<scribe> scribe: Suji

<kathy> agneda+ ACT Standup

ACT Standup

Wilco: Co-ordination with w3c, PR and reviews

Helen: list of things to work on

Tom: cfc

Suji: PR review

Trevor: update to subjective applicability, couple of PR reviews

Kathy: Planning

Todd: Nothing much as of now

Catherine: reviewing the github testing plan

Reminder joint CG/TF meeting February 8th

Wilco: Surveys are open
... Intent of the meeting is to do retro and set goals for the next year or two
... Come up with points for discussion

cantTell in consistency

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/558/files

Wilco: cantTell outcome needs to be prioritized differently
... We can't determine the pass status of the success criterion

Tom: cantTell and a pass would be cantTell

Wilco: If there is a failure then it will be always a failure, followed by untested, cantTell

<Helen> +1

+1

<Todd> +1

<trevor> +1

<kathy> +1

<catherine> +1

RESOLUTION: Merge #558 and add to FPWD

Subjective applicability

<trevor> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/555/files

Trevor: 2 changes, cut down the subjective applicability, text contrast example
... 2 approaches to writing ACT rules for Text Contrast example

Kathy: I like it, change it from impossible to accessibility requirement

Trevor: I am unable to state it clearly and will take recommendation to make it more general and stronger

Catherine: Recommend says it's not a 'you have to have it', so you can take it out

Wilco: We shouldn't have the work recommend and take out 'we'

Helen: what about suggested

Wilco: Preferred

Trevor: It is not clear how it would apply to other examples, without having to affect the applicability and to describe it well enough

Kathy: Include it in Expectation section

Wilco: I don't think we need to go this far

Trevor: Writing technique and not a requirement
... normative document, affects the requirement mapping

Wilco: I think it works without the second example
... no need to contrast it with second example

Trevor: Jean-Yves was a fan of the contrasting examples

Wilco: I am okay with it

Kathy: Maybe make example 1 as preferred and example 2 as less preferred

Trevor: Is this useful or is it a bad practice?

Wilco: It is in writing practices territory
... I like this example, and would like to see it in CG writing document
... it is the preferred place than here

Trevor: we have other examples, so I am okay with leaving this

<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/blob/develop/pages/design/rule-design.md

Trevor: and moving it to CG writing doc

Kathy: Do you want to keep the example in without explaining more?

Trevor: I don't think it adds anything new
... Last comment, having the list of criterias for different examples
... do I need to add more info about it?

Wilco: I am okay with that

Trevor: I am pretty much good for the working draft and can we get the voting

<Helen> +1

+1

<catherine> +1

<kathy> +1

<trevor> +1

<thbrunet> +1

<Todd> +1

<Wilco> +1

RESOLUTION: Merged PR #555 and add it to FPWD

Video element visual-only content has transcript

Wilco: open conversation on whether transcript needs to be visible or open to certain AT
... we should get an answer on it soon
... okay with having non-streaming video examples
... wait for response from WCAG on this, Tom

Tom: need to dig into the notes

Wilco: we have media alternative rule which uses a different language
... should it be text or transcript? thought?
... is there a difference between, media alternative text and text transcript?

Tom: there is a minor difference but kind of the same

Wilco: what is the difference? labels?

Tom: the identification is handled differently

Wilco: Text transcript is vague, how about using clearly labeled location and from what web page

Tom: explain more in detail

Wilco: concerned about gif/animations
... do we like the suggested updated better? to include more details

Kathy: is text description same as text alternatives?
... definition in understanding

Wilco: 'document' word is vague in the understanding section is vague
... okay with making the changes?
... to make changes to the transit rule

Video element visual-only content is media alternative for text

Wilco: Rules format question will be tackled separately
... Wilco to update the rule
... there is no expectation 3 but the background section refers to expectation 2 and 3

Tom: get rid of the background

Wilco: both the rules are pretty similar, if we remove the expectation 2, which I don't think is useful
... alternative for time-based media or media alternative for text
... can be treated as same

Tom: the difference is the indication
... technically they are the same

Wilco: Kathy does TT makes a difference?

Kathy: we didn't, next version might
... there is a test but it doesn't get executed until it is labeled as media alternative for text

Wilco: audio and video example
... will pick this up next week
... everyone look at this and see if we can deprecated the rule
... fill out the surveys

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)

Succeeded: s/Todd/Tom/
Default Present: Wilco, thbrunet, Daniel, Helen, kathy, trevor, catherine, ToddL, suji, Jean-Yves_, Todd
Present: Wilco, thbrunet, Daniel, Helen, kathy, trevor, catherine, ToddL, suji, Jean-Yves_, Todd
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.)