See also: IRC log
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTTF21AUG/results
Wilco - main topic is that we want to publish
scribe: we got some feedback
Stein Erik - two main comments
scribe: first one is about versioning,
change from first draft.
... could be introducing a mess, a check in a rule you should have
version number and then you can check the results
... second is test case types, we believe there are only two types tests
- in the browser or http/non-rendered
... simplification would be good because the document is complex already
Tobias - some people have been confused about the types; the document already says that there could be other types
Wilco - versioning, the comment is to not do two methods but sticking to one
<shadi> +1 to one consistent method of versioning
Shadi - put in an editor note for public review
scribe: we don't have to do a decision
right now
... editor note will give the options
Wilco - we can do an editor note to collect feedback
Moe - we should try not to be too prescriptive, we should not select one over the other
<Wilco> Editor note: The task force is considering different methods of identifying the version, either by number, date or other, and is looking for feedback on the subject from reviewers.
Wilco - what about this for the note
<rdeltour> +1
<tobias> +1
<MoeKraft> +1
scribe: does this address the concerns
+1
<anne_thyme> +1
<shadi> +1
Romain - minor comment, ACT data format the Earl format specification does not match
Wilco - they are grouped by property
Romain - does this make it incompatible with Earl
Shadi - I don't think so, it is how it is translated
Shadi - we should remain compatible with Earl
Wilco - let's make a issue to update the appendix
Wilco - the input types are over complicating the spec
scribe: the reason we have these 5, I have
seen tests use all these types
... dom tree tests are doing this (react has own dom library)
... template and script testing; more speculative
... can analyze JS code
... all of them are valid environments
... what are your thought on this
Stein Erik - in our world it is tested in browser or not
scribe: your arguments are fair
Tobias - what Wilco said makes sense
scribe: didn
t see that these were common types
scribe: people not technical, this could be confusing and we may want to elaborate and add examples
Wilco - should we add an issue to look at this
scribe: should we add an editor note
Tobias - no just an issue
Wilco - the issues is that some of these are too specific
Shadi - wanted to mention something about a person who is trying to write text for manual rules in this format. The bookmarklet is to look at headings. This is a mixed mode. Should these be two separate tests? They are getting permission to send the tests
scribe: we may be making this too specific
Kathy - two separate rules
Shadi - there could be other scenarios, where they could be mixed rules. Some thing to keep in mind
Wilco - can we get approval to send this to AG
Sujasree - there are still issues to fix
scribe: there are 200 issues in the examples
with color contrast
<Wilco> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-rules-format.html#output
Shadi - is this the spec?
Wilco - see example 5
scribe: this is the default CSS
... there is also issues with the paragraph markers
Shadi - will follow up
Wilco - any objections to sending it to the AG
+1
<Sujasree> +1
<anne_thyme> +1
<tobias> +1
<rdeltour> +1
<shadi> +1
RESOLUTION: send to the AG group
Wilco - we are agenda item 2
Wilco - text updated and examples added
<MoeKraft> rejoining...
Wilco - any objections to this going out to the AG
Tobias - cleaned up the assumption section
scribe: added in test cases
Wilco - need to add in the text alternative
scribe: anything else on this one?
... no comments
Moe - we should use test execution not test case
Wilco - we are using test steps
scribe: only in the second one
ACT-R2
Wilco - took out step 5 text about video
scribe: few wording changes
... changed the selector
to check for source
scribe: examples page has a warning since
the video/audio starts automatically
... any other comments
Wilco - do we need to move this to the W3C site?
Shadi - let's take this offline to figure out where it needs to go
Moe - the section that we had with test cases, changed to test execution
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/107/files?diff=split
Wilco - this will not go into the draft
scribe: looks good to me
Moe- some language updated to clarify step vs. execution
+1
<tobias> +1
<shadi> +1
<rdeltour> maybe just "Outline of the actions neccessary to..." ?
Moe - should we merge? Hold off until published
Wilco - update with the last change and we will hold
<shadi> trackbot, end meeting