Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

<scribe> scribe: kathy

ACT rules sheet and Survey Results

wilco: iframe

helen: already merged
... should go to another survey

<Will_C> i have to drop after 30 minutes today to prep for a big client meeting

wilco: aria-hidden focus, tom had questions

<thbrunet> Might be easier to look at the file diff side of it.

<thbrunet> wn1B

tom: I think I resolved most comments
... two comments still open

wilco: a suggestion from trevor

trevor: mostly editorial

wilco: jym comment - unsure of note under Acc Support
... make it more explicit and clear. 2-3 sentences?

tom: will try to elaborate more
... focus sentinels for real world example

wilco: proposed to have offscreen, but not focus sentinel
... suggest removal of text Focus sentinel
... VoiceOver can get to hidden text

trevor: that would be accessibility support issue
... my suggestion was to leave it visible
... didn't recognize pattern

tom: will update description and call it "modal wrapper" or something like that

wilco: kathy has PR open for audio element
... will has PR open for his too

Open ACT pull requests

wilco: Helen's PR 1833 is for CG
... #1831 add reviewers Jenn, Trevor
... #1828 add reviewers Will, Helen, Trevor

<thbrunet> I don't think I'm officially on the repo

<thbrunet> I've been working through forks

<thbrunet> Sorry - noted to Wilco I'm half listening due to a school PTA meeting at the same time.

Meeting at TPAC?

wilco: I will add Tom as contributor

<trevor> -1

wilco: +1 if you will likely/certainly to attend TPAC

<Wilco> +1

<Will_C> -1

<JenniferC_> +1

<Helen> -1 but might change...

0.5

<thbrunet> 0 - not planned, not sure of budget yet.

wilco: probably not enough to organize a meeting at TPAC

Survey response: meta viewport allows for zoom

wilco: 8 responses
... Q3 comment from Trevor on assumptions

trevor: double negative. will open PR

wilco: Daniel's Q3 comment
... PR 1822 has approvals and will merge
... fixes trevor's comment
... Q4 Helen comment

helen: 6 is very high

wilco: any objections to change 6.0 to 2.0?

[none]

scribe: make the change
... should this rule map to 1.4.10 Reflow?
... in Background, but not in Acc Reqs and not in Bibliography
... checking change log
... Assumption last bullet is applicable to 1.4.10
... not one where helen removed mapping to 1.4.10
... oh wait
... PR #1756 removes 1.4.10

jenn: don't see any reason not to add 1.4.10

wilco: the SCs are sort of unrelated
... this rule tests resizing is not prevented

<Will_C> gotta drop! sorry

jenn: another rule checks container does not hide resized text

wilco: this rule is for 200% case which is 1.4.4

helen: remove 1.4.10 references

wilco: color contrast has 2 SCs mapped, this rule is same scenario
... should we put 1.4.10 back in?

trevor: think yes, but many approved PR to remove

wilco: conclusion note add it back
... next Q7 comment from tom
... pass ex 4 should be inapplicable, agree but not a blocker

tom: will open PR to update applicability and example
... Q8 comments about editorial work.
... liaison Wilco
... 2 new surveys open for next week

ACT rules gap analysis - what does it mean for ACT rules format 1.1

trevor: in spreadsheet, added Gap Analysis
... labeled ACT rules ability to handle subjective applicability and stateful
... a few examples that might require state. what would it look like in a rule.
... 2 ways I've used state. talked with Jean Yves and Carlos, had to switch to not use state.
... with ability to update ACT rule to use state, can add rules that look at when a state change has occurred
... an example, revealed content is included in focus order, a collapsible menu
... would require state transition: state 1 collapsed, state 2 expanded
... some action causes a transition to a new state
... how would this rule be made without considering state?

wilco: think of rule differently. 2 states. in both states, things that function as menu times should be marked up as menu items.
... would not involve a state test. Opening a menu is exploratory and not part of the test.
... if testing a page, is rule to say list all possible states or can rule say expectation is in all states

<Helen> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1834 - for anyone interested in approving this :)

trevor: my preference is to attempt to enumerate some amount of states. common issue is white link on a dark background when focused changes to dark blue on a dark background

wilco: difficult to test. automated implementations are single state tests

trevor: a struggle in research of multistate testing. 2.1.1 is a clickable button also keyboard accessible
... first click on button with a mouse, see resulting state. return to first state with keyboard, is resulting state the same
... can this be tested without state?

tom: focus state is different for mouse and keyboard

wilco: this rule would require multiple states

trevor: thought keyboard trap rules might need to be stateful. but the rule is written without state and says "trapped"