IRC log of wcag-act on 2024-01-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

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