Meeting minutes
ACT Standup
wilco: WCAG 2.2 PR ready for review
<Wilco> act-rules/
wilco: prefer 2 to review this week
daniel: will review
wilco: lots of editorial, lengthy
suji and helen will review
catherine: github review on to do list
daniel: looked at trevor's PR for editors draft, joint meeting planning
kathy: liaison for survey, opened a PR
trevor: subjective applicability updates
suji: catch up time
helen: approved some PRs assigned to me
Subjective applicability
<trevor> https://
trevor: thanks jean-yves for review
… line 412 re plain lang must to should
wilco: some things are difficult to write in way to understand
jean-yves: that's fine
trevor: line 414, expand on applicability being easier to automate
… add this to a note
jean-yves: agree to not be in normative text
trevor: are there author's notes?
wilco: no, but it can be in a note. don't feel strongly that it's needed
jean-yves: don't mind if it's not included
kathy: adding the note would be helpful
helen: simplify the sentence
wilco: a lot of commas in the sentence
trevor: line 440 styled as a heading example - like the list of objective criteria, should it be required?
… earlier I had definitions
jean-yves: agree we can't capture all cases needed
… include it as a note
wilco: don't like should on top of another should, but like expanding more when not objective
helen: should we have categorization?
trevor: applicability type designation is optional
… maybe add author intention to Background section
helen: helpful to add what is obj or subj and why
wilco: that's more like an authoring practice and not in the rules format
jean-yves: agree to not be in the rules format
helen: flag would be helpful to manual testers
trevor: line 455 incorrect example of having applicability in expectation
… leads to pass examples that should be inapplicable
… ACT rules treat pass and inapplicable the same
jean-yves: agree applicability should be in applicability statement
… but blurry. Can enforce it in CG but not sure how to define it in rules format
… it only says this is bad in an example, not in normative part
… we have done this to get around the obj applicability restriction
… in bypass block rule for example, a page without repetitive content passes when it should be inapplicable
… don't know how to define in a spec
wilco: agree it's fuzzy what goes in applicability vs expectation
… people are confused
trevor: should I change this example?
kathy: it would be helpful to address applicability should not be in expectation
wilco: calling it a non-conforming example is not true; it's been done this way
… change example to show subjective applicability approach is ok
trevor: will make changes
… thanks jean-yves
Video element visual-only content has transcript
Wilco: We had a conversation as to whether WCAG requires transcripts to be visible
Kathy: I opened an issue, 642. Some say yes, some say no. Not sure that helpful this is
… Others said as long as they available to AT that is good
… Other said for long videos or more involved content it's good for transcripts to be visible
Wilco: It seems we are blocked until we have an answer
… I don't think we should be taking it to AG until there is an answer
… We should get in touch with the chairs about this
Wilco: The other options is that we go with the lowest common denominator (at the very least it needs to be in the accessile tree)
… Because if it is required to be visible, it may not be required to be in the accessibility tree, at least not in thiss SC
… I would be happy to change the rule to say that transcripts need to be in the accessibility tree
Daniel: It may be good for us to get a sense of how much of a priority this could get
Joint meeting with CG
Wilco: I'll be sending out an agenda for that meeting.
… The meeting will be February 8, one hour later than we use to meet. Our meeting will be canceled that day