<Levon> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2020OctDec/0011.html
SAZ: EU time change
... same time, 3pm for folks in Europe
... one hour later for folks in the US
... 10am US Eastern
... please double check your agendas
... *meeting time is 3pm CET*
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/494/files
<Wilco> Shadi: most significant change is that I don't think we can make this a policy for the community group. Refocused it for just the task force.
<Wilco> ... Lots of editorial wording to make sure language is consistent.
<Wilco> ... In step 4, bullets 1 and 5 were quite similar so I adjusted that.
<Wilco> ... Step 4.5 was a bit unclear, referred to 4.4. Added links to refer back to other documents.
<Wilco> ... Participants can be ambiguous; everyone is expected to follow code of ethics.
WF: any concerns?
[no objections to move this to CfC]
RESOLUTION: policy, including proposed edits to go to CfC
WF: this one done and needs to go into an issue
... Charu opened it but needs updating
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/492
<scribe> ACTION: Charu to update issue 492
WF: only 4 responses, not enough
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTControlForAutoplay/results
MJM: two atomic rules don't have many implementations
WF: SortSite also doesn't have this
... so not complete data for atomic rules but for composite
MJM: not sure why that happens
... include test cases from atomic in the composite rule?
WF: not sure need to include all, could include some
... can tell from atomic rule implementations
... do we want to go ahead with this, noting limited data?
MJM: does not meet criteria at this moment
... can review the rest of the rule while we wait for implementations
WF: yes, have done that before
... two more reviews needed
<scribe> ACTION: MaryJo to review Audio or Video avoids automatically playing audio
<scribe> ACTION: KathyEng to review Audio or Video avoids automatically playing audio
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTAudioPlaysAuto/results
KE: assumption seems to contradict actual rule
... wording needs improvement
WF: question from Daniel
... "instrument" more objective than "mechanism"
DM: just wanted to double-check
KE: same question as Daniel
... not clear why we switch terms
... maybe just an explanation of that?
DM: maybe a note or such
WF: could work on something
... comment from Kathy on splitting controls, how to do that?
KE: only partial controls
WF: not native HTML, would need to have custom controls
... is it necessary?
KE: not critical but just missed these examples
WF: on next question, do not have inapplicable in WCAG
SAZ: inapplicable for criteria or for rule?
KE: if the rule passes, then changes my results
WF: suggestion from Trevor to collapse all into one atomic rule
... so that "Audio or video that plays automatically has no audio that lasts more than 3 seconds" can be part of applicability for the rule
... rule not wrong as it is but could be improved
... not sure if we should disqualify it
SAZ: does create some confusion, right?
WF: yes
KE: I need to look at that again
WF: any objection to publishing with current structure?
LS: had difficulty understanding it too
KE: think it's confusing
WF: ok, will send that feedback
... may take a while for this rule to return
... another comment from Kathy on interference
... bug in the website, not the rule
... will fix, thanks for catching
RESOLUTION: recommend to restructure these rules into a single atomic rule
<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTAudioLessThan3Sec/results
WF: 4 responses so far
... first comment from Kathy
... think linebreak between the two sentences is needed
... does that fix the issue?
KE: read the second assumption differently
WF: true, they seem a little redundant
... can be updated
... second comment from Kathy
... agree, can give more context
... talked about my comments last week
... need 1 more review, open for another week