<JustineP> scribe: JustineP

ACT rules review https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/act-rules-2020-09/

Question 1 - HTML page has non-empty title

Chuck: Will review ACT rules ready for publishing/approval

Alastair: I found examples with iframes a bit confusing.
... why is SVG example considered inapplicable?

Chuck: Let's jump forward until Wilco joins

Question 4 - Button has non-empty accessible name

<AWK> +AWK

Chuck: No objections to 4th rule. Does everyone agree to publish?

<alastairc> +1

<Detlev> +1

<AWK> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<Sukriti> +1

<Wilco_> +1

<Glenda> +1

<kirkwood> +1

RESOLUTION: Rule has been approved for publishing

Question 1 - HTML page has non-empty title

Wilco: SVG titles don't get announced...not to say that SVGs don't need to meet this SC
... iframe title elements are never announced as far as I know
... title attributes on iframe matter

<AWK> The iFrame is an embedded resource on the page

Chuck: Alastair, are you satisfied?

Alastair: Yes

<AWK> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<Nicaise> +1

<Raf> +1

<Wilco_> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Glenda> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<alastairc> +1

RESOLUTION: Rule has been approved for publishing

Question 2 - Image has non-empty accessible name

AWK: Description on one seemed a bit strange b/c the space in the alt attribute is trimmed off by accessible name computation

Wilco: An explicit semantic role is defined by role attributes and implicit role comes from native elements
... Image can have two roles depending on attributes

Chuck: Only an explicit role if using the role attribute?

Wilco: Yes

AWK: Fine with me

<Wilco_> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<Nicaise> +1

<alastairc> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Glenda> +1

<kirkwood> +1

RESOLUTION: Rule has been approved for publishing

<Francis_Storr> +1

<Levon> +1

Question 3 - Link has non-empty accessible name

Sarah: Was questioning some attributes. How did role="none" contribute to fail? Was failed example 9 intentional? If so, suggest explaining why.

Chuck: Wilco, would you consider this?

Wilco: First rule was intended to cover scenario but perhaps role 2 is a better example

Sarah: Perhaps I don't understand

Chuck: Are you okay with keeping "as is"?

Sarah: Okay, but feel that failure should be described in text

Katie: Will role="presentation" be deprecated?

Wilco: Can add another example to include that.

Alastair: Same type of comment as Sarah. Example 9 seems to be more descriptive. Either remove role from first example or explain why its there.

Wilco: Sounds fine.

<Ryladog> +1

<Nicaise> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Wilco_> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

Chuck: Approve with amendments? Vote +1 to approve.

<Glenda> +1

<Melanie_Philipp> +1

<jon_avial> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<alastairc> +1 with ammends: Remove 'role' from example 1, improve wrapping.

RESOLUTION: Rule has been approved for publishing with amendments

<Levon> +1

Question 5 - Form control has non-empty accessible name

<Wilco_> +1

<Ryladog> +1

Chuck: #5...support to publish? No objections logged.

<bruce_bailey> +1

<jon_avial> +1

<alastairc> +1

<Glenda> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Levon> +1

<Nicaise> +1

RESOLUTION: Rule has been approved for publishing

Question 6 - Meta viewport does not prevent zoom

<Ryladog> +1

Chuck: #6, no objections logged. Vote to approve?

<Nicaise> +1

<Wilco_> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Melanie_Philipp> +1

RESOLUTION: Rule has been approved for publishing

<Ryladog> +1

<Wilco_> +1

Chuck: #7 also no objections logged. Vote to approve?

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Nicaise> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<AWK> +1

RESOLUTION: Rule has been approved for publishing

<Francis_Storr> +1

<gn015> -1 the double negation makes the rule hard to undetrstand. Can the title be changed?

GN015: Would like to fix double negation in title

<alastairc> "meta viewport allows for zoom"

Wilco: No concerns with tweaking language but need a suggestion.

Alastair: Consider using "allows" to avoid double negative

<kirkwood> +1

<kirkwood> allows for is clear

Wilco: Okay with that suggestion.

Silver requirements pre-CFC https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/silver-requirements-pub/

Moving Silver Requirements to a group note

Mike: If I have an SVG with a text element inside of it, would it pass? I don't see it specified.

Wilco: Text is not used to compute accessible name for SVG.

Mike: I don't understand how it could fail with text inside of the element.

<jon_avial> https://www.w3.org/TR/svg-aam-1.0/

<jon_avial> Link to the AAM for SVG.

<mbgower> <div class="flex-item"><svg> <circle id="circle4" class="flex-item circle4" cx="40" cy="40" r="24" onclick="changeStatus(4)" /> <text id="text4" class="text4" x="14%" y="55%" alignment-baseline="middle" text-anchor="middle" fill="yellow">Neville</text> </svg> </div>

Wilco: It fails b/c it doesn't provide the accessible name. Is a question for the ARIA working group.

Chuck: Moving on to Silver questionnaire item 1

<alastairc> mbgower - if you could look through the name calc, there might be a but to raise on either the ACT rule or the ARIA accname spec?

Chuck: overwhelming support in survey responses.

<sajkaj> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

Chuck: does the group approve?

<Francis_Storr> +1

<Sukriti> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<jeanne> +1

<alastairc> +1

<Melanie_Philipp> +1

RESOLUTION: Approved to move Silver Requirements to a group note

<Fazio> +0

Silver scoring https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/silver-scoring/

Chuck: Next is silver scoring examples.

<Rachael> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pGkfAsRmMD2HTm_5iOL2vyi4rlLwucBS/view?usp=sharing

Location of Examples of Silver Scoring

Peter: Its a good addition but I'd like to see actual pages that example is looking at. Would be more helpful for the reader.

Rachael: Challenge is that we have a limited subset of methods that don't always apply to test pages.
... don't want to reference those in a WCAG document b/c we don't have permission to use those pages.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask whether someone could volunteer a site?

<Wilco_> What about the Before and after demo pages?

<Glenda> can we use any of these? https://dequeuniversity.com/demo/

Alastair: Would be helpful to have a general example.

Glenda: These are sites used for teaching re what not do do (inaccessible sites)

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about sample pages

Jeanne: Setting up sample pages for testing -- subgroup met yesterday. UK has open source pages that we have permission to use, and we are setting up more pages with a variety of pages with accessibility issues.

Peter: All of these options are good...are we over-engineering though? Scoring example is small. Can we construct a few pages with errors?

Jeanne: Its enough work that we haven't had time to do it. We are just starting to tackle it now.

<Glenda> I find “non-changing” examples to be very useful.

AWK: There is value in using real examples...might be able to use some Adobe sites

<Fazio> Doesn’t it need to be a permanent page/example that won’t be fixed later?

Jeanne: Issue is that answers will be public and need to be anonymous.

<kirkwood> you don’t need pemission to do government sites

<kirkwood> and they won’t change very much

AWK: What level of persistence do we need to have for those pages? If using Adobe.com, that will change.

<Fazio> I would think any change would be problematic

<Fazio> Glenda’s demo might be best

<Zakim> Permission, you wanted to take a copy to W3C

Glenda: Its valuable to score real sites, but will need sites that we completely control and don't change.

<PeterKorn> +1 to completely controlled sites. Hence constructing them ourselves.

<kirkwood> We can use wayback machine as well.

<kirkwood> (for a date)

<Fazio> +1 Janina!

<jon_avial> You could use https://web.archive.org/ as it keeps pages

Janina: We want permission to take a copy, be able to tweak, etc.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if anyone has snap shot

<jeanne> Metrics and Plan for testing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dingDd116FVx0QuxCemgHbReJfNxMZRSF1q3dJ9Uj5U/

<alastairc> I've used HTTrack, but works best on static sites, with permission.

Jeanne: These are great ideas and I will follow up. Please comment/add to Google doc.

<kirkwood> I have suggestions and can get “permission”

Peter: To recap, for immediate purpose simple, short content is much more helpful

<Fazio> +1 Peter

Peter: what is a gold/silver/bronze level of alt text, etc. These are small examples that we can construct.

<bruce_bailey> i am pretty confident that i could round up some .gov sites which would not take offense to the scruitiny

Janina: This may end up being a best practice.

<jeanne> I want to correct that bronze/silver/gold only applies to the final score. It does not apply to individual guidelines or outcomes

<bruce_bailey> also i agree with @kirkwood that we do not really need explicit permission from government websites

Detlev: It would be useful if we have a complete set that is more transparent. Doesn't give confidence that overall method of scoring is reliable.

Sarah: I like idea of providing as a prototype. Intention is for people to review, try it out, and provide feedback...but if we do that, prototype needs to be fully developed.
... We are a ways away from that. I would support even having a smaller sample for prototype.

<kirkwood> Sorry late to game site recomendation to use: https://blueprint.cityofnewyork.us/

Chris: Back to the point made by others, what would be considered a critical failure and how does that factor into scoring?
... does inaccessible equate to "does not conform to WCAG 3.0"?
... should not be included in FPWD

Rachael: This has come up a few other times. Current cut-off point is 3.5. If we don't use Excel, what should we use to provide for review?

<alastairc> Can we "save as" the open doc format?

<AWK> Isn't XLSX an open standard?

<AWK> ISO 29500:2008-2016

<bruce_bailey> i am not clear with objection to sharing a file in .xls or .xlsx format ??

<bruce_bailey> +1 @AWK

<Fazio> We can always ask permission?

Alastair: Wouldn't worry too much about spreadsheet format.

<Rachael> Excellent. Thank you.

Janina: I haven't looked at formulas to see how they transfer into other formats.

Chuck: Sounds like format is appropriate and reviewers can use tools available to them.

Rachael: Would one good example be enough to be released in FPWD as a secondary document?

<sajkaj> +1 to importance of at least one good example

Peter: One example and one score, making it clear that this is early in planning, would be a good way to deal with this.

Alastair: Should examples be part of the spec in general?

<PeterKorn> I feel less strongly about where it is vs. it being complete enough to be fully understood.

Alastair: If it was a separate document for the time being, we could add as an appendix later.
... Nevermind.

Chuck: We don't have consensus. I'm a little concerned about not including in FPWD and question how glaring of an omission it would be. Thoughts?

Peter: I agree with you. Its too important for it to be missing.

<Ryladog> +1 to Chuck and Peter

<alastairc> The question was "Do not include this content in the FPWD", but if it were updated & improved...

<Glenda> +1 to Chuck and Peter too

Rachael: Propose resolution to include as a separate document, referenced by draft or the announcement.

<sajkaj> +1 to Rachael

<jeanne> +1

<Wilco_> +1

Rachael: Will not put in FPWD but it will be referenced in content that is sent.

<mbgower> +1

<sajkaj> +1 and OK to reference from both fpwd and announcement

<ChrisLoiselle> +1 as long as it is referenced somewhere with examples. That is the main concern with the end user consuming the scoring without examples. That's all.

Jeanne: FPWD could be viewed as editor's draft, but also as package of things usually released as part of a FPWD.

<alastairc> +1, and suggesting scope of 1 "medium" example, including an example site, calc, and explanation

<Rachael> +1 to including it and referencing it instead of including it within the TR document

Jeanne: isn't clear what people who are objecting are concerned with

Sarah: I feel that we need to revisit scoring issues and then resolve to include as referenced document.

<kirkwood> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<jeanne> =1

<sajkaj> +1 and still OK by me to refer to it from both

+1

<sarahhorton> +1

<Wilco_> +1

<Raf> +1

<Melanie_Philipp> +1

<Rachael> +1

RESOLUTION: Improve content and include as a separate document referenced by draft or by announcement. Will be reviewed by group.

Chuck: Next is Feedback section. Any comments?

<Rachael> It is 3.5 out of 4

<Rachael> on a 0-4 scale

Detlev: Main concern is that 3 out of 5 is a low level for conformance. Also concerned with how critical failures interact with the rating.
... would be useful to see examples of how this is handled.

<Wilco_> scribe: Wilco

<Wilco_> Jake: I have worked hours on WCAG 3 scoring. My experience is if you do the actual scoring on pages, the devil is in the details. Often things didn't turn out that well.

<Wilco_> ... We really need the same scoring of outcomes on different implementations. If not we'll never be sure.

<Wilco_> Rachael: It's 3.5 on the score of 4. That is at the bronze level.

<Wilco_> Chuck: ... reads comments from Bruce

<Wilco_> Bruce: we covered that

<Wilco_> Gundula: It is not easy to understand how scoring works, and is inconsistent. I don't see how it all comes together.

<Wilco_> Chuck: We covered the commentary here. Are there any outstanding questions?

Normative / informative discussion based on https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/silver-fpwd-2/results#xq9

<Wilco_> Rachael: no

<Wilco_> Jeanne: no

Normative / informative discussion

<Wilco_> Chuck: we received comments that "non-normative" it not clear. What is the best option to call this type of content.

<Wilco_> ... We had a number of suggestions.

<Wilco_> Michael: I took a stab at it. We should look at the draft now, see if it addressed it.

<Wilco_> ... If we're changing the wording then people had opinions on how to change it.

<alastairc> Example: https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#structure-of-these-guidelines

<Wilco_> ... [Michael reads from the doc]

<alastairc> "This section (with its subsections) provides advice only and does not specify guidelines, meaning it is informative or non-normative."

<alastairc> "This section (with its subsections) provides requirements which must be followed to conform to the specification, meaning it is normative."

<Wilco_> ... Used "requirements" because it can be more than "guidelines".

<Wilco_> Chuck: So you changed the language to make it more clear, but not a single change.

<Fazio> Good job MC

<Glenda> I think this is much easier to understand now, Michael! Thank you. (I’m referring to this new statement, “This section (with its subsections) provides advice only and does not specify guidelines, meaning it is informative or non-normative.”)

<Wilco_> Michael: For normative sections it does not put anything in. Added in a statement that says it is normative.

<Wilco_> .... It is similar in style, but different enough it wouldn't be confused with eachother.

<Rachael> +1 to this change

<jeanne> +1

+1

<Fazio> +1

<Glenda> +1 to this change

<Jennie> +1

<Wilco_> chuck: to the group, are you supportive of Michael's changes?

<kirkwood> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<mbgower> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Levon> +1

<Wilco_> Sarah: Why don't we use the term "requirements"?

<Wilco_> Michael: Has to do with how W3C positions itself. Standards are called recommendations, not standards or requirements. There is history why we use guidelines instead of requirements.

<Wilco_> ... We also already have requirements for the guidelines. If we had requirements for requirements it would get confusing.

<Melanie_Philipp> +1

<Wilco_> Chuck: Seeing only positive comments on Michael's changes

RESOLUTION: Accept Michael's changes to use of non-normative.

<Wilco_> Chuck: End of the agenda. Were there other topics?

<Wilco_> Peter: Was there a survey about publishing requirements for Silver?

<Wilco_> Rachael: I was wondering the same thing

<Wilco_> Chuck: There were no objections, went by fast.

<Wilco_> Alastair: Getting onto WCAG 2.2. Another request for help on issues

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Main_Page

<Wilco_> ... I've tried to put things in one place. If you go through the wiki.

<Wilco_> ... I have a list of issues under here. This gets to a list of issues for each success criterion.

<Wilco_> ... Somebody raises an issue, then someone from the group creates a response. That might explain why no changes are made, or it might be an update that is put in front of the group.

<PeterKorn> Going to drop early.

<Wilco_> ... By survey we decide to accept or agree to update. You can pick an issue, there is an assignee column. Have a look at the issue, read through what was said. If you can tackle it, you can assign it to yourself.

<Wilco_> ... If you are not in GitHub as a member of AG, contact Michael so you have the ability to assign things to yourself. You can click "assign yourself".

<Wilco_> ... Once you assign it to yourself, decide what a response could be. Once that is ready, add a label "Survey, ready for". That puts it in the queue for things to go onto the survey. It doesn't matter what format it is in. Respond to issue, e-mail, pull request, Google doc.

<Wilco_> ... We have 64 done. We have another 77 in the todo pile. Another 30 assigned but not in survey. There are plenty of things. If everyone picked 1, we would get a lot done.

<Wilco_> ... Any questions?

<Wilco_> Chuck: You have grouped these logically. But people can just grab one.

<Wilco_> Alastair: This filters them to a success criterion. Just pick one, if you don't know what the next step would be, try a different one.

This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 
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/WCAC/WCAG/
Default Present: JustineP, Francis_Storr, MichaelC, Raf, sajkaj, JakeAbma, alastairc, Detlev, Sukriti, Rachael, Melanie_Philipp, Wilco_, AWK, Glenda, kirkwood, sarahhorton, Nicaise, Katie_Haritos-Shea, stevelee, Fazio_, jon_avila, bruce_bailey, Levon, mbgower, PeterKorn, StefanS, Jennie
Present: JustineP Francis_Storr MichaelC Raf sajkaj JakeAbma alastairc Detlev Sukriti Rachael Melanie_Philipp Wilco_ AWK Glenda kirkwood sarahhorton Nicaise Katie_Haritos-Shea stevelee Fazio_ jon_avila bruce_bailey Levon mbgower PeterKorn StefanS Jennie
Regrets: Laura_Carlson Charles_Hall
Found Scribe: JustineP
Inferring ScribeNick: JustineP
Found Scribe: Wilco
Scribes: JustineP, Wilco

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.)