<scribe> scribe: dmontalvo
<Wilco> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OSkPFocXk4K3zYLnwS78WLsWO4PvE5yRcsauyefuIUI/edit#gid=0
Wilco: You have the approvals you needed Trevor
Trevor: I think it is fine to merge
Wilco: Let's do that
... Marking related rules as accepted
... Kathy -- description track
Kathy: I did a PR, #1665, it
needs another reviewer
... There are two rules related that only deal with the
technique of the video description track
... But there is one rule that had already been migrated. Not
sure if we want to pull that one back
... Row 68 on the Sheet, "Video element visual content has
description track"
Wilco: Yes, this is used as part
of those composite rules. That rule is taken out
... Does the PR change that description rule?
Kathy: No.
Wilco: That is how it should be. I think we are good. Can you review, Trevor?
Kathy: Even though the PR do not touch rule 15, I think it should stay blocked, because we found that the description track does not work and we have passing examples
Wilco: That maps to an advisory
technique, it is not a particularly useful rule
... We may not have any implementations, we may deprecate that
rule actually
Kathy: If we have migrated rules they will stay as "proposed" in the WAI website
Wilco: Yes. I think we could figure out later what to do with them. There is something with this rule. Do you want to deprecate this rule? It would be more work.
Kathy: We can figure out what to do later. There is already a note there. It is fine
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/issues/57
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/issues/56
Wilco: Two issues that Shawn raised I am working on them. All of it seemed pretty straight forward. Changing "ACT rules" to "WCAG test rules"
<Wilco> https://deploy-preview-51--wai-wcag-act-rules.netlify.app/standards-guidelines/act/rules/
Wilco: The two things I wanted to
highlight
... In the rules page there are two lists: proposed and
approved rules. I am renaming this to: WCAG2 Test rules, and
list of proposed WAG2 test rules
... Shawn suggested some qualifier there. I don't much like
that, because it seems like it puts it at the same level with
respect to the other list, and that is the main list
Kathy: I think it is fine. I think they wanted some introductory paragraph explaining, I think the way you have it now is good.
Wilco: This work is almost done.
I can bring it back to the group
... Also, I am not including a table of contents. We have a lot
of headings in these pages. If we put a table of contents, the
main content is pulled down
... I hope to get this into CFC next week
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pulls
Wilco: A couple of things that we can merge now
Kathy: I think there is a few comments in the definition of accessability tree
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1684#discussion_r691926502
Kathy: I don't see a huge difference. Jean-Yves also suggested to put this in the "Background" section
Wilco: If you put this in the
background it won't be included in the definition that shows up
on the pages
... I don't feel strongly about that anyway
Kathy: I can look at it again and make changes. Are you saying not to put it in the "Background" section?
Wilco: The note could be, the
thing about the hidden state should not
... Trevor, do you want me to merge the ones that are ready
from your part?
Trevor: I don't think I have privileges
Wilco: Will give you privileges later
Wilco: Survey closes now
... Five responses, nobody rejected
... Survey 1 tab
... for WCAG terminology I did not open an issue, I will
... Qy has some comments from Kathy, typo in the
background
... That pr has already four approvals, so it can be
merged
... Comments by Kathy in Q7.
... We could link to the understanding accessibility support
document
Kathy: Could do
... I wonder if just including the sentence would cause more
confusion to the reader
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-accessibility-support-head
Wilco: The fundamental to the SC
is that it is not well defined what things you should do to
make this possible
... Like Aron said If you have a technology that overrides the
style attribute,
Daniel: Feels to me like this rules are testing just a subset of scenarios. Hard to figure out how to broaden scope
Wilco: Kathy, are you happy if we take out the last sentence of the paragraph?
Kathy: O if we can explain it better
Wilco: I still don't know how we could explain it better, linking to the understanding accessibility support section is what comes to mind
Kathy: Maybe if we could just reword it so that the "if" part is not there
Wilco: Do you want to open a PR and try to rephrasing it?
Kathy: I am not clear on what this is trying to say
Wilco: If you are not interested in doing this with something like Stylish as part of the accessibility support, then this rule should not be used
Trevor: Other times we did this
the other way around, like not all ATs support this way of
doing things
... We may be almost changing the applicability with this last
sentence
Daniel: Do you have examples of ATs not supporting things like Stylish?
Wilco: We tested this with
bookmarklets and we assume this is the way to test
... Trevor, you have a point. We do not usually say "if you
don't care about screen readers don't use the alt text
rules"
... Screen readers are built as ATs, Stylish is not, but you
can use it as such
Daniel: Interesting point. There are also other examples of things like TamperMonkey that are not ATs but can end up being used as sch
Wilco: This could be different in
which you can have OS style sheets or browser-based style
sheets, but I don't know of any browser that lets you adjust
font size and letter spacing
... What if we just remove the accessibility support
section?
... Does anyone know about an AT that can set user-origin style
sheet?
... Mainly the windows high contrast tool
Todd: There is a bookmarklet that does text spacing
Wilco: As far as we know, all
technologies that can do that are author-origin
... Either is you don't apply the SC or you have to support
author-origin
... So is this more an assumption than an accessibility support
issue?
Todd: I am leaning that way
Wilco: Not sure yet
... CSS works through the cascade sort. There are often
conflicting rules, and CSS figures out which has the highest
priority. User-origins always wins over author-origins.
... User-origins is what user sets via configuration. It is a
style that the browser adds
... Author-origin is any style that is on the page
already
... Because most browsers don't let you ay styles you want, the
only way is to inject CSS into the page
... This is because using important is problematic, as it is
not easy to use user-origin styles at the moment
... I'll see if I can come up with a proposal
... Is this a blocker?
Trevor: I am fine with that, the rest of the rule is pretty solid
Daniel: Not a blocker for me either
<scribe> ACTION: Wilco will propose and update text for the accessibility support section o this three rules
RESOLUTION: Rules are accepted as they are, agreed to work on updates later
Wilco: Skimming line-height
rule
... Aron rejected this. We need to leave this for next week
Trevor: I have one question. For all of these rules, in the failed cases we say "recommended". Shall I put pull requests for that?
Wilco: There is a new one in place by W3C. Will try this out next week
Kathy: You need to log in to your W3C account, and there there is "My calendar" section
Wilco: It sends an invite to your email so that you can accept it with whatever calendar system you are using