<scribe> scribe: Suji
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2060
[Wilco]: Secondary requirements, with changes to conditionally applicable. Kathy to review it. Chose related instead of conditionally applicable.
[Helen]: Chat with Karen to help start manual test. Worked on PR.
[Tom]: Will be working this week
<kathy> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2093#pullrequestreview-1564841573
Kathy: PR to remove <html> and <body> tags. John suggested putting it back.
Wilco: Not convinced. Since it is applicable only to descendants of the <body> element. I am okay with it but it is not my preference.
Suji: I am okay either ways
<kathy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/de46e4/
Helen: I like how Kathy's done it
Tom: Make an argument browser's will do or add a note it is within a html body tag
Wilco: I prefer John's solution over adding a note. I am not sure if applicability should mention the <body> element. It doesn't technically matter. Is anyone opposed to the cahnge?
Helen: Send an email to John
Wilco: Applicability is strong
and should not exclude html element... John has convinced me.
Let's change it the way he suggested.
... it is clearer and cleaner to have it in the examples
Suji: Connect with Kathy and work on annual review
Todd: Approving PR's
Wilco: Number of rules where failing a rule in only certain scenarios like browser technology and Assistive technology. Example, auto-play audio and all do it the same way and all do it all the time
<kathy> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/discussions/2095
Wilco: Meta elements, using it to
restrict zooming in mobile devices. Some browsers in mobile
ignore it all together and varies from browser to browser. You
can fail the reflow as a failure or not and mark it as a best
practice or warning.
... iframes behave differently in different browsers
... empty heading elements get often ignored but not
everywhere. There is inconsistency around whether we fail them
or mark them as needs review
Kathy: Wilco added a discussion
https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/discussions/2095
... Didn't send it out to the community yet
Wilco: Trying to get test suites
to be more consistent. We have to decide whether or not to fail
the success criteria. There are also levels of Accessibility
support. Testers have flexibility on things.
... so depending on the browser and technology they can
determine it is a pass/fail
Tom: Minimum requirement, one combination of browser + AT. You may not know they issue exists until you test with a particular combination.
Helen: When you code, you fix based on the browser?
Tom: File bugs with browser + AT
Wilco: Browser are allowed to choose how they render
Kathy: In the previous trusted tester example, some examples weren't auto-playing now all the videos were auto-playing. So there might have been a browser update
Wilco: If it works in none, then it is not acceptable
Tom: How many different combinations to support and test? We need one minimum combination
Helen: Depending on how things
are used, it may be or may not be an issue
... non-text, like an image vs a place holder image for a video
with a play button
... on Android something works with Talkback but not with
Switch Access. Then it is an issue.
... it should be failed as an issue due to browser
<kathy> Suji: depends on instance to instance
<kathy> ... at a bare minimum, if it works with one browser and AT, it passes
<kathy> ... mark others as best practice
<kathy> wilco: so not a failure if it works in several browsers
Todd: I do test with 2 different
screen readers, mobile - voice over and talkback
... I am not sure which way I would lean on this
... I am neutral
Tom: Automated failures fail everywhere. Manual stuff is different
Wilco: In Axe, we are stricter on
Accessibility support
... manual audits are not thorough
<kathy> suji: different results in Windows and Mac
Wilco: If they are secondary what is we are not failing that under WCAG
Tom: We are acquiring a recommendation
Helen: Checkpoints which fail 6
different success criterions, fixing it for one might fix it
for all of them
... should we be bothered by which one it fails?
Wilco: We wanted to make sure that correct success criteria is failed. Sometimes other success criteria might fail but not required to mention
Helen: Do you list it in both and them report in both?
Wilco: Report a issue and mention the list of success criterions impacted
Helen: It might always fail for AAA requirement. It is difficult to achieve.
Wilco: Failing as best practice,
we know it can be a WCAG failure. Should we be looking at it as
a different type of issue?
... Pass/Fail/Can't tell
Helen: Techniques and best practices... but is not a failure
Wilco: It is a normative failure
in a screen reader you didn't cover
... outside the scope of my audit
... issue with a particular browser
Helen: JAWS and Voiceover are
good at guessing. NVDA doesn't.
... over-engineering to get something to work in a particular
browser
Kathy: Trevor expressed concerns
about A11y support in secondary requirements, we should include
him in the dicussion.
... Fails with JAWS, we fail it. Because there could be other
AT's that it fails with
... The SC is stricter than the rule. Keyboard trap SC listed
as secondary for both. SC allows more solutions than the
rules.
... trying to get it to fit best. If it is listed as secondary
requirement, it may get overlooked.
Helen: When testing with screen reader, if there is a power user vs a beginner
Wilco: Turn off meta elements.
Rule on scrollable elements. Patrick reached out, may be that
passes if cursor is enabled.
... it is not standard behavior
Kathy: Testing with auto-play earlier, you can enable/disable auto-play setting. We told tester to enable the setting. Users would disable it.
Helen: With screen readers, auto-filled alt-text for images
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: Helen, kathy, Wilco, Suji, thbrunet, ToddL, Catherine Present: Helen, kathy, Wilco, Suji, thbrunet, ToddL, Catherine Found Scribe: Suji Inferring ScribeNick: Suji WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]