Meeting minutes
ACT Standup
Wilco: reviewed rules, trevors discussion, then helping some others with their rules
<ChrisLoiselle> act-rules/
Chris: Working with Wilco on having Oracle become and implementer. Put a PR out for one of my rules (see link above)
… then answered surveys for the current week.
Catherine: Just surveys this week.
Trevor: Just surveys this week for me as well.
Daniel: Reached out to some potential TF members. Also added some guidance for the github instructions
Suji: Getting ramped up
Kathy: Update to trusted tester implementation and added results for link name in context and reviewed a few other things.
… also did some surveys and had a few emails with someone in CG about label in name.
Better define how rules related to page states
<trevor> https://
Trevor: Shares screen. Talks through stateful new rule on status messages.
… JavaScript as an input aspect and including here.
… any feedback?
… thumbs up on discussion topics. On 4th topic, Wilco added a couple of words on definition .
Wilco: Similar to other definitions we've done.
Trevor: It would need to be objective definition and constrict it somewhat. Action item on me to do that a bit.
Trevor: Wilco provided code snippet on triggering event.
Wilco: Tells tools actions are involved and starts with an event and a I'm done event. Listener and trigger start event.
Trevor: Multiple times?
Wilco: Should be once.
Trevor: Trigger one event to fill form. Do all the things and then run at end?
Wilco: I'm not sure we'd need to step through .
Trevor: Would things be able to track well enough? Concern on tracking . Perhaps trigger next vs. trigger all?
Wilco: You could pass an argument in your listener trigger to find if there is a next event. Callback would be able to ref that data.
Trevor: I can modify a bit. Finer grain control is possibly a good thing.
Trevor: Examples are in code pen for reference vs. code example.
Kathy: In providing for comment number 5, for manual testers , will there similar type of instructions ? In plain language vs. technical
Trevor: Manual test should see a form and run the usual test to inspect forms. The manual tester shouldn't need to worry about the scripting
Kathy: If not obvious outcome from the code , wondering what steps are for manual review.
Trevor: Actions and expected result. Worry is how prescriptive test is run. Perhaps better phrasing around that.
Wilco: If we are including instruction on how to run the test case, then where is responsibility rule and instruction lie?
… If we are talking toward manual testers , as it should be part of test procedure, then why does not apply to automation as well.
Trevor: If you have a human performing the action , they'd need to understand how to run to recognize these.
Wilco: It isn't something a tester needs to do , the applicability is phrased in a way where it is an observer , then expectation .
… I would say same instructions in test case description to say x, y, z.
Trevor: I would not be surprised if we received comments on this. Kathy, I'll revise the descriptions.
Kathy: Maybe after we see a couple, we can get a group opinion on it. Test case description provided, some may understand how to get the status messages to appear.
Trevor: I'll review for next week. Any other questions?
Wilco: Is finding the different page states part of accessibility testing requirement , or is it outside of it?
Trevor: I'd need to review on . It is on test procedure.
Wilco: It is similar to finding a page to test. However it is at page level and that all states conform. The states are implicitly part of that.
procedures are part of that.
Trevor: If procedure doesn't meet requirement then page doesn't and doesn't conform.
Kathy: I agree with what you are stating.
DMontalvo: Maybe it isn't specific, but more complete process part is related to the discussion.
Trevor: Sounds like a new discussion thread.
Wilco: Let's pick that up and move to surveys.
Audio element content has transcript
Wilco: Comment from Helen about if 1.2.1 should be included as a secondary requirement
… looking for a complete transcript of the audio with this requirement. Didn't have secondary when we wrote this rule
… I think audio output needs to be linked in input aspects. Minor change to fix in the template somewhere.
… also tripped up by "either on the page or through a link". Find link to be a bit vauge, what kinds of link.
… we used a definition of instrument where the instrument is on the same page or in a clearly labelled location
… lets use clearly labelled location in place of "link"
… question 4, helen mentions that the transcripts are not outlining if it is one person or more than one person. It is also missing timestamps
… is this required?
<ChrisLoiselle> I think if we are stating one thing on the rule, that EO would update https://
Kathy: We don't require it in transcripts, we are just looking for an equivalent
<ChrisLoiselle> "Make it is easy for users to know that a transcript is available and to get to the transcript. For example, put the transcript itself or a link to the transcript right under the video. Is referenced in the above link."
Daniel: If it was an interactive transcript it would be required. But for this I wouldn't think so
Wilco: Even if it is a best practice, which it may not be for short transcripts, we don't necessarily have to conform to best practices. Think we should leave as is
<ChrisLoiselle> https://
<ChrisLoiselle> Include timestamps only when useful. In many cases, including timestamps would be unnecessary clutter. If you do include them, they usually don’t need to be as granular as the captions, and do not need to include end times.
Wilco: Wilco question on number 5, should cross link to the other audio rules, like the composite rule
Kathy: Thought we had some reference in the rule mapping that said when an atomic rule is part of a composite rule
Wilco: Haven't done that, but sounds like a good idea.
Wilco: We have had a long standing issue where all of our rules use pre-recorded audio and video, but have not found a streaming video source.
… which we had examples of streaming, but we don't have any.
<ChrisLoiselle> understood.
Wilco: Chris comment on passed example 1 that it has some weird line wrapping.
Chris: Just seemed a little weird compared to the other examples
Wilco: That is just due to some of the auto-formatting. I could possibly look at configuring it to see if we can make it wrap better on the page.
Wilco: My comment on number 7. Have some examples with autoplay, which can sometimes be questionable with WCAG.
… browsers also dont necessarily allow autoplay anymore. Experiences can differ based on how you reach the page
… Failed example 4 could possibly not even be a failure if the audio doesn't play.
Kathy: S.C. doesn't have a requirement that it be the only content on the page. Only the <3 second
Wilco: I don't see any harm removing autoplay from some of these examples and just adding it to the background.
… creates a little bit of a gap, but removes some possible inconsistencies
Chris: It would depend on the user agent?
Kathy: I ran into the problem of it not playing consistently as well.
Wilco: These examples are failures of WCAG, but it may not automatically play so you may not find a failure
Wilco: Also inclined to say that example 6 is a failure of 1.3.1 and not failing 1.2.1