<scribe> scribe: ToddL

ACT Standup

kathy: Did work on secondary reqs.
... No survey on visible label.
... added issues to the changes list, will catch up with Wilco before survey

Will_C: ... Not able to catch up on list

<kathy> scribe+

<kathy> todd: worked with wilco on 1926. and need to go over form field is descriptive

trevor: video element has captions, needs some kind of video, video w/background music
... Needs to find video w/o licensing problems somewhere
... needs to meet up with Wilco. Comments on secondary reqs.

daniel-montalvo: behind the scenes work to make sure we can publish

thbrunet: not much to report. Needs to look at one rule still on list.

No meetings until January

kathy: next two weeks meetings are cancelled. Will reconvene in Jan.

Adding secondary requirements to proposed rules

<kathy> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1986#pullrequestreview-1219246622

kathy: three approvals, this will help secondary reqs in some rules. hope to improve implementations consistency is listed.
... Wilco work w/Shawn to get these on the WAI site

daniel-montalvo: hope to be able to publish

kathy: next step is greater review.

Revisit secondary requirements https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E93qynXtcBVL3beIeenv_cbovCy_TsB8mjhmFZUJfqk/edit

<kathy> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/531/files

kathy: going over PR #531

<Github> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/531: Update act-rules-format.md for mapping secondary accessibility requirements

kathy: take a minute and read through the editor's draft note.

group is discussing comments on 531

kathy: any other thoughts on the editor's note?
... any questions in general about the topic?

Technical complexity of rules

daniel-montalvo: not sure how Wilco wanted to explore this. do we want to work on simplifying some of the language?

trevor: doesn't know what exactly Wilco was going to say about topic.

kathy: rules can be more technical. some rules are written by more technical people about the technical nature
... will put a hold on this topic

Decide if we want to continue using "test cases" as a term, along with examples

daniel-montalvo: we're using "test cases" in rules, updating some pages we've come to conclusion to simplify to "examples"

Will_C: do we find that people extract test cases as so?

daniel-montalvo: would go for explaining what that would mean

Will_C: test cases/example? or open to switching it to "examples" to not lose technical side of things

<daniel-montalvo> Example Test Cases

group is discussing wording of "text cases" and "examples"

trevor: prefers "test cases"

kathy: might be a good idea to ask implementors as well.

daniel-montalvo: hears group prefers "test case" and could open an issue so others can comment.

<daniel-montalvo> ACTION: Daniel to open an issue on Test Cases / Examples wording to gather further feedback

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)

Succeeded: s/impementations/implementations/
Present: ToddL, trevor, Daniel, kathy, Will_C, thbrunet
Regrets: Wilco
Found Scribe: ToddL
Inferring ScribeNick: ToddL

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: daniel

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


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.)