Meeting minutes
ACT Standup
kathy - catching up
trevor - catching up
catherine - catching up
tom - getting into keyboard trap next
Review spreadsheet Updates needed
kathy - no update on spreadsheet. marked update needed on last rules that we surveyed.
close
close item 2
SC 1.2.1 does not require alternative for time-based media for video-only to be visible
<kathy> w3c/
<kathy> w3c/
kathy - looked at this before. in this issue, there is quite a bit of discussion. media alternative in content needs to be visible?? Answer is no. so this will have impact on several rules related to media
kathy - several rules that kathy and helen are working with. Kathy will pass on to CG and create an issue. any questions on this?
catherine - no
Transcripts in accessibility tree
<kathy> https://
kathy - transcript in a11y tree is another expectation in media transcripts
raised by wilco a little bit ago that this is more of a 1.3.1. requirement and question if they should be in these rules right now. she they be included in the transcript rules?
kathy - alternative is to keep it in a11y tree and we can add 1.3.1 in mapping but hasn't seen this done anywhere else
trevor - would 1.3.1 be a secondary or a full mapping (primary)?
kathy - if expectation is it is included in the a11y tree, it would not be a secondary requirement.
trevor - i think it makes sense. does not hurt anything. feels like it would fit
kathy - no requirement for text script to be visible.
trevor - if we take visible part out, then we prob don't need 1.3.1
trevor - doesn't meet presentation piece
kathy - if we take out visible and out of a11y tree, then the expectation is reduced. text transcript either on the page or linked.
kathy - veridying audio and visual of video element has transcript
kathy - this is a AAA rule 1.2.8. requires both audio description and transcript
trevor - would expect it to be on the page OR linked. but if it's on the page and yuo can't access it, then what's the point
^^ was from tom
kathy - id we keep it included in the a11y tree, kathy will follow up with wilco. he feels it's a 1.3.1.
tom - either on the page or linkned. if on the page, then it's visible, then 1.3.1. or off the page, which is not visible. Or linked, on a separate page or separate step
kathy - what we have with these 3 scenarios could mean 3 atomic rules, rather than combining all in one rule.
trevor - might just need two. whether it's visible or not. the link is an exception case. but agree we need to split into some type of atomic rule if we want 1.3.1 to be included.
tom - 1.3.1 could trigger but not in all cases.
tom - either linked first OR on page and in a11y tree.
trevor - examples of either visible or not visible. if visible, then 1.3.1 is included.
1.3.1 is really not the primary issue here. it's really about the transcipt.
tom - i think we could keep it as one rule since it's not really about 1.3.1, it's about the transcipt
kathy - if 1.3.1 is a secondary, then it shouldn't go in the expectation.
tom - we've removed expectation. if it's in the tree but not visible, then 1.3.1 doesn't apply
kathy - in test cases we could have visible, non visible and linked as passed.
kathy: in that case sc 1.3.1 can be a secondary requirement
What next?
kathy: Trying to figure out what direction we want to go as a group? For CG and TF we identified a few things that everyone wants to work on going forward
… one of those was github guidance, which a few of us have been working on
… we can continue to do surveys and review rules. Several possible things were rules for manual gaps, multi-state rules, and WCAG 3 collab
trevor: short term more rules, long term multi-state rules
… had some conversation with Wilco on this. Would need to figure out where to apply it
kathy: for open rules, there are several video rules, an iframe rule, and one with links
tom: We probably need to do some work refreshing for wcag 2.2 at some point