TPAC 2023

Participants

• Wilco (in person)
• Daniel (in person)
• Carlos (in person)
• Mark (in person)
• gaicomo (in person)
• Helen (remote)
• Suji (remote)
• Trevor (remote)
• Kathy (remote)
• Tom (remote)
• Chris?

W3C Calendar Events

• 14 September
• 15 September

Agenda

Our goal for this TPAC event is to get the ACT Rules Format ready for FPWD version 1.1.

Thursday Agenda

Morning Sessions (9:30 - 13:00)

• Individual working sessions
  • Work on new rules for WCAG 2.2
  • Work on subjective applicability rules
  • Work on WCAG 2.2 migration
• Coffee break: 11:00
• Meet with ARIA WG to discuss backward compatibility 12:00 - 13:00

Afternoon Sessions (14:30 - 18:30)

• Subjective applicability (Trevor)
• Refining secondary requirements (Kathy)
• Defining consistent / partially consistent (Wilco)

Friday

Morning Sessions (9:30 - 13:00)

• Individual working sessions

Afternoon Sessions (14:00 - 18:00)

• Acc support & assumptions in the background (Kathy)
• Optional test cases (Jean-Yves)
• Machine learning and ACT Rules (Wilco)
• Transition states (Trevor)

TPAC Summary

Day 1

Main Topics:

1. iFrame Accessibility: The meeting began with a discussion about issues related to iFrames with role="presentation" and their behavior in different browsers. It was noted that there are inconsistencies in how these are treated, posing accessibility challenges.
2. Deprecating Rules: The participants discussed the deprecation of certain rules, such as those related to SC 4.1.1, and explored the implications of deprecating rules that may not align with newer WCAG versions.
3. Backward Compatibility of ARIA: The issue of changes to ARIA attributes and the need for maintaining backward compatibility were addressed. There was a discussion on creating a list of obsolete attributes.
4. Updates from ARIA WG: The progress of ARIA ACT was reviewed, and feedback from the participants was solicited. It was emphasized that feedback is essential for refining the rules.
5. Subjective Applicability: The meeting delved into the concept of subjective applicability within accessibility rules. Different approaches, including subjective forms, logical operators, and getting warmer/colder methods, were discussed to express subjectivity clearly in the rules.
6. Refining Secondary Requirements: The meeting covered secondary requirements associated with accessibility rules. A draft format for including secondary requirements in rule definitions was presented. There was an emphasis on providing rationale when using secondary requirements. Accessibility support must not be a reason for requirements to be secondary.
7. Defining Consistency: A formal definition of (partial) consistency within the rule format was introduced. The complexity of defining consistency and its impact on rules was discussed. Suggestions were made to clarify the mapping of procedures to implementations.

Decisions Taken:

• The participants decided to include a clear explanation of subjectivity in the rules, with a preference for combining logical and "getting warmer" approaches when defining subjectivity.
• The participants agreed to move the reason for secondary requirements being secondary to the Accessibility Mappings section within rule definitions.
• It was determined that secondary requirements should not be used to cover accessibility support differences.
• Participants decided that the complexity of the rule format for defining consistency should be addressed, potentially by clarifying the mapping of procedures to implementations.

Action Points:

• Participants agreed to explore and provide feedback on the draft format for secondary requirements.
• A joint task force and community group call will be scheduled to present the progress on subjective applicability, secondary requirements, and implementation rules to the AGWG as a first working draft.
• The meeting identified a need for further discussions and clarifications regarding the definition of consistency within rule formats.
• The participants will consider recording the rule format version in rule metadata for backward compatibility.

Day 2

Main Topics:

1. Empty Headings Rule: The meeting began with a discussion about the "Empty Headings" rule. Participants considered options for handling this rule, including deprecating it or mapping it to ARIA standards temporarily. There was general agreement to revisit this rule when a new one is available, and the decision-making process included input from various tools and implementations.
2. Accessibility Support and Assumptions in the Background: The discussion shifted to the organization of information within ACT rules, particularly the inclusion of assumptions and accessibility support in the background section of the rules. There were suggestions to rename the "background" section to "understanding" to better reflect its content. Additionally, the idea of adding rule versions and implementations under this section was considered.
3. Optional Test Cases: Participants discussed the concept of optional test cases in ACT rules. While there was an initial proposal to include optional test cases, concerns were raised about the potential burden on implementers and the maintenance of such test cases. The group leaned towards focusing on leveraging external resources like web platform tests for accessibility support issues rather than adding optional test cases.
4. Machine Learning and ACT Rules: The meeting explored the intersection of machine learning and ACT rules. This included discussions on whether ACT test cases are suitable for machine learning, the training of ML models using ACT test cases, and how confidence levels fit into ACT consistency. It was generally agreed that ACT test cases should remain focused on human-readable rules and that ML training could be handled externally.
5. Biases in Learning Data: The meeting addressed the issue of biases in learning data used for ML models in the context of accessibility testing. Participants discussed the need for guidelines and best practices for training ML models to ensure equitable representation of languages and cultures. It was suggested that ACT rules could play a role in addressing these biases and that collaboration with W3C's Internationalization Working Group might be beneficial.

Decisions Taken:

• The "Empty Headings" rule would not be deprecated but would be mapped to ARIA until a new rule is available.
• The group agreed not to pursue the addition of optional test cases to ACT rules but instead explore the use of external resources like web platform tests for accessibility support issues.
• ML-based testing fits into the automated testing category within ACT rules.
• Participants decided to identify and document biases in ACT rules, particularly with respect to language and cultural biases.

Action Points:

• Create a wiki page to start tracking biases in ACT rules.
• Update the TF rule's survey, adding a question to look for bias in rules.
• Reach out to the W3C Internationalization Working Group for help on rule review.
• Trevor volunteered to draft examples related to transitional states in web content for further discussion in future meetings.