<scribe> scribe: ChrisLoiselle

ACT Standup

Wilco: Helped Jean Yves with coding regarding test cases. Inline collapsed section help. Layout Bugs.

Catherine: Light ACT week. Pass to Helen.

Helen: No update.

Chris: Manual Rule discussion with Jean Yves with consistent navigation manual rule.

Kathy: Written instruction with screen shots , appreciate feedback .

Label in accessible name also reviewed.

Daniel: Agreed with changes to label in name. This is work the ACT group can do.

Kathy places link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VF5LB09CDwtJ9iRFGJuYL4i8atqvBpA8JnYuGMWfcqo/edit

For GitHub to ACT

Helen: On updates needed, might need to do another survey. Rule ID but not sure rule.

Wilco: Table header cells is assigned to you Helen, any update is great

Better define how rules related to page states

Wilco: Trevor is not here, thus we should skip
... has anyone had a chance to review proposed discussions?

<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/discussions/2046

Wilco: please do review , there was a conversation two days ago around test steps in issue description

I don't think anything has been updated so we won't cover further at moment.

scribe: please do add comments if you have them.

Audio element content has transcript

<Helen> For the table cells - the PR is still open: https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1971

Wilco: Shares screen, talks to audio element survey.
... Talked to pre-recorded comments from Helen. Thought it would be a secondary requirement due to 1.2.1's exception which isn't part of rule. There is a separate rule and a composite rule. We are looking at rule that tests first part

Helen: What about transcript format?

Wilco: Felt that was not a requirement.
... Group thought we didn't need to update that.

Helen: When we use code examples, it should also follow best practices for how to write transcript.
... I want to add it to the idea list so we can capture it.

Wilco: Did we get through auto play conversation?

Kathy: I don't think so.

Wilco: On Q7, reviewing autoplay failed example 4, if you were to load the page, it may not play. There isn't really an accessibility problem if it does not play.

Depending on how you load it, it may play so it is an unpredictable use case cross browsers.

Helen: I believe you can set auto play to off , I believe I disabled it so audio doesn't play.

Wilco: We do assume default settings for configuration for testing. Even with that , it is unpredictable.
... This may difficult to implement thus would be hard to test . Need to get browser to autoplay.

https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-turn-off-autoplay-in-browser/ from Helen

Daniel: I am not sure if we have something like this in accessibility support. As long as we are unable to determine, it would not be consistent behaviour

Wilco: If we aren't changing rule, then placing in accessibility support or background note would be worthwhile.

Kathy: Autoplay, autoplay of true vs. instead of playing . Could we replay playing with the autoplay description?

Wilco: We could , which would make it applicable in those cases.

+1 to Kathy's suggestion. I think that would make it more defined around attribute.

<kathy> from https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/80f0bf/proposed/, applicability has autoplay: the element has an autoplay attribute value of true

+1 to Wilco

<dmontalvo> +1

Wilco: If we also include that auto play may not work in some browsers

<Helen> +1

Wilco: Decision to update applicability to use auto play explicitly instead of playing. and Add note to background about browsers not always playing
... Failed example 6 , aria hidden example should be a failure of 1.3.1 not 1.2.1

+1 in that you wouldn't get the information and the relationship as it is hidden.

Wilco: In changing the order changes the meaning.

Helen: If it is there visually but not there to AT then you are removing it. Hiding is changing the order.

Daniel: I'm not sure if those provisions were in the meaningful sequence criteria.

As long is it not present , I don't know how much applicability is there.

Wilco: I don't think it is needed in 1.2.1 , so staying on topic, update expectation to make it not a failure

+1 to Wilco.

Helen: Inapplicable section rather than what you proposed?

Kathy: This is the only example that TT is inconsistent with.

Wilco: There have been other examples like this. I keep advocating for us to do this. This is consistent. We can have a rule that checks for aria-hidden not hiding important content.
... We are proposing removing and included in accessibility tree from expectation and remove failed example 6
... We need to look at all media rules too.

Helen: I will try do those related rules.

HTML page language subtag matches default language

Wilco: First comment is from Trevor. Talks to phrasing of bullet 4. Bullet point mainly seems to be hiding the 2 circumstances where rule would not be applicable.

Default page is calculated vs. defined..

Kathy: I talked to definition of default page language.
... if there is no default language , then the first language used IS the default.

however rule states there is not default. I think that is what Trevor is talking toward.

Wilco: Rereading Trevor's comment on multiple common languages.

Trevor's comments why wouldn't we have an expectation that either one of the 2 languages used can be the default. WCAG states it as first used out of the two is default.

Inapplicable example 4 , there is no first. You could argue that either one of these are acceptable.

If you were to put German, you'd fail.

Wilco: I like using the first language as default, that makes sense. Then inapplicable example 4 would still be French or English
... First language should be default. We also should allow either or if the sentence or string can be in either language.
... Puts in comments on issue survey around conclusions per discussion above.
... On Q4, talks to Kathy's point on applicability of example 3.
... Talks toward examples and why it is pointing to document title. I believe the phrasing needs to be updated.

Kathy: I believe this can be phrased better.

Wilco: Will clarify why it is relevant.
... Goes through Chris' comment on Q5 on formatting bold of required for conformance. No additional comment from Chris. He is fine with it.
... There were a bunch of inapplicable items, i.e. example 4. On example 3, the html element doesn't directly impact but fails our other rule. We should sort out inconsistency.

+1 to sorting out inconsistency.

Kathy: I can double check TT on whether that would fail.

Wilco: Every HTML element should have an lang attribute. But if it is an empty page, what would you put there?
... if there is no text, does it really need the lang attribute?
... Using validate lang attribute , we have rules around that. If we have no text inside it, it doesn't matter as it doesn't impact anyone. Same argument can be made. Shouldn't fail WCAG due to not impacting end user.

Kathy: Inapplicable example 2, that makes sense.

For example 3, TT would say put lang attribute on HTML.

Wilco: doesn't have title.

Exception would be have no language.

Would a blank page have a page title? If there is no content?

Wilco: Both of these edge cases would need to be reviewed. There shouldn't be a page without a title. Even if the page is empty. We'd presume a page has a lang attribute as it is an HTML page. Makes everything easier. I think it is OK for us to say these still need a lang attribute.

+1 to being consistent.

Kathy and Daniel agree as well.

Kathy: What if you page title is numbers?

Helen: If you are hosting it somewhere, then you'd need to define it.

Wilco: Let us pick up next week.

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)

Default Present: Catherine, Wilco, kathy, trevor, suji, Daniel, ChrisLoiselle, Helen
Present: Catherine, Wilco, kathy, trevor, suji, Daniel, ChrisLoiselle, Helen
Found Scribe: ChrisLoiselle
Inferring ScribeNick: ChrisLoiselle

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: 

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.)