<scribe> scribe: dmontalvo

ACT Standup

Kathy: CG is requesting a new section for the ACT Rules format

Daniel: I think we could do that and publish after that

Tom: Conversation with Jean-Yves on the frame thing, opened an issue, two call for consensus went out

Katherine: Got into how to GitHub for ACT
... Looks good so far, a lot of information and poiners to documentation

Kathy: I haven't look at that in a long time. You are welcome to edit

Daniel: Just send me an email if you don't have edit access

Helen: Work on transcript rules that we discussed, still to fix secondary requirements
... Jean-Yves does not like the resolution

Trevor: PR Wilco had on the ACT Rules repo. Getting comfortable with environment
... Will merge now that Daniel gave me permissions
... Subjective applicability on CG rule writing guide
... If you have some content that has an explicit exception the subjectiveness will go in the expectations, otherwise it should go on the applicability

<kathy> scribe+

<kathy> Daniel: work statement, planning, worked with Trevor

<trevor> CG rule writing guidance update PR: https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2156

Updated Work Statement - Daniel

https://github.com/w3c/wai-about-wai/pull/244/files

https://deploy-preview-244--wai-about-wai.netlify.app/about/groups/agwg/task-forces/conformance-testing/work-statement/

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ACT TF approves Work Statement

Helen: +1

<thbrunet> +1

<trevor> +1

<kathy> +1

<catherine> +1

RESOLUTION: ACT TF approves Work Statement

Review spreadsheet Updates needed

Kathy: Row 22 -- three video rules. I am still waiting on the answer regarding whether the transcript for video visual elements needs to be visible. Not much activity in there, but a lot of back and forth
... Like the audio rules wich have three parts, two of them will be deprecated
... Waiting on whether the transcript needs to be visible, and on Helen's work on whether transcript needs to be in the accessibility tree

Tom: CFC page orientation was due before this meeting. AFAIK we only needed to update the test cases because they locking the rotation. They were not visible, not realistic
... The other CFC was a more substantial change, didn't hear anything about that one

Kathy: Do you mind sending it again?

Tom: Sure

Kathy: We've gotten no objections, I think next step is ready for WG

Daniel: Yes

Kathy: Thiss is line 17, line 12 closes next week
... Audio element content has transcripts. Jean-Yves asks for examples that illustrate how these are not 1.3.1 failures

Tom: Lines 5 and 6 are the same rule
... can't find the iframe element rules
... It's on 18. I opened an issue

Kathy: Are you getting response on this ACT clarification issue?

Tom: We found two or three issues. everyone is agreeing that 4.1.2 only says it has to be programmatically available, it doesn't even say it has to be accurate
... Unoficial agreement is for it to be at least descriptive
... To me there is no normative backup for this rule, 2165 is to bring this back to the CG

KAthy: If we are not getting responses we can put together a list of open issues
... In this case I don't even know if we need a response
... I think it just needs to go with the CG
... Deprecating?

Tom: Since it is only proposed, I think we could just remove it

<trevor> scribe+

2.5.3 - control with label but no accname

Kathy: This is an item that Wilco said the TF should review

<kathy> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2057

Kathy: We touched on this in a previous meeting. They are trying to improve the understanding for 2.5.3
... Wilco thought it would be appropriate to have 4.1.2 included as well
... If you look through the comments, someone suggested 1.3.1 is also applicable
... The PR is still open, we can provide additional suggestions.

[Reading break]

Kathy: Essentially I'd like to get some thoughts.

Trevor: 2.5.3 feels like secondary, as it only applies to very specific examples
... I would put this under 4.1.2 or 1.3.1 before 2.5.3

Helen: I think it should be 1.3.1, because when it is visible, it is not associated. 4.1.2 is when there's even nothing to associate it to
... 2.5.3 should be when there is not a programatic name that matches the accessible name

Tom: I think the rule wwe have now needs to be split
... Form field with no label -- 4.1.2
... Form field with label but no accessible name -- 2.5.3 and 4.1.2

Trevor: What about 1.3.1 for the latter?

Tom: Probably does apply, need to think it through
... I think 1.3.1 applies when you have Visible label but no name, but not if you don't have label at all

Trevor: Agree. The rule needs to either be split or add these other components

Tom: 1.3.1 and 2.5.3 have the precondition that there is a visible label. If that is not met, then these don't match

Kathy: When there is no visible label and no accessible name, is it just 4.1.2?

Tom: That's my position

Kathy: I would agree
... When we do have visible label and no accessible name 4.1.2
... No accessible label, no name, 1.3.1

Tom: I think it's the three of those

Kathy: I'd propose rule that when there is a lable but it does not match, it's 2.5.3
... Here we are saying that when there is a visible label and no accessible name it's all three SCs

Tom: If it has visible text and no name then it wouldn't match that 2.5.3

Helen: Visible label no name I don't think it fails 2.5.3. It only is applicable when there is an accessible name

<thbrunet> No label, No name: 4.1.2. Visible label, no name: 1.3.1, 2.5.3, 4.1.2. Visible label and name, but label not in name: 2.5.3. If label, name, and label in name, pass all three.

Kathy: I don't see anything that the accessible name needs to be empty for 2.5.3

Tom: You don't fix 2.5.3 just by fixing 4.1.2

Kathy: I think we all agree in the first part of Tom's assessment.
... Helen are you OK with second part including all three

Helen: Yes, but I think 2.5.3 would be secondary though

Tom: We are trying to match the visible label, not the name

Kathy: I don't think AG is too concern on whether this is primary or secondary as long as we deem it applicable

Helen: Sounds good to me

Kathy: Third part, we only have 2.5.3. I think that's what 2.5.3 is for. Would also 1.3.1 be needed?

Helen: 2.4.6 is also included, because it is not making any sense for the user

KAthy: I think this is a separate issue. 2.4.6 is about labels being descriptive

Helen: I would not include 1.3.1, only 2.5.3

Kathy: Everybody OK?
... Thank you all, I will respond in this PR and let them know our decision

Daylight savings

Daniel: ACT will be an hour earlier out of the US for three weeks

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/assumptions/expectations/
Default Present: kathy, catherine, Helen, thbrunet, Daniel, Todd, trevor
Present: kathy, catherine, Helen, thbrunet, Daniel, Todd, trevor
Found Scribe: dmontalvo
Inferring ScribeNick: dmontalvo

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.)