Meeting minutes
ACT Standup
kathy: Last week TPAC, good atteendance. Todd only one that was not in attendance.
kathy: to do secondary reqs.
kathy: another change discussed to do with background
Suji: Didn't get to much last week.
trevor: Didn't get to much last week.
Tom: not much last week
dmontalvo: merged a couple PR's and go over Kathy's items. Planning and presentation for CSUN.
Recharter of AGWG
I did not get to anything last week as well.
dmontalvo: AGWG to be rechartered.
dmontalvo: A reset on the way participants will need to rejoin groups. Need nomination from IC rep.
dmontalvo: IE applications will need to be revisited.
dmontalvo: I will be taking care of IE reissue invitations.
kathy: Does CG need to do anything?
dmontalvo: CGs do not need to do anything.
October 5th meeting cancelled
kathy: 5 Oct meeting is cancelled.
TPAC Update
kathy: ANyone who was there feel free to share
dmontalvo: A couple productive days at TPAC. Making progress in ACT rules 1.1
dmontalvo: discussed subjectivity of rules, 118n, will be setting up wiki.
dmontalvo: ariawg, discussed better communication on what is removed and updated
dmontalvo: deprecation of rules discussed e.g., 4.1.1 Parsing
kathy: both TF and community meeting super helpful.
Suji: first time attending TPAC. Really good two days of sessions.
trevor: Several big conversations that got resolved. e.g., Optional test cases.
trevor: Still a lot of work to do.
Subjective exceptions in the applicability
trevor: main talking point. how to define subjective definitions. came up with several different ways.
trevor: e.g., logical operators, scoring. Can be difficult to make formalized definitions.
trevor: talked to Wilco about scoring approach
trevor: The "getting warmer" method seemed to get the most traction
trevor: concensus was default was similar to getting warmer method. we could use the logical operator method.
trevor: Should definitions use concrete examples. Well-described examples.
trevor: Wilco suggested closed subjective definitions to set them apart from other subjective definitions
trevor: Helen brought up complexity concerns that are difficult to implement or overwhelming for people getting into accessibility testing
todd: had a testing discussion with developers. agree with not being too complex
… have heard wcag 2.x is too complex. try to keep complexity down would be great. include examples in definitions
trevor: ACT rules are more for people building test methodogies. not for new testers as much
… less ambiguity is better for harmonization
dmontalvo: Not the group for people getting started with accessibility
dmontalvo: let's make it useful for the prupose of the group. whenever we need to streamline, we can.
thbrunet: tools need to accept they don't have 100% matching with ACT.
thbrunet: depends on environment. people may not want to get involved with ACT
+1, agree.
kathy: Getting Warmer method is new to me.
kathy: what would help for me is when someone is looking at list of items, how many of those items would mean it's a heading for example
kathy: put some parameters around Getting Warmer method
trevor: leaning towards stripping out some stuff
kathy: having examples will help with understanding. concerns with looseness.
thbrunet: could mark them like "beta". once some rules are out could work on more
<trevor> act-rules/
group discussion on navigation example and definitions
trevor: how to make definitions with examples with more than one distinct definition
Updating & renaming the background section
kathy: Topic came out of TPAC discussion last week
kathy: feedback was this was a bit too long
kathy: accessibility support and assumptions will go under background
kathy: background renamed to Understanding
kathy: Wilco will be out the next two weeks, Daniel out next week.