13:57:18 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act
13:57:22 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/01/11-wcag-act-irc
13:57:22 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:57:23 <Zakim> Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference
13:57:26 <kathy> agenda?
13:57:39 <kathy> zakim, clear agenda
13:57:39 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:58:23 <kathy> agenda+ ACT Standup
13:58:39 <kathy> agenda+ Backward compatibility to ACT Rules Format 1.0, PR to Identify Rules Format Version
13:58:47 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #wcag-act
13:58:53 <kathy> agenda+ Subjective applicability
13:59:07 <kathy> agenda+ Video element visual-only content has audio track alternative
13:59:18 <kathy> agenda+ Video element visual-only content has transcript
13:59:28 <kathy> agenda+ Video element visual-only content is media alternative for text
14:00:20 <thbrunet> thbrunet has joined #wcag-act
14:01:01 <Wilco> present+
14:01:30 <thbrunet> present+
14:01:48 <trevor> trevor has joined #wcag-act
14:01:57 <Helen> Helen has joined #wcag-act
14:03:43 <dmontalvo> present+ Daniel
14:03:43 <Wilco> agenda?
14:03:49 <dmontalvo> scribe: Daniel
14:03:55 <dmontalvo> zakim, take up item 1
14:03:55 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- ACT Standup -- taken up [from kathy]
14:04:00 <Helen> present+
14:04:25 <kathy> present+
14:04:43 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Got five new rules published. One of the rules came back, we have this as an upcoming conversation
14:05:04 <dmontalvo> ... Prep for the next AGWG meeting about ACT Rules 1.1
14:05:22 <dmontalvo> Tom: I opened the issue with AG about frames with the same name
14:05:38 <dmontalvo> ... I can't find anything in the SCs that requires a different name
14:05:57 <dmontalvo> ... The rule itself points to a technique but I am not sure how we should handle that
14:05:57 <catherine> catherine has joined #wcag-act
14:06:14 <dmontalvo> Wilco: That was the question. Given it is not explicitly required, would that be?
14:06:51 <dmontalvo> Tom: Sufficient for which purpose? For text requirements there is not a requirement that they are unique
14:07:10 <dmontalvo> Wilco: That is what we need to ask AGWG. There were people on this call saying that two titles have to be unique
14:07:16 <trevor> present+
14:07:36 <dmontalvo> Tom: I can try writing it up
14:08:40 <catherine> Present+
14:09:22 <dmontalvo> Trevor: Subjective applicability, got to fill in two surveys
14:09:47 <dmontalvo> Daniel: Helped with publication and redirects, also started to update work statement
14:10:53 <dmontalvo> Kathy: Opened a PR, 2101. Related to the definition of matching characters: 2144
14:11:16 <dmontalvo> Katherine: Worked on surveys and reviewed PRs
14:12:39 <dmontalvo> Helen: Did the surveys and updated a discussion which is part of the CG. That's about user testing on how label in name works for people who use speech recognition AT
14:12:42 <dmontalvo> zakim, take up next
14:12:42 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Backward compatibility to ACT Rules Format 1.0, PR to Identify Rules Format Version -- taken up [from kathy]
14:13:17 <Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/556/files
14:13:17 <kathy> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/556/files
14:13:51 <dmontalvo> Kathy: This is an update to the rules format 1.1. This is an addition to have rules identify which version of the rules format they were written for
14:14:33 <dmontalvo> [People review the PR]
14:16:28 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Inserting a section means we have to update the numbers in the glossary
14:17:16 <dmontalvo> Daniel: Not sure if that's a Respec thing
14:17:30 <dmontalvo> Wilco: It's in the appendix where we have to update the section numbers
14:18:41 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Is this saying that each ACT Rules must indicate the version or that each rules written for 1.1 must indicate the version
14:19:11 <dmontalvo> ... Also this requirement does not apply to things written for 1.0
14:19:38 <dmontalvo> q+
14:20:43 <dmontalvo> Wilco: We'd need to write it in a way that is future proof. I think we can leave it as-is
14:20:57 <dmontalvo> ack me
14:21:21 <Helen> +1
14:21:22 <trevor> +1
14:21:23 <thbrunet> +1
14:21:28 <catherine> +1
14:21:31 <kathy> +1
14:21:40 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Please +1 if you support this getting into our FPWD or -1 if you don't
14:21:57 <Wilco> RESOLUTION: Accept PR 556 for FPWD
14:22:14 <dmontalvo> zakim, take up next
14:22:14 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Subjective applicability -- taken up [from kathy]
14:22:33 <trevor> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/555/files
14:23:10 <dmontalvo> [Reading time]
14:32:04 <dmontalvo> Trevor: Let's focus especially on the first section. I tweaked them to be more clear and to better explain what we mean
14:32:25 <dmontalvo> Wilco: I like the direction this is heading, I think this looks good
14:33:16 <dmontalvo> Trevor: I was afraid of the similarity between subjective and ambiguous. I think this clarifies that
14:33:39 <dmontalvo> Tom: I think something subjective is inheritantly ambiguous
14:35:11 <dmontalvo> Katherine: L414, I think you need "in"
14:36:22 <dmontalvo> Kathy: 414 I can see splitting as a good advice but not sure what the bottom line of that is
14:37:13 <dmontalvo> ... 465 is the incorrect example -- Is there a way to split this?
14:38:12 <dmontalvo> Trevor: Not sure. One thing that pops up is this example if a common failure and we are not calling it out inside of the format section
14:38:28 <dmontalvo> ... Maybe it's better to put it as an example instead of within the format
14:38:49 <dmontalvo> Wilco: I think it's better in the text here
14:39:36 <dmontalvo> Trevor: I am fine with that, I just think it's similar to what we are doing with the "don't put the applicability in the expectation" below
14:39:48 <dmontalvo> Wilco: I slightly prefer this approach, not strong opinion anyway
14:40:38 <dmontalvo> Daniel: Advice against the use of "correct" versus "incorrect"
14:41:13 <dmontalvo> Trevor: I think that's good
14:41:32 <dmontalvo> Wilco: A couple of editorial changes
14:41:45 <dmontalvo> ... Not sure if that meets WCAG or not
14:42:02 <dmontalvo> Trevor: I'd wrap it in something that has a name
14:42:13 <dmontalvo> Wilco: I don't think it makes sense anymore if you put an accessible name
14:43:38 <dmontalvo> Trevor: I think if we put a name on it that would be fine
14:43:46 <dmontalvo> Tom: Is an example needed for text emoji
14:43:46 <dmontalvo> Trevor: I like how it makes this strongly how these three are far apart in the spectrum
14:44:16 <dmontalvo> Wilco: I think we should leave it in an put an accessible name
14:44:28 <dmontalvo> Trevor: I'll go with that for now. That should be enough for a FPWD
14:45:01 <dmontalvo> Trevor: How do we feel about element styled as a heading? Is it going in the right direction?
14:45:05 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Sounds reasonable to me
14:46:04 <dmontalvo> Trevor: How do people feel about the second example? I'm strongly considering removing this, it does not add anything that the first didn't have
14:46:25 <dmontalvo> ... This section is getting very lengthy with so many examples
14:48:07 <dmontalvo> Tom: The only argument for it is that it's something that feels less subjective but really is
14:48:38 <dmontalvo> Trevor: Not sure that is enough for keeping it
14:49:09 <dmontalvo> Kathy: Couldn't this go to the list of currently available form field indicators?
14:49:31 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Yes, line 412 where we have a number of example things. That's where I would put it
14:50:08 <dmontalvo> Helen: For some people headings would not be such an obvious example here
14:50:41 <dmontalvo> ... It'd be easier if we have a glossary of examples
14:50:58 <dmontalvo> ... These would help people who may not have a clear idea
14:51:12 <dmontalvo> Trevor: We've talked with Wilco about creating an appendix
14:51:24 <dmontalvo> ... But we don't want to overboard the format
14:51:36 <dmontalvo> ... I'm happy adding examples to this list
14:52:08 <dmontalvo> Helen: It does help readability if you keep the top level as sparse as possible
14:52:38 <dmontalvo> ... It also makes it more accessible in the way we process data
14:52:47 <dmontalvo> Trevor: Agree.
14:53:47 <dmontalvo> Daniel: Idea could be to separate this and put it in another Note
14:54:07 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Can we have this discussion somewhere else? Let's open a new issue for that
14:55:01 <dmontalvo> Trevor: Agree. I can make a few changes based on our discussion and then next week we can make a vote as to put them in the WD
14:55:07 <dmontalvo> rrsagent, make minutes
14:55:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/11-wcag-act-minutes.html dmontalvo
14:56:05 <dmontalvo> Topic: Surveys due next week
14:56:08 <dmontalvo> Wilco: People please complete the surveys by next week
14:57:20 <dmontalvo> rrsagent, make minutes
14:57:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/11-wcag-act-minutes.html dmontalvo