<kathy> sorry wilco
<kathy> want me to do it?
<Helen> Scribe: Helen
<dmontalvo> scribe: dmontalv
<dmontalvo> Helen: It's going to be in Dublin, in two weeks time
<dmontalvo> ... hybrid meeting for people who cannot make it, it is a short notice
<dmontalvo> ... I'd need to miss the first half, but people from Optum will be standing up for me
<dmontalvo> Wilco: I intent to come
<dmontalvo> Helen: We will provide rapid tests per person mainly
<dmontalvo> Helen: Optum teams are keen to meeting people from W3C
<Will_C> I have a client meeting but will join at 920 est
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/114156/ACT2022-f2f-reg/?login
<dmontalvo> Wilco: Element in sequential order has visible focus indicator is now in AGWG's plate, and they seem to agree with us
<dmontalvo> ... PR still in progress
<dmontalvo> Wilco: Scrollable elements, i need to follow up with comments
<dmontalvo> Daniel: Needs to work on examples, to make proposed failed inapplicable
<dmontalvo> Helen: Iframes needs review, Jean-Yves has addressed Wilco's comment
<dmontalvo> Trevor: Could not get to mine
<dmontalvo> Tom: Sent you a slack message, Wilco. Examples are pretty straight forward. I'd need to follow up with you Wilco for the definitions
<dmontalvo> Wilco: I need reviewers for the focus PR
<dmontalvo> Daniel: Helen, Daniel, and Trevor
<dmontalvo> Wilco: Text spacing rewrites #1923, many people assigned
<dmontalvo> Wilco: Secondary requirements PR has been approved
<dmontalvo> Kathy: Scrollable elements #1917
<dmontalvo> ... I accept all the suggestions
<dmontalvo> ... i am just not sure what to do with passed example 1
<dmontalvo> ... If anyone can make a suggestion as to what the wording should be, I would appreciate it
<dmontalvo> Kathy: For better explaining why this example is inapplicable
<dmontalvo> Wilco: I could take a look later, not right now
<dmontalvo> Wilco: #1916 Definition of essential
<dmontalvo> Trevor: I need to make some updates to it
<dmontalvo> Wilco: !1912
<dmontalvo> Daniel: Will get this back to how it was given feedback except for the definition updates
<dmontalvo> Tom: #1915 was a separate issue. From what you are stating this would not affect any other PR
<dmontalvo> ... Do I just update the branch?
<dmontalvo> Wilco: IF we want to send this for review, we need to send an email to the CG, but this is editorial, we'll merge this just now
<dmontalvo> Wilco: I will review iframes
<dmontalvo> Wilco: Link has non-empty name is waiting for an update to the spec
<dmontalvo> Wilco: Just checking on this assignment. Trevor found a thing on word-spacing
<dmontalvo> Trevor: I think Jean-Yves has rewritten a lot on the spacing rules
<dmontalvo> Wilco: Reminder for everyone that this is due next week
<dmontalvo> Wilco: If you do the regular survey, that is going to show up as it picks up your last answer
<Will_C> scribe: Will_c
Kathy: no new PR yet.
<kathy> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/531/files
Kathy: I put back a lot of
outcome mapping, heading and text. Created subheading for
conformance requirements. Added bit about 'not satisfied'
cannot be if everything passes
... Secondary Reqs - added more details. Increased different
scenarios
... Trying to fit rules where conditions are stricter than the
rule.
... Needed to make things less conversational. Wanted clearer
explanation of when a rule is secondary
Wilco: let's take a few minutes to read it over.
Chris: found a typo!
sticter-->stricter
group: deep in thought
Wil C: I am confused by the wording. I think 'and' might be better as 'if' or 'then'.
Wilco: This might lead to odd
mappings. for instance what if I write SC for something
completely unrelated
... this can lead to secondary requirements mapping to
unrelated rules. or reads like it could
Kathy: The challenge is drawing the line between flexible and rigid.
Trevor: Maybe use
applicability
... There has to be a test case this actually applies to
Wilco: The difficulty is a lack of scope in SC
Trevor: We say rules are only applicable when applicability is met. Doesn't that narrow it down?
Wilco: The problem isn't deciding
a rule applies, it's deciding an SC applies
... We have two conditions - The situation doesn't require both
to be true. Only one is true.
... Either failed outcome doesn't guarantee the SC is
satisfied. I think this is items 2 and 3?
... line 219 - item a. Phrase maybe as "If any of the SC failed
the target still needs testing" then for 220 (b) - when all
outcomes are passed or inapplicable, the SC cannot be said to
be satisfied without further testing
WIco: real life - even if it passes 4.5 to 1 we cannot say it passes 7 to 1 without further testing
Wilco: I think 220 needs further specification. "Further testing IS necessary"
Helen: With rules that test only parts of a rule, you can't say a SC completely passes or fails until all else is tested
Kathy: One of the reasons I kept 'satisfied' in was when we were doing keyboard track rule, you can't say it hasn't been satisfied, but you can say it has been satisfied in that rule
Wilco: "further testing needed"
is tripping me up.
... For conformance requirements, we can add "further testing
may be needed", but for secondary testing "further testing MUST
be needed". you can't say AAA passes just because AA did
Chris: I wrote what you said in
the zoom chat to try and achieve what you've written
... From chat- so for contrast at aaa, the accessibility
requirement could be not satisfied due to the rule failing for
not passing aaa contrast, however the requirement could be
satisfied in that the requirement is aa (i.e. 4.5:1 vs. 3:1 vs.
7.1) and the rule passed if rule is written only to aa test
parameters ? Or would the rule be further testing is needed to
meet AAA and to pass? Sorry, just trying to parse all of this.
I believe I'm un[CUT]
Kathy: The challenge I'm having
is that there are several scenarios we are trying to cover
here
... "Further testing is needed" is wishy-washy. But each time I
try to adjust 219-200 to each scenario, the pool gets wider and
deeper, and i
... Wonder if we can take some of this out so we can at least
get some clarity
Wilco: we are at time