– DRAFT –
Joint ACT-Silver Testing

<Francis_Storr> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vsp1V2hBpU6Y0vNt-AGP-Y6fOxx1-IjoKgBJ_3bPlfg/edit#heading=h.5abhd9pz034w

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vsp1V2hBpU6Y0vNt-AGP-Y6fOxx1-IjoKgBJ_3bPlfg/edit#heading=h.imejt9fcuvoy

<shadi> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vsp1V2hBpU6Y0vNt-AGP-Y6fOxx1-IjoKgBJ_3bPlfg/edit#

<ChrisLoiselle> In reading this, we are conflating outcomes and methods https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#outcomes-structure and https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#methods-structure . The "you should" leads to how one would do something, thus a method to achieve.

three bullet items are 1)Provide headings for sections of content

2)Make headings descriptive of the content that follows

3) Organize content so the headings make locating and navigating information easier and faster.

I wonder where the landmark discussion wil be placed in the structured content rule

<Zakim> Jemma, you wanted to ask about sectioning element

yes, it make sense that we think beyond web.

<jeanne> Should we move to more granular Outcomes? Or stick to presentation, Function, and semantic?

fyi, sectioning element examples include nav, main, header, footer.

<Jennifer> The sectioning element examples are HTML -- which is not tech neutral.

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#structured-content

<bruce_bailey> i like keeping the presentation/function/semantic outcome

<jeanne> 1) Headings organize content (outcome for "Structured content")

<jeanne> 2) Uses visually distinct headings (outcome for "Structured content")

<jeanne> 3) Conveys hierarchy with semantic structure (outcome for "Structured content")

<Skotkjerra_> I am lost too, but then I am a newcomer to this meeting and wor which also doesn't help.

<SusanH> Yes Jenn, it's not just you :)

<Skotkjerra_> +1

<Jennifer> Wouldn't tests be at the Method level?

<Wilco> +100

<ToddLibby> +1

<Jennifer> The explicitness clarifies expectation for developers and designers. Key to remember that this is not exclusively for developers, as it needs be considered earlier than at development. The designers and product folks I worked with literally fought tooth and nail because WCAG isn't explicit and detailed.

<Skotkjerra_> But try asking a lawyer to phrase legislations in plain language -t heir argument would be that that is by no means precise enough. But that is their profesion, this is ours - they are both requiring skills - we cannot change that, IMHO

yes, landmark is part of this discussion.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to remind that methods may be many-to-many

good summary of discusison, Bruce!

<shadi> +1

<ToddLibby> +1

+1

yes! more outcomes for structured content inclduing landmarks.

1) how to integrate ACT rule to wcag 3

<jeanne> Should we move to more granular Outcomes? Or stick to presentation, Function, and semantic?

<shadi> +1 to more granular outcomes

+1 what Bruce said.

<Jennifer> +1 to granular outcomes

<ToddLibby> +1 to more granular outcomes

<SusanH> +1 more granular

<bruce_bailey> +1 to more granular outcomes

<anne_thyme> +1

<Wilco> 0

<DavidASx> +1

<Skotkjerra_> +1

<bruce_bailey> just keep them technology neutral

<ToddLibby> agreed. keep them technology neutral

<Jennifer> Thank good ness for the transcript we have what Bruce said!

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#structured-content