ACT Standup

kathy - still some follow-up on tpac

still some work on label in name

trevor - long paper for ICT testing symposium due next friday

may need an extension

tom - reviewed pull requests. one issue regarding ARIA hidden where he submitted comments.

Helen - remote 4.1.1

October 5th meeting cancelled

kathy - ready for review regarding secondary requirements

542 and 540

<kathy> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/542

<kathy> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/540

updates based on decisions that were made. 542 is how we will enter explanation why certain requirement is considered a secondary requirement. update to ACT rules format

540 is another statement regarding a statement that we wouldn't use a11y requirement and secondary requirement due to variations of a11y support

please review these PRs.

Secondary requirements

trevor - logical - and/or/not to create firm definition. "Getting warmer" method. big discussion was whether or not this is adding too much complexity and the fact that we don't have a hard cutoff.

helen - a simple yes/no list might be better.

trevor - if we put a hard set number on how many things have to much, will 100% lead to false positives/negatives. This is not a training recourse. need to be specific with language. complexity might be necessary to get to goal of harmonization. trying to be simple but still be specific.

helen - maybe amend "getting warmer" approach

trevor - ok with that

helen - subjectivity is open to interpretation. focus too much on "working for all" that we lose initial purpose.

trevor - if we put in glossary definitions, could help everyone understand a little better at what we're aiming at. we can always come back and amend. not set in stone. just continually keep working to a group understanding and converge to the "right" definition.

over time will work towards a group concensus.

helen - likes this

trevor - feels we have gotten close to a group decision.

kathy - we talked about using another example. thoughts on that?

trevor - yes, will consider. will have something in a couple weeks.

shane - what is community group?

kathy - they generate rules. we are responsible for rules format.

they discuss rules much more in depth because they are initial authors and are more technical generally.

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_, Jean-Yves, CarlosD, giacomo-petri, jamesn, jcraig, JaeunJemmaKu, spectranaut_, Matt_King, suji, thbrunet, kathy, trevor, thbrunet_, daniel-montalvo, CarlosD_, ToddL, dmontalvo, catherine, ShaneDittmar
Present: Helen_, Jean-Yves, CarlosD, giacomo-petri, jamesn, jcraig, JaeunJemmaKu, spectranaut_, Matt_King, suji, thbrunet, kathy, trevor, thbrunet_, daniel-montalvo, CarlosD_, ToddL, dmontalvo, catherine, ShaneDittmar, Helen
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: catherine
Inferring Scribes: catherine

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: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


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.)