Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vsp1V2hBpU6Y0vNt-AGP-Y6fOxx1-IjoKgBJ_3bPlfg/ <- Outcome Proposal

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/19FaJF_9V1CayeO92OiPpUil9USOTJWOPLdfgcOIJ6Fw/edit# <- Method proposal

Jeanne: after call on Friday, some met on Monday on merge of Silver and ACT.
... request for help
... removed "with levels" from Outcome, keep functional categories
... exceptions (example is too short to need headings), where should these be?
... logical blocks changed to ACT defined blocks of content and linked
... keep plain language prominent, details available elsewhere
... link to ACT instead of embed
... in Method, restricted to HTML, to keep methods to tech specific
... plain language applicability, details should link to ACT rules
... Examples tab - link to ACT rules
... Test tab - use rule title

Wilco: in favor of merging ACT content; works for wcag 2. one set of requirements is better
... outcomes - ACT definitions is tech specific. Block of content definition is for HTML. but can create technology neutral definitions

Jeanne: add Details to Outcome section

Daniel need a good definition of headings, blocks of content so can be used in other methods and outcomes

Jeanne: do we want as many examples as ACT has

Wilco: ACT does

Jeanne: will include all ACT rules

Wilco: test cases and examples help with edge cases

Kathy: Are there concerns if we have a generic outcome but then we don't have a method on a specific technology?

Jeanne: long term goal to allow methods to be updated by others
... will have technologies that won't be covered specifically, a generic test like wcag format for decisions
... jake abma wanted a generic method for every outcome
... could put a test tab on outcome with a generic expectation

Wilco: is that different from a descriptive outcome if written clearly enough
... subgroup meeting to work on this

WCAG 3 followup

ACT rules checks sheet

Wilco: Row 43. Links with identical name... Issue was deleted because that is solved by the pr

Kathy: That's fine.

Wilco: Issue open for table header has assigned cells

<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1626

Wilco: Technique should be removed
… Will open a pull request to remove H43

Wilco: With that PR I propose we set that as accepted

[Everybody agrees]

Wilco: Kathy opened #1627

Kathy: It says it is not required for WCAG conformance. But I think there was something under the conformance requirements of WCAG 21 that it needs to conform with all of the following.

Wilco: It's non intereference, that is a bug on the website

Wilco: It will not affect how the rule will show up on the WAI website

Kathy: The mechanisms has to meet all conformance requirements to pass, but there is not testing of the mechanisms. Maybe tweak assumptions to include this?

Wilco: Discussed before in the community group. We concluded not to do that
… Technically you are right, but that would result in things like missing alt attributes being flagged as an issue for 2.2.2, which would be strange
… You could end up having a recursion where every failure of a WCAG SC would be a failure of something else

Kathy: Can it just be put on the assumption?

Wilco: That is a good point, the SC does require it. We could make an assumption to say that. Would you fail that in Trusted Tester?

Kathy: IT would be reported under 1.1.1, but still affect 2.2.2

Wilco: Issue open, accepted, as we will address that before publishing

Wilco: Enhanced contrast is similar to minimum contrast, we should approve both

[Everybody agrees]

Kathy: Passed example two did not have the text from the beginning of the video. Also I replaced "video" with "Synchronized media"

Wilco: I propose that we accept this, as there is already a PR open

Kathy: I have problems with Passed 3 and Failed 3 with the descriptions

Kathy: I have problems with Passed 3 and Failed 3 with the descriptions I was hearing audio but not any audio descriptions

<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/f196ce#accessibility-support

Wilco: This is because audio description tracks are not widely accessibility supported unfortunately
… The video examples need to be fixed

Wilco: Probably we should not allow this as it does not work anywhere currently. I propose we reject it

[Everybody agrees]

Wilco: "Video has transcripts" I propose to block, reasonable what you both are saying.

Open ACT pull requests