<scribe> scribe: Helen

ACT rules sheet and Survey Results

Wilco: Helen's PR is waiting for approvals
... Tom is working on his as has a PR open

Open ACT pull requests

Wilco: New one from Jean-Yves: 1823 - a few have been assigned
... It has a list of assignees I agree with
... One from today 1822 - reviewers Helen, Jenn and Kathy added
... 1821 - Carlos has preassigned the reviewers
... 1820 is the one Tom opened
... Jean-Yves has requested changes and there is also 1819 for the survey work - adding Trevor and Wilco to the reviewers
... 1818 - editorial with reviews requested already
... 1809 I have requested an update and a response has been added
... and please review work before you approve it

Subjective applicability - can we do it?

Kathy: This has been brought up before about creating rules that have subjective applicability like visual headings
... they might not be picked up automatically, and we chatted about it on Monday to adjust the rules format for the charter
... How can we write these to be descriptive enough to be clear about the applicabilty, like how would you describe a visual heading and test cases to be clear what is meant
... We tried to list out a few of the things that this would cover, and we have a list of visual items from Trusted Tester, like tables
... Trusted Tester is entirely manual so we are not sure how to define this in the rules
... Trevor suggested that subjective items must be clearly identified as such

Trevor: Do others have ideas? For us it is currently visually it looks like x but not set, e.g. lists, tables and headings

Wilco: We had font icons - with a test for them, but it was something we ran

Helen: How about images that can pass but not be valid

Trevor: We discussed this and ended up realising it was purely in need of a manual check
... To mark the rule as "subjective" I was thinking as a tag to mark it as such
... we would create some example generator scripts to help them automate these more complex rules

<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/2ee8b8#passed-example-6

Trevor: if we can get these detailed enough but we would have to assume it will not be 100% accurate

Wilco: I found the font icon rule, and we added the subjectivity into the expectations

Kathy: I recall this clearly and agree it was hard to follow

Wilco: Is it an idea we come up with a list of items we have not been able to write?

Trevor: Yes as there have been several I have been cautious about writing
... Do we not have them already?

Helen: A shared file for ideas?

Wilco: yes

Kathy: I could share the Trusted Tester ones as a starting point?

Wilco: What about a gap analysis? The areas not covered because either we have not got there yet or we don't know how

Trevor: As in looking at the SC not covered?

Wilco: Yes, like keyboard accessibility

Trevor: That is more as it is about the state not subjectivity

Wilco: Yes so we need a chart of the gaps and then work out why they are there
... It won't be difficult to create, to help us fill out the gaps there are

Kathy: Yes - it will be good for a few reasons

Trevor: I will take a stab at it and throw an extra sheet in our excel document
... we need to be careful that just because there are lots of rules for one SC does not mean it is fully covered

Helen: Could we break down the SC into sub sections into areas

Wilco: I believe Trusted Tester baseline has that?

Kathy: I have a mapping of them to ACT rules, it was a one time effort.
... I will share it as a starting point for Trevor

<kathy> https://federalist-78ccea55-7a06-447c-aabf-bd620b207b74.app.cloud.gov/preview/atbcb/icttestingbaseline/kengdoj-BaselinetoACT/AppendixA1/

Kathy: What we have in that page we have 1 ACT rule and the mappings

Wilco: This is brilliant and shows a good number of gaps
... we can then look at why there are gaps

Trevor: We could put this in a spreadsheet - and would need to check the items

Wilco: And add in WCAG 2.1 checks
... do we want to explore subjective analysis more?

Helen: next week please?

Survey response: audio element content has text alternative

Wilco: We went through this last week and ended on Q6
... I don't think from Tom's comment that audio items can have tracks? We might need to check with Tom

Kathy: Wasn't there a note that they didn't work?

Jenn: Amazon audio will have it for the songs and Spotify

Wilco: But not possible for HTML
... Kathy's comment about playing needs defining - it has the playing property. It doesn't necessarily mean it is automatically playing but it can be a thing that you start

Kathy: I was thinking it was not meaning auto-play but as a manual tester I was thinking about how it works

Wilco: I think we can expand on that

Kathy: I think it would be simpler to not include automatically playing examples

Wilco: I propose we make a change and we amend other rules where we use that phrase in
... Wait we also have no autoplaying examples and we should add those in
... Daniel's comment on how the text describes the audio when it should be alternative - I think we should do this

Kathy: I will take this on

Wilco: A quick check of the other survey results - they all need changes
... meta viewport - Kathy thinks it should not be published?

Kathy: I am not sure it is valid anymore as it is for older sites and devices
... I can be swayed

Wilco: The AG chairs are happy with the editors working on 1.1 and Alistair is happy for us to place a proposal to have ACT in the WAI website - to then ask the group
... But there are a few potential conflicts of interest of taking the EO tools from them - so we need to chat about that

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Default Present: Wilco, Will_C, thbrunet, kathy, trevor, Helen, Todd, Daniel, JenniferC_
Present: Wilco, Will_C, thbrunet, kathy, trevor, Helen, Todd, Daniel, JenniferC_
Found Scribe: Helen
Inferring ScribeNick: Helen

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth


WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)