really have rules that tell you? The requirement isn't to test it in those states.
trevor: I'd think that a naive in a simple way interpretation. State transition and there are flashes, still can't break the seizure rule.
Wilco: Great example. That suggests there are rules during a transition.
trevor: Be all end all, regardless of the standard, there is real impact on people. If you tab and link changes, that become unusable.
Wilco: I agree. But more
importantly, AG has agreed. There are techniques that say
applies to all states.
... it's explicitly written in the understanding. Why I'm
asking is, is it a question of responsibility?
... Is it the responsibility of the SC to say what states to
test? Or the responsibility of whoever is performing the test
to find all of the states?
Helen: One example about screen reader. User will know to take out verbosity. But, how do you know? Can't assume everyone has the same knowledge. I'm careful about assumptions regarding the users.
dmontalvo: Going to add +1 to that. We're talking about interactions. When we talk about complex widgets and we talk about selections, that may have impact on screen sizes and reflow. We would try to get to those on what people should be testing, etc.
Wilco: Kathy, what's your view?
kathy: Because Trusted Tester
breaks out into different categories, we're able to put some
changes of state under forms. But, we don't cover it everywhere
it needs to be covered. We look more for change of state and
instructing the tester - if you expanded something that was
collapse, then do this.
... The change of state is more focused than looking at a state
and knowing what the new state would be and providing
instructions.
Wilco: For the hover and focus links example, would Trusted Tester say to look at contrast?
kathy: We've avoided that because
we find contrast difficult to meet. Hovered, visited,
unvisited, etc. Difficult to meet them all together.
... so we avoided it.
... But we have discussed all of the different states for links
particularly and haven't figured out yet if that's a
requirement that can be met when compared with each other and
not just against the background
Wilco: Yes, that's almost impossible if you have more than two states, with you absolutely do have in links
Helen: And what if customizable...
Wilco: Lots of different states on links.
Helen: A lot are set by the browser though? Browser defaults...
Wilco: Yes, but you can set them
explicitly.
... Not sure why web has so many states.
... Is this topic starting to resonate? We're going to be
starting to talk about this a lot.
kathy: Would this apply to checked / unchecked and different possibilities?
trevor: Depends on if it causes
other external changes. If you have an error message that pops
up, definitely new state.
... Just the check/ uncheck, maybe, if it changes the color
contrast.
... Depending on how we require state reported in the rules,
maybe only need larger changes, but up for discussion.
Wilco: One more thought, then want to move on. Have we talked about timing in this? Do we need to? One of the things I'm seeing is there are several rules where we've added expected this to happen within X time where that time is completely arbitrary, but we needed something to test consistently. Is that something to explore?
trevor: I think so. We have those meta refresh rules, except the time horizon is long.
Wilco: Yes, that one comes from WCAG, but others where we need something, so..
trevor: Might fall into might not require states, but better explained with states included. My initial thought at least.
Wilco: We'll pick up when trevor is certain of availability again
trevor: I know these state discussions get rough on the scribe.
<Wilco> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/charter-2022/charter.html
Wilco: This sort of came out of
nowhere. But, AG chairs were working on WCAG 3 related update
to their charter. AG is rechartering. Nov 1 need new charter
approved by W3C to continue working. As part of that, we sent a
list of things we're hoping to do.
... Rochelle emailed me Thurs after last week's call asked me
to write something. Survey closed Tuesday.
... Wanted to bring this back so everyone's aware that we have
some things that the next charter drafted related to ACT and
want impressions.
... Two parts to this. In 2.2 Non WCAG 3 Scope, there is
develop ACT Rules Format 1.1
... Item 2 is right below that, provide guidance and test
materials to support 1.0
<Wilco> develops Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Rules Format 1.1, to keep ACT rules compatible with WCAG 3, and enable writing rules that have proven difficult to write under version 1.0,
Wilco: That's for next Charter Nov 2022 to Nov 2024
<Wilco> provides evaluation guidance and test materials to support verification of conformance to normative guidance (such as Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Rules Format 1.0),
Wilco: If anyone not cool with that, need to bring it to AG chairs soon.
thbrunet: Is there a thought on what needs to change for WCAG 3 yet?
Wilco: Not really yet. WCAG 3
still exploratory. Work happening that I'm keeping a close eye
on how ACT relates. One area on how to map ACT to requirements.
If WCAG 3 has a rating scale, ACT needs to be reporting to a
rating scale rather than Pass / Fail. Don't know yet, but that
one thing. Also might incorporate ACT rules more
directly.
... Every method might be it's own rule. That would require
some changes as well.
... Keep up and make sure we don't deviate.
trevor: If we figure out the stateful applicability, and if we want to change for WCAG 3, would this prevent us from starting that next working draft? Don't necessarily want to wait to be constrained on waiting on WCAG 3.
Wilco: I'd be surprised. Getting
to a recommendation is a length process. We'd need almost a
complete draft within a year. Can always start working on a
1.2, don't think we need a charter for that. Just need charter
if we're expecting to publish within that charter period.
... We have Rules Format 1.1 as a deliverable within the
charter period, but we can work on other things too
... Daniel, would it be good to put out a CFC to approve these
portions of the charter?
dmontalvo: I agree
Wilco: That way we have a formal
agreement.
... We are out of time, so, anyone disagree with putting it out
as a CFC? I'll need to check with AG chairs for okay. I'll
probably send out a CFC to approve the ACT part of the
charter.
... we're at time. Thank you!