scribe+

ACT Standup

Wilco: Working on getting rules approved by AGWG ready for a major publication update, set for next week. 8 rules approved. Adding useful links section and secondary requirements section, so lots of changes coming up

Catherine: No report

Shane: Reading docs and learning

Tom: No report

Kathy: Talking about presenting about ACT - ICT Accessibility testing symoposium, CSUN. If interested in learning about those, let me know. Rule to discuss in outstanding issues.

Suji: Finished annual review of rules. Met with Kathy. Working on doc by next week.

<trevor> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2089

Trevor: Finished up PR, waiting on secondary requirements, need reapproval. Need approvers. Reviewed some PRs and left comments (role permitted, visible label in name, secondary reqts).

Annual rule review

Wilco: Have a number of rules that will get published Tuesday. Haven't reviewed these in a year or so. Can't cover ones Helen covered.
... First is Text has enhanced contrast
... Open issue 2068
... I don't think personally it prevents publishing, but are we okay with moving forward.
... Next one is scrollable content can be reached
... Ready
... Image name is descriptive also ready.
... Menuitem has non-empty accessible name
... Support note may be out of date.
... Could not confirm on Mac and need Windows verification that this support note issue still exists.
... Daniel will check and confirm
... Orientation of page is not restricted
... Issue 1782
... Tom will tackle
... HTML images contain no text - first and second assumptions shouldn't refer to 1.4.9
... 1.4.9 does not allow that exemption, which is the different between 1.4.5 and 1.4.9, so 1.4.9 would not be satisfied
... I'll take this one myself
... Also an issue in the phrasing of the expectation that I'll work on.
... A few more when Helen is back next week

Outstanding issues and PRs

Wilco: Visible label is part of accessible name

Kathy: I have a draft PR where I pulled in some examples.

<kathy> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2101/files

Kathy: I pulled in some examples from the CG, particularly that Dan created. He listed out about 25 different examples and I'm only pulling in a few
... I think that's enough, and are the ones based on what we've discussed will pass / fail.
... I'll take that out of draft and let people review

Wilco: iframe element has non-empty accessible name

Tom: I thought that was done

Wilco: It's been awhile, so let's survey again
... Need someone for Form field label is descriptive
... Suji volunteered
... HTML element lang subtab matches language. I'll take that one.
... ARIA state or properties is permitted

Trevor: You left me some comments

Wilco: The ARIA items

Tom: This issue is open with ARIA WG

Wilco: Inclined to say this is an issue for the ARIA WG and leave it there.

Tom: Hard to move forward with this since it's potentially a false positive as ARIA has written it
... We can say this is waiting on ARIA, or we can take it to the ARIA WG and say this is the best guess at what it should be.
... Either way we need a response from the ARIA WG, so I don't think it's wrong to bring it to them.

Wilco: Will make it as Ready for CFC
... Have a couple more. Anyone else have bandwidth?

Tom: 4e8ab6

Suji: 5effbb

Tom: I have #1910 also on my plate

Wilco: Looking at open PRs

<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pulls

Wilco: 2099. I'm a reviewer. Trevor. Tom
... 2094. I'm assigned, I'll take
... 2089. Need 1 more. Kathy.
... 2084. New rule. Tom will review also
... 2076. Needs to use the new format.

Kathy: I thought last week we decided secondary wouldn't cover support. I'll look at it.

Wilco: 2064. Has changes requested
... 2052 and others with changes requested
... 2007. 1 approval, could use someone else to look. No insignificant.

Todd: I'll look at it

Wilco: 1994. Tom to take another look
... 1560. Approved. Need to merge.

ACT Standup

Subjective exceptions in the applicability

<trevor> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/539

Trevor: Looking back at 539 PR
... Big change I wanted to talk about today. Inside these allowed subjective forms, if you recall the guardrails are that you can do it, but it has to be in a specific template
... As part of these allowed subjective forms, started to state that you needed the subjectivity in the glossary
... One of conversations was if we can make this more quantitative
... Changes starts on line 443 example subjective definition to try this out
... Idea is something that looks like visual headings.

Tom: Seems the first two conditions could be phrased as objective

Trevor: I agree
... I left it a little open, so any logic could be applied. For instance, could require one characteristic, but one of the first two or something like that.
... Have to define if this is objective / subjective. If something is objective, can't use a subjective definition.
... Reasoning is that we have a more agreed upon definition of what the subjectivity is.
... Wilco, is this what you were thinking?

Wilco: Yes. I think what might be difficult, is for things that are not headings. Quotes are often larger text and differentiated.
... Banner at the top probably meets all of those
... If we want to define this, might need more than just a few visual characteristics, but also what is not a heading.
... On principle, I like this idea as an example of making the definitions harder and stronger.

Shane: I like this alot. I also like the idea of 1 and 2 or 3. I don't think that's overcomplicated.
... If something doesn't describe the content, seems this meets, but shouldn't apply

Trevor: That's a good scenario for me to think though
... One good thing here is that these are not built into the rule format. If we find a definition is not as good as we hoped, we can modify the definition.

Kathy: I like the approach. Focusing on this particular example, we're trying to define style, but the last item isn't a style.

Trevor: That's fair. That may bring us back to the discussion of "styled as" and "functions like" may be an argument for merging

Kathy: Seems like you could keep the first two style and the AND broadly describes.
... I like the function as as alternative

Todd: Looks good to me so far, no specific concerns or objections

Wilco: Trevor, where next?

Trevor: I think I need to think through Kathy's suggestion. Conversation is poking holes that I need to think through.
... Such as the negative scenario

Wilco: I do see value in keeping this style separate. WCAG does some similar things.

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Default Present: Helen, ShaneDittmar, Suji, kathy, catherine, Wilco, thbrunet, trevor, ToddL
Present: Helen, ShaneDittmar, Suji, kathy, catherine, Wilco, thbrunet, trevor, ToddL
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: thbrunet
Inferring Scribes: thbrunet

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth


WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)