Meeting minutes
ACT Standup
<Wilco> https://
<Wilco> https://
wilco: submitted 6 new rules for approval, 3 to AG WG, 3 to ARIA WG
… 1 response recieved
daniel: ACT Rules format first public working draft review
… FPWD doesn't need CFC to go ahead
trevor: not much to report
kathy: https://
<Wilco> Oh, good point, I also opened two PRs based on ARIA feedback: 2137 and 2139
<Wilco> Would appreciate a review
catherine: reviewed rules from wilco
… will look at surveys due on 9th
tom: not much to report
helen: not much to report
No meeting next week
wilco: thanksgiving is next week, meet again in 2 weeks
Audio element content is media alternative for text
wilco: continue review of responses from last week
… is this rule necessary? is there a diff between a media alternative for text and a text alternative for time based media
… seem to be the same requirements
<Wilco> https://
<dmontalvo> Kathy: It didn't but I think that was an oversight
<dmontalvo> ... We're trying to add it in in the next version
<dmontalvo> ... The part "Is clearly labelled as such" is difficult
<dmontalvo> Kathy: I don't think we saw that as a different. First we determine if it's a media equivalent and then we look at the clearly labelled part
<dmontalvo> Kathy: This rule got a little twisted in my head that we are requiring anything and then it may not be clearly labled. But the label here may not be a requirement
wilco: if remove "except when... and clearly labeled as such" from SC 1.2.1, it says the same thing
tom: exception seems unnecessary
helen: doesn't need to be a separate rule
trevor: agree
wilco: think this rule is unnecessary
… auido element content has transcript should map directly to 1.2.1
trevor: main difference is the second expectation from this rule
wilco: the other 2 rules should be deprecated
tom: not exactly the same. looking for audio descriptions
… alternative for time-based media definition implies audio desc is required
… if video is alternative for text, background noise isn't needed
wilco: media alternative for text definition says no more information than is already presented in text
helen: audio that adds to the mood must be included in alternative
wilco: composite rule is only for audio
<Wilco> PROPOSAL: Deprecate this rule, use Audio transcript rule to map to 1.2.1 directly instead
<thbrunet> +1
+1
<trevor> +1
<dmontalvo> +1
<Helen> +1
<Wilco> +1
wilco: helen is liaison to this rule
Iframe elements with identical accessible names have equivalent purpose
wilco: Pass ex 10 has no accname, Fail ex 4 need to be fixed
tom volunteers to be liaison
wilco: jumping to conclusion - simpler rule could be "iframe has descriptive name"
… all automated tools are partially consistent
trevor: we have semi-automated and manual implementations, why is it down to automated
wilco: why not just ask for every iframe
trevor: then missing the case for 2 iframes with same name
daniel: same names to different sources could be a problem
wilco: this came up with advertisements
daniel: very subjective but could be more relevant if more than just ads
trevor: if two iframes were named "vote" but could be very different things to vote on
wilco: descriptive name could be considered when evaluating the iframe
tom: definition of equivalent resource is too vague in rule. "same" or "identical" would be clearer. rule allows two different resources to be equivalent
… if rule says same title if same resources, would be better
… but then alot of pass exs wouldn't be valid
… the advertising one is wrong, not descriptive if they are different ads. should be able to distinguish between the two
wilco: is this rule a meaningful addition to the ruleset?
<Helen> 0
<trevor> +1
0
<Wilco> PROPOSAL: Keep this rule and eventually add an iframe descriptive title rule
<thbrunet> -1
daniel: pass ex 8, the advertising name, would not be descriptive
tom: agree not descriptive
wilco: think this is acceptable
… don't have enough control over content
tom: if you have different urls you could
… two different urls, two different ad sources