scribe+

<CarlosD> scribe+

ACT standup

<CarlosD> giacomo-petri: sent Daniel info to add tool to implementors list

Wilco: ACT rules format 1.1, need consensus
... please +1 if you didn't do that
... working on new rules format page
... *overview page

CarlosD: missing a way to check unsupported criteria. Probably for the audience it is something that's not relevant (maybe more for us)

Wilco: maybe not interesting for us as well

Sage: no progress in ACT stuff; I'll review the rules format 1.1

Shunguo: Did some reviews

sashanichols: fixing ACT reports for axecore

Helen: I've +1 to the rules format

Define author's responsibility when presentational roles conflict arises - https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2195

<CarlosD> giacomo-petri: Earlier I created 3 rules on presentation role conflict resolution

<CarlosD> ... as Wilco mentioned they overlap with existing rules

<CarlosD> ... but they also have examples that are not covered in those rules

<CarlosD> ... these are covering scenarios that should be addressed by authors

<CarlosD> CarlosD: can we just add these examples to the existing rules?

<CarlosD> giacomo-petri: The applicability and expectations are different so that might not be feasible

<CarlosD> Shunguo: For these rules, the failed examples are most likely reported by other rules we have

<CarlosD> ... these rules are very specific

<CarlosD> giacomo-petri: When I wrote these rules, I did not realize that other rules were already assessing similar issues

<CarlosD> CarlosD: Perhaps you can check what can be moved to the other rules

<CarlosD> giacomo-petri: I can do that and identify what cannot be moved to the other rules so that we decide what we want to do with these rules

False positive in 'Image not in the accessibility tree is decorative' - https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/2335

CarlosD: it's about image not in the accessibility tree is decorative. Mark is pointing out an example that is failing our rule. images, svg, canvas that are ignored by ATs are in fact decorative. Example: raiting system with 5 stars (5 images of stars) where just the 1st has an alternative which conveys the real purpose (e.g. 5 out of 5)
... at the same time we have 4 images that are informative but marked as decorative (so failing) even though the 1st convey the overall meaning

sashanichols: it seems a fail for me

Dan_Tripp: to me the other 4 stars are decorative

Wilco: functionally there is just 1 image, 1 graphic
... Mark has a point about that. Just because something is not an image doesn't mean it's a unit of non-text content.
... Purely decorative images must be ignored, but there are scenarios where it's fine for images not to have an alt text such as when information is available in another way

Dan_Tripp: unit idea it's important here

Wilco: I think we need to change the rule. Rule should allow empty alt for images that are purely decorative or where information is available elsewhere
... If you have just the image in a page, it's important to convey equal content. But if in the page you also have the textual description of the image, you already have the information you need

CarlosD: but in this example, what's the CS? implies you have something like an area described by

Wilco: alt is contextual, information is determined by the author (why I put that picture on the page)
... information changes based on intent. aria-describedby is implied from that

CarlosD: I would agree if the definition of text alternative did not require the text to be programmatically associated with nontext content

Dan_Tripp: I rely on the WAI's alt decision tree
... where they say that if the text is nearby the image, then the image can be considered decorative

Helen: if it's adjacent, if you've got a caption, then it's decorative

Dan_Tripp: I think the idea of programmatic association is overrated

Wilco: I think it doesn't matter if the information is provided with an alt or whatever within the page, as long as you can find it

Shunguo: chaning it will move from auto to manual

Wilco: automated vs semiautomated vs manual is determined by implementation, not by rule itself

Conclusion: update the rule to pass scenarios where information is provided somewhere else within the page

Shunguo: I think we need a clear context for this one, otherwise it might be risky
... we need a concrete description on context (it's a pass because of this context)

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/Danie info/Daniel info/
Succeeded: s/covored/covered/
Succeeded: s/differnen/different/
Succeeded: s/wuch/such/
Succeeded: s/ingormation/information/
Succeeded: s/decoarive/decorative/
Succeeded: s/jsut/just/
Succeeded: s/nerby/nearby/
Succeeded: s/wiuthin/within/
Default Present: giacomo-petri, Helen, Sage, Wilco, sashanichols, Shunguo
Present: giacomo-petri, Helen, Sage, Wilco, sashanichols, Shunguo
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: giacomo-petri
Inferring Scribes: giacomo-petri

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: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


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.)