IRC log of wcag-act on 2023-03-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:00:16 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act

14:00:20 [RRSAgent]

logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/03/02-wcag-act-irc

14:00:20 [Zakim]

RRSAgent, make logs Public

14:00:24 [trevor]

trevor has joined #wcag-act

14:00:24 [Zakim]

Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

14:00:24 [Wilco]

present+

14:00:30 [trevor]

present+

14:01:02 [ToddL]

present+

14:01:26 [thbrunet]

present+

14:01:34 [catherine_droege]

catherine_droege has joined #wcag-act

14:01:40 [daniel-montalvo]

zakim, start meeting

14:01:40 [Zakim]

RRSAgent, make logs Public

14:01:42 [Zakim]

Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

14:01:54 [catherine_droege]

present+

14:02:09 [kathy]

present+

14:02:17 [Helen]

Scribe+

14:02:40 [Helen]

Zakim, take up next

14:02:40 [Zakim]

agendum 1 -- ACT Standup -- taken up [from kathy]

14:03:15 [Helen]

Wilco: Working on property values PR using ID ref to make a new rule and aim to wrap it up soonish

14:03:26 [Helen]

... Done some PR reviews

14:03:52 [Helen]

Catherine: Light week for me as I need to get to Todd's request and Carlos to review

14:04:14 [Helen]

Tom: I had a busy work week so not much done I'm afraid

14:04:40 [Helen]

Trevor: I am working on my rules in the rule sheet, and Carlos has reviewed my issue to put it in a PR

14:04:57 [Helen]

... I spent time looking at the state stuff we will go through today

14:05:51 [Helen]

Kathy: I started a draft of the plans for the GitHub help - Helen and Will might look at it soon so we can get together for a review

14:06:28 [Helen]

... I am looking at the accessible name items

14:07:43 [Helen]

Helen: I reviewed Dan's updates on PR #2022

14:07:45 [Helen]

Zakim, take up next

14:07:45 [Zakim]

agendum 2 -- Cancel March 16th TF call -- taken up [from kathy]

14:08:30 [Helen]

Wilco: we have no meeting on the 16th as CSUN/Axe-Con is on

14:08:49 [WIll_C]

WIll_C has joined #wcag-act

14:08:58 [ToddL]

I did not go. I'll put my stuff here. two-week call for review on PR #1926 and I have to hand over form field label i descriptive so it can get worked on. nothing other than that.

14:09:17 [Will_C_]

Will_C_ has joined #wcag-act

14:09:21 [Will_C_]

Present+

14:10:09 [Helen]

Will: I am unwell

14:10:25 [Helen]

Zakim, take up next

14:10:25 [Zakim]

agendum 3 -- Essential text change definition, discussion -- taken up [from kathy]

14:11:56 [Helen]

Trevor: I have PR #1916 open a while, for the pause/stop/hidden unless essential text. So what is essential text?

14:11:59 [trevor]

https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1916/files

14:12:24 [Helen]

... I have written a definition - please read it now for a review

14:15:56 [Helen]

... An essential text change of an element that routinely changes and provide accurate data to the user

14:17:25 [Helen]

... The examples were easy on some parts, and the confusion and heavy lifting is examples of what is important to the user. So if not given that timely information that they may miss out. So I listed a few examples on what is important and not

14:18:30 [Helen]

... we have some specific examples like the safety of people is important. Or a change in the collaborative systems so you should nto turn those off.

14:18:50 [Helen]

... But I added some non-important examples of if you miss it - it is not life altering

14:19:20 [Helen]

... How much more is needed to close it down? As it is a bit open ended

14:20:03 [Helen]

Catherine: I think it is difficult to get everything - so it is good to add a caveat of it is not everything of what should be contained.

14:20:32 [Helen]

Trevor: Yeah - I tried to cover that with the text just before the lists

14:21:05 [Helen]

Catherine: I think that helps, but not quite the right verbage

14:21:48 [Helen]

Wilco: I do not like the open ended definitions as they already inherently ambiguous so you leave the door open for someone to argue their point is the "something else"

14:22:40 [Helen]

... WCAG does the open ended ambiguous definitions but we do not want to do that as we can go back and add it in. So we need to assume this list is complete.

14:22:57 [Helen]

... We have mechanisms to do this and I think we should try here

14:23:33 [Helen]

... As you showed this, I thought a way to flip this is maybe define what is not essential

14:23:55 [Helen]

... Leave everything else in the this may or may not fail category

14:24:01 [Helen]

Trevor: I do like that

14:24:35 [Helen]

Wilco: It fits better with our philosophy as we agree on the non-essential and we would fail those

14:25:19 [Helen]

Kathy: If an image is changing it does not cover that?

14:25:31 [Helen]

Trevor: No this is just text changing

14:26:39 [Helen]

... so are there any objections to inverting this? No - I will work on it.

14:27:12 [Helen]

... What is the difference in ambiguous and objective?

14:29:23 [Helen]

Wilco: In the rules format we made this distinction: Ambiguous means it can be open to interpretation or open ended, and objective is that there is no room for interpretation as not qualitative

14:29:40 [Helen]

Zakim, take up next

14:29:40 [Zakim]

agendum 4 -- Better define how rules related to page states -- taken up [from kathy]

14:31:17 [Helen]

Trevor: It has been a month or so on this state talk - so I hope you remember it well

14:31:33 [trevor]

https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1953

14:31:40 [Helen]

... we have had some iterations but I still have some questions in my head to go through

14:32:41 [Helen]

... talks to the states of roles like the alert shown on the screen

14:33:00 [Helen]

... But I want to cover the questions I had from Carlos's feedback

14:33:03 [trevor]

https://act-rules.github.io/rules/36b590

14:33:57 [Helen]

... so error messages describing the issue. The applicability has interesting points

14:34:26 [Helen]

... so it must identify the test target, the text must be visible etc.

14:35:58 [Helen]

... So Carlos gets around having to talk about state by inferring it

14:36:12 [Helen]

Kathy: It is not clear to me sorry?

14:37:08 [Helen]

Trevor: So if there are no form field indicators it is an automatic pass, but if there is a form field indicator, there is an error that references the form field it refers to

14:37:25 [Helen]

... So it can be through text or presentation

14:38:18 [Helen]

... he assumes that it is in its end state and not how to get there

14:39:04 [Helen]

Wilco: This is a potential problem with the rule format. We have put some parts in the expectation that is subjective that should be in the applicability

14:39:32 [Helen]

... So we have no error indicator or there is and a bunch of end states to check against

14:40:15 [Helen]

Trevor: But we have some tripping points *reads out the text in the note for PR #1953

14:44:20 [Helen]

Wilco: So if there is a pop up message and focus moves to it - that is fine, but we need to know the before and after to know if it passes

14:45:00 [Helen]

Trevor: Yes as Carlos assumes a fixed state whereas we are looking changes of focus of state a and b

14:46:03 [Helen]

Wilco: We want the applicability to include when an event happens like a status message appears and does/does not receive focus

14:46:47 [Helen]

Trevor: So not more than one rule per state, but set it up to handle each type

14:47:02 [Helen]

... and bubbling from event listeners causes issues too

14:47:42 [Helen]

... if you interact with a status message it is very difficult to grab all scenarios but will only focus on some

14:48:28 [Helen]

... like we might want applicability to just initiate a status message that a human can do but programmatically it is difficult

14:49:28 [Helen]

Wilco: We did pitch using Gherkin to write these using Given/When/Then

14:49:47 [Helen]

... Given the home page When I click Then a modal appears

14:50:17 [Wilco]

https://cucumber.io/docs/gherkin/reference/

14:51:06 [Helen]

... we took inspiration from that but we do not have the When part in the rules

14:52:14 [Helen]

https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2022

14:53:59 [Helen]

Helen: This relates to #2022 as also needs some When parts

14:54:13 [Helen]

Wilco: Do we add it into applicability or?

14:54:46 [Helen]

Trevor: Well we could add a new section to cover this?

14:55:58 [Helen]

... multiple expectations is a bit messy

14:56:14 [Helen]

Wilco: YEs - I want that in its own bit - so I am happy with that

14:57:14 [Helen]

... There needs to be a better way to do this

14:57:54 [Helen]

Helen: We could use a section like "Action"?

14:58:47 [Helen]

Wilco: We do not want to tell people how to test - we want it to be flexible

15:00:20 [Helen]

Trevor: Interact/Activate might be better