14:03:09 RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act 14:03:13 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/03/27-wcag-act-irc 14:03:13 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:03:14 Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference 14:03:27 present+ Daniel 14:04:16 scribe+ 14:04:25 present+ 14:04:35 present+ 14:04:37 present+ 14:04:54 present+ 14:06:36 zakim, take up next 14:06:37 agendum 1 -- CSUN recap -- taken up [from Daniel] 14:06:43 sashanichols0 has joined #wcag-act 14:06:56 + 14:07:12 Wilco: Jean-YVes and I presented at CSUN two years ago 14:07:50 ... A couple people said they'd be interested in joining 14:07:59 ... Will wait and see 14:08:00 present+ 14:08:12 zakim, close this item 14:08:12 agendum 1 closed 14:08:13 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 14:08:13 2. -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-act/2025Feb/0002.html Suggestions for rules to be sent for AGWG approval [from Daniel] 14:08:17 zakim, take up next 14:08:17 agendum 2 -- -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-act/2025Feb/0002.html Suggestions for rules to be sent for AGWG approval -- taken up [from Daniel] 14:10:30 Shunguo: Do we want to clean up examples? For instance, based on HTML5 summary element is only.l used as a first child of the details element 14:10:52 ... Similarly to fieldset and legend 14:11:07 Wilco: I don't think we want to change the example here 14:11:29 ... These are things we want testers to pass even if it's invalid HTML 14:11:45 .. I do think it's worth noting that this is not valid HTML, maybe in the rules background 14:11:58 https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/2779a5/ 14:12:02 ... Thee rule I'm thinking of is the one in titles 14:12:21 ... We have a similar thing going on where we include multiple titles 14:12:38 ... We know it's not correct but it doesn't cause accessibility problems 14:12:57 Shunguo: The problem is if you have an empty summary element 14:12:58 sashanichols has joined #wcag-act 14:13:30 Shunguo: Another is if the summary uses aria-label and summary happens to contain text 14:14:13 ... If you give aria-label the text isn't available 14:14:20 Wilco: We have other rules for this 14:14:30 ... We try to have our rules focused 14:14:34 Shunguo: Then that's fine 14:15:27 Shunguo: aria required owned element there is an inapplicable case that to me is a pass one 14:15:49 ... They all have an explicit role 14:16:36 ... Inapplicable example 2 is a native UI. The list item is implicit role 14:16:41 s/explicit/implicit/ 14:16:52 Wilco: This only applies to elements with explicit role 14:16:57 Shunguo: There are mixed cases 14:17:22 ... Some element have implicit,others have semantic role 14:18:03 Wilco: The applicability here is about explicit elements. The expectation allows for explicit and implicit. We have separate rules for implicit scenarios. For example table rules for native elements 14:18:16 ... Are you suggesting that these should be the same rules? 14:18:48 Shunguo: Fine. But to me the custom widget example would be mixed. How would you handle this? 14:19:06 Shunguo: You have explicit for some, for some you don't have because it's using implicit role 14:19:51 Wilco: Is that a problem with the rule? 14:20:28 Shunguo: This is tricky for custom widgets where it might not be easy to tell whether they are explicit or implicit roles 14:21:47 Wilco: Does anyone want to weigh in as to whether a distinction between implicit and explicit role is worth pursuing? 14:22:01 Kathy: Not clear what the ARIA spec includes 14:22:20 Shunguo: This is the ARIA in HTML spec -- div and span have implicit roles of generic 14:23:51 https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/html-aria/pull/435.html 14:25:19 Shunguo: It first marks an implicit role and then it says which other roles you could use 14:25:54 ... For this rule we should consider implicit and explicit equally 14:26:12 ... There is no difference in whether the role is used from the default mapping or specified by the user 14:26:18 s/user/author/ 14:27:09 Wilco: I was fully under the impression that we had separate rules for native elements and for ARIA 14:27:50 ... But I am realizing I can't find these rules 14:28:18 ... So I think you are right, I think we should have to supply the implicit semantics 14:28:27 ... ul should have li elements 14:28:41 Kathy: That particular rule is mapped to 1.3.1 14:29:13 s/That particular/ARIA required owned elements/ 14:29:58 ... Are we looking at whether these elements are present or just at the info and relationship? 14:31:03 Shunguo: I think this is required by WCAG. Other case for this is custom widgets that are created using ARIA 14:31:51 Kathy: The way the rule is written I am not sure if it'd fail. But I understand you are trying to go beyond to cover custom widgets 14:32:19 ... I understand the implicit role concept, but just the way the rule applicability is written, the example does not have the explicit role, which is inapplicable 14:32:49 Wilco: I think the examples are correct for the rule as it's written. But this rule could cover also things that have implicit role, and Shunguo has a good point on that 14:33:17 ... I think we should open an issue for this, it wouldn't be that complicated to change 14:33:42 Kathy: Even if another rule did exist that wouldn't meet this example? 14:33:56 Wilco: If we change the applicability to "any semantic roles" it would pass. 14:34:14 Kathy: Are you suggesting taking out "explicit" from this rule? 14:34:20 Kathy: OK, I'm fine with that. 14:35:40 Wilco: Do we need that update before we send the rule to AG? 14:36:34 Daniel: I wouldn't send something to the larger group knowing that we are about to change it 14:36:41 Wilco: We've done it in the past 14:37:02 Rachael: How long would it take to make the change? 14:37:14 Wilco: It depends on who is up to work on it 14:37:28 Shunguo: I can volunteer to take this on and ask for your review 14:37:49 Wilco: That's appreciated. You could open an issue or open a PR straight away 14:38:09 Wilco: I'll take on the summary group 14:38:41 [[Overall agreement on discussed approach]] 14:38:49 zakim, take up next 14:38:49 agendum 3 -- -> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/534 rules format 1.1 backward compat -- taken up [from Daniel] 14:39:27 Wilco: Trevor opened this a while ago. This is about backwards compatibility of the rules with 1.0 14:39:53 ... The conclusion we came to is that 1.1 is not quite backward compatible with 1.0. The reason being that there are some requirements in 1.1 that are not in 1.0 14:40:31 ... Specifically we are allowing the applicability to be subjective 14:40:56 ... Daniel proposed adding something very explicitly in the rules format acknowledging that it's not backwards compatible 14:41:18 ... Is this a reasonable way forward to everybody? 14:41:54 Daniel: I'll take silence as agreement -- I'll put a PR for this 14:42:15 zakim, take up next 14:42:15 agendum 4 -- -> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/533 satisfying tests -- taken up [from Daniel] 14:43:19 https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/532 14:43:46 Topic: Satisfying test -> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/532 14:44:36 Wilco: The quesztion here was that the rules have passed and inapplicable examples. Passed means 99% of the times that it requires further testing. Rules almost never can tell it the SC is passed, they can tell for sure when something fails 14:45:03 ... There is this mismatch -- we talked about this extensively when we wrote the first version of the rules format 14:45:26 ... We came up with satisfying texts for when passing the rule means actually passing the SC 14:45:44 ... The open question is if this address Tom's concern? 14:46:05 Kathy: I don't think we have any satisfying text 14:46:18 Wilco: I don't like the name anymore. It's a rule, not a test 14:46:27 Wilco: Maybe sufficient rule 14:47:33 Kathy: I think we've also added information when an atomic rule is part of a composite. That might be adding to what Tom is looking for 14:48:13 Wilco: I've been working today on whether we could be more explicit for some of the composite rules 14:48:58 Kathy: He also says "Better way to describe the impact of passed versus cant tell" 14:49:14 ... His use of cant tell may be different from the cant tell in implementation results 14:50:11 Shunguo: There is no one on one mapping of ACT rules and SCs? 14:50:14 Wilco: No. 14:51:19 Wilco: Even if the rule's applicability is fully tested and passed, that doesn't mean there are other things on the page that also need testing 14:52:03 Kathy: Would our caption rules be satisfying tests? 14:52:20 Wilco: No because there are other ways of embedding video in web pages 14:52:46 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:52:48 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/27-wcag-act-minutes.html Daniel 14:53:25 Wilco: I think we've gone as far as we could go without Tom. I'll reach out to him and see if he's OK with the outcome of this discussion 14:53:48 Topic: Simplified navigation 14:54:29 Wilco: There might be a potential for ACT rules in that work, especially if it's programmatically determinable 14:55:13 ... Wonder if we could bring this up with them 14:55:29 Daniel: I need to engage with Matt for a couple of comments, I'll do that. 14:55:36 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:55:37 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/27-wcag-act-minutes.html Daniel 14:57:20 Chair: Wilco 14:57:21 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:57:23 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/03/27-wcag-act-minutes.html Daniel 16:57:27 jamesn has joined #wcag-act 17:00:19 spectranaut_ has joined #wcag-act