13:01:51 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act
13:01:56 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/05/11-wcag-act-irc
13:01:56 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:01:57 <Zakim> Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference
13:02:05 <kathy> agenda+ ACT Standup
13:02:19 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #wcag-act
13:02:19 <kathy> agenda+ Subjective exceptions in the applicability
13:02:31 <kathy> agenda+ Decide if we want to continue using "test cases" as a term, along with examples
13:02:40 <kathy> agenda+ Secondary requirements and accessibility support
13:02:52 <kathy> agenda+ Optional test cases
13:02:58 <kathy> agenda?
13:03:31 <trevor> trevor has joined #wcag-act
13:03:37 <trevor> present+
13:03:39 <kathy> present+
13:03:41 <Wilco> present+
13:03:53 <dmontalvo> scribe: dmontalvo
13:04:23 <dmontalvo> zakim, take up next
13:04:23 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- ACT Standup -- taken up [from kathy]
13:05:00 <Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-practice-repo
13:05:05 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Various little things. PRs, reviewing, and I set up a practice repo
13:05:52 <dmontalvo> ... I'll add people later
13:06:16 <dmontalvo> ... I worked with some of the EO folks on getting the ACT rules information pulled directly into the Evaluation Tools list
13:06:17 <Wilco> https://deploy-preview-98--wai-evaluation-tools-list.netlify.app/tools-list/evaluation/
13:06:48 <dmontalvo> ... You can filter out based on tools that have ACT support
13:07:19 <dmontalvo> ... Then you can click "Show more details" and you see more implementation details, including the number of rules supported and its consistency
13:08:11 <dmontalvo> Daniel: Yes, the sooner it goes out the better
13:08:38 <dmontalvo> Kathy: Updated GitHub for ACT guidance document with Daniel's feedback to add the sample rafts for review
13:08:57 <dmontalvo> ... Available for comments, I will add your link, Wilco, thanks for doing that
13:09:13 <dmontalvo> ... AT some points we may want some thoughts on what we want on this practice repo
13:09:24 <dmontalvo> ... I did some cleanup of Trusted Tester implementations
13:09:34 <dmontalvo> ... I will be attending the CG for label in name discussion
13:09:56 <dmontalvo> Chris: Working on implementations for Oracle. I hope ot get that done during the month
13:10:14 <dmontalvo> ... I looked at the "how to" no comments from me
13:10:35 <dmontalvo> ... I will contribute to the repo and see if there are any issues with what is written there
13:11:01 <dmontalvo> Wilco: I'd really like to see a preview of that before you put mor work on that. Could you share that JSON file?
13:11:12 <dmontalvo> Chris: Yes
13:11:54 <dmontalvo> Trevor: Started polishing some of my PR and answering to Wilco's feedback
13:12:16 <dmontalvo> ... Trying to find a workaround for a double negative
13:12:46 <dmontalvo> ... Started to add subsection to the discussion on applicability
13:12:58 <dmontalvo> Daniel: GitHub guidance
13:13:54 <dmontalvo> ... Likely picking up some of the draft items to write
13:14:07 <Wilco> TOPIC: Do we have a meeting next week?
13:14:43 <dmontalvo> Trevor: I'll be here
13:14:52 <dmontalvo> Kathy: I'll be working
13:14:59 <dmontalvo> Daniel: I'll be working
13:15:23 <dmontalvo> Wilco: We will have a meeting next Thursday
13:15:26 <dmontalvo> zakim, take up next
13:15:26 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Subjective exceptions in the applicability -- taken up [from kathy]
13:15:57 <trevor> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/discussions/2046#discussioncomment-5561071
13:17:23 <dmontalvo> Trevor: The exception sub section is subjective
13:17:42 <dmontalvo> ... Is this section require and if so under what cases might we use it?
13:18:30 <dmontalvo> ... Some of the rules that I looked at are using either assumptions or expectations to go over the non-objective edges of the applicability
13:19:13 <dmontalvo> ... Are there any ways we end up misusing exceptions?
13:20:28 <dmontalvo> ... Form field error indicator rules: It has three expectations and all of them say pretty much the same
13:20:55 <dmontalvo> ... Because the definition is subjective it cannot go in the applicability, and gets pushed into the expetation as a pre-condition
13:21:31 <dmontalvo> ... You find something that is applicable and you call it your test target, and then you put a pre condition to decide whether or not you should even test it
13:22:02 <dmontalvo> Wilco: This probably the worst example
13:22:08 <dmontalvo> Trevor: This is why I started here
13:22:29 <dmontalvo> Wilco: This should be in the applicability itself. This rule is about form fields that have a form field error indicator
13:23:05 <dmontalvo> Trevor: Interesting point. IF we only were to add the exception we would still not be able to add that to the applicability
13:23:13 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Yes.
13:23:40 <dmontalvo> Trevor: I'd rather have one sentence inside of the exception rather than all throughout the expectations
13:24:01 <trevor> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/3e12e1
13:24:26 <dmontalvo> Trevor: Blocks of repeated content: Its applicability is any HTML web page
13:24:54 <dmontalvo> ... Inside of the expectations is really the applicability of the rule: each block of repeated content
13:25:24 <dmontalvo> ... Does everybody agree that this should be the applicability and not the whole HTML page\?
13:25:36 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Not sure. This was also meant as an objective definition
13:26:10 <dmontalvo> Trevor: It is not objective
13:26:47 <dmontalvo> Trevor: IF we were to allow the exception, the applicability would still be any web page, and the exception would be the ones that don't have a block of repeated content
13:27:41 <dmontalvo> Wilco: I remember why this was done. IF there is a global mechanism that hides everything you don't need a skip  mechanism for each of the blocks
13:28:26 <dmontalvo> ... We don't want to require that each repeated block of text have its own mechansm, you could have a general one
13:28:46 <dmontalvo> Trevor: The exception section may help make the rule more readable
13:29:09 <dmontalvo> ... For the forms rule it is more painful to parse, for this one I am not convinced. I don't think this rule is that difficult to read
13:29:15 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Is it more difficult to understand?
13:29:57 <dmontalvo> ... I think it is fair to say that if there is not repeated content the rule shouldn't apply
13:30:15 <dmontalvo> Kathy: Can we just flip it around and make it in the possitive?
13:30:35 <dmontalvo> ... This rule applies to web pages that has blocks of repeated content
13:30:42 <dmontalvo> ... The possitive phrase is more understandable
13:31:06 <dmontalvo> Trevor: We may make the entire applicability subjective
13:31:40 <dmontalvo> ... The current at least has half of the applicability objective and concrete
13:32:02 <dmontalvo> Kathy: What if you still keep the objective part objective?
13:32:14 <dmontalvo> ... When I see the exception you are still introducing subjectivity
13:32:34 <dmontalvo> Trevor: We'd have to make it additive
13:32:39 <dmontalvo> ... I'd need to think about it more
13:33:18 <dmontalvo> Wilco: I thought of allowing subjective applicabilities to the expectation
13:33:39 <dmontalvo> ... Now we have rules with things like a button role must have a descriptive accessible name
13:33:54 <dmontalvo> ... but we can't say things that look like buttons are marked up as button
13:34:08 <dmontalvo> ... The look like a button is subjective and we cannot fit it into the applicability
13:34:51 <dmontalvo> Trevor: When you were originally writing the expectations, do you remember why they were subjective?
13:35:18 <dmontalvo> Wilco: It was the idea that much of accessibility testing requires to decide if something is equivalent to something else, and that in itself is subjective, and that seemed like the actual thing to test
13:35:43 <dmontalvo> ... We wanted to make these rules as strict and tight as they could be
13:36:36 <dmontalvo> ... We wanted to avoid as much of the ambiguity of some of the SCs, that's why we decided the applicability should be objective
13:37:31 <dmontalvo> Trevor: A lot of the times rules start off with a definition of something and then others where the applicability works they start just with "for each test target"
13:38:04 <dmontalvo> ... For the exception that we have why we can't just put it in the assumptions
13:38:44 <dmontalvo> ... Because the assumption qualifies the test target. We are pushing some of the applicability into the assumption
13:39:15 <dmontalvo> ... If we allowed expectations to be subjective we could include some of this
13:39:40 <dmontalvo> Wilco: We don't want to make assumptions when the edge cases we are ignoring aren't theoretical
13:40:49 <dmontalvo> ... We have been working around the limitations of the Rules Format. Some of them we have put into the input aspect
13:41:02 <dmontalvo> Trevor: Like the language
13:41:58 <dmontalvo> Trevor: I am trying to figure out a way for this rule to still be written and making them more readable
13:42:27 <dmontalvo> Chris: I am following. I get why we are doing it
13:44:06 <dmontalvo> Kathy: What if we do a combination of the two ideas?
13:44:19 <dmontalvo> ... We have the applicability and ten in the assumptions we include the subjective part?
13:44:37 <dmontalvo> ... I think the assumptio by itself would lead to more false possitive than we want
13:45:14 <dmontalvo> ... And the possitive approach would narrow those, still would not eliminate them completely
13:45:42 <dmontalvo> Chris: As per heading is descriptive, that is up to the tester to define.
13:46:09 <dmontalvo> Trevor: I think next steps are for me to rewrite some applicabilities and expectations for this rules based on today's feedback
13:46:27 <dmontalvo> ... I get that the exceptions sub section is difficult to understand
13:46:43 <dmontalvo> ... Wilco, we may need to have an hour to go through this
13:47:08 <dmontalvo> Wilco: We can continue this conversation, we don't have anything time sensitive
13:48:39 <dmontalvo> Wilco: If we were to say either your applicability or your expectation has to be objective. Could we make these use cases work?
13:48:39 <dmontalvo> ... Maybe some of the things we have done in one rule should be split into separate rules
13:48:48 <dmontalvo> ... Let's start with the error messages rule
13:49:06 <dmontalvo> Trevor: We can pull the error indicators into the applicability
13:49:23 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Would it be useful to say that the expectation needs to be objective?
13:50:21 <dmontalvo> ... We can't just pull the form error into the applicability, the expectations are not objective
13:50:42 <dmontalvo> ... Is there a way that we can split this that makes sense?
13:51:55 <dmontalvo> Trevor: "text that is visible" and "text that is inclued on the accessiblity tree or accessible name or description" -- These pre conditions could work.
13:52:11 <dmontalvo> ... IF we were to split this, we can work with the applicability and then ensure it has these two things above
13:52:26 <dmontalvo> Wilco: It does not work very well
13:52:36 <dmontalvo> Trevor: Feels like we are pushing the expectation into the applicability
13:52:59 <dmontalvo> Wilco: What if only some rules are allowed to be subjective?
13:53:15 <dmontalvo> ... We would clearly indicate that they are, and we wouldn't allow for all of the rules
13:53:25 <dmontalvo> Chris: We would need to categorize them very carefully
13:54:09 <dmontalvo> Trevor: I stil prefer to "quarantine" some of the subjective parts rather than allowing for more subjectivity
13:54:43 <dmontalvo> ... This way some of the rules that are at the edge would fall into more subjective approaches
13:55:27 <dmontalvo> Wilco: How much should we care about objectivity?
13:56:02 <dmontalvo> Trevor: IF we feel that we can trust ourselves not to write just copies of the SC, that I thinkg it would make sense
13:56:31 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Making sure the rules are unambiguous is the greatest benefit for the rules
13:56:39 <dmontalvo> ... Making sure we keep that is still the more important part of this
13:56:56 <dmontalvo> ... I am not sure that we need to hold on to objectivity as much as we have been
13:57:41 <dmontalvo> ... After five years we keep working around the problems. Maybe we should accept that and trust themselves enough to write good rules
13:57:55 <dmontalvo> ... We were expecting organizations to write their own rules, but that did not happen
13:58:12 <dmontalvo> ... We are under close control of the rules we write
13:59:36 <dmontalvo> Trevor: Somewhere in the rules format or the rules writing guide we could put some language to be more objective. It would help to avoid opening the doors to everything
13:59:41 <dmontalvo> rrsagent, make minutes
13:59:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/11-wcag-act-minutes.html dmontalvo