13:01:36 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act
13:01:40 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/06/22-wcag-act-irc
13:01:40 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:01:41 <Zakim> Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference
13:01:41 <Wilco> present+
13:01:41 <trevor> present+
13:01:43 <Helen> present+
13:01:53 <catherine> present+
13:02:16 <dmontalvo> present+ Daniel
13:02:17 <Suji> present+
13:02:39 <dmontalvo> Chair: Wilco
13:02:43 <dmontalvo> scribe: Daniel
13:03:20 <dmontalvo> zakim, take up next
13:03:20 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
13:03:28 <Wilco> agenda+ ACT Standup
13:03:30 <Wilco> agenda+ TPAC planning & registration
13:03:32 <Wilco> agenda+ Open pull requests and issues
13:03:33 <Wilco> agenda+ Subjective exceptions in the applicability
13:03:35 <Wilco> agenda+ Check-in on annual reviews
13:03:42 <dmontalvo> zakim, take up next
13:03:42 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- ACT Standup -- taken up [from Wilco]
13:04:11 <Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/issues
13:04:22 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Working through the WCAG feedback and writing responses, not a massive ammout
13:05:03 <dmontalvo> Helen: I opened a PR that has been approved by Jean-Yves, 2074 update table header rule
13:05:56 <dmontalvo> ... Waiting on the discussions that will happen once we resolve a related discussion that Trevor is leading
13:06:02 <dmontalvo> ... Updating the transcript rules
13:06:23 <dmontalvo> Wilco: That is part on me, too many things on my plate
13:07:05 <dmontalvo> Suji: Not much new after the annual review
13:07:22 <dmontalvo> Wilco: You could have a look at the issues I mentioned
13:07:43 <dmontalvo> Tom: Working on ARIA rules, parent child relationships with generics are changing for 1.3
13:07:54 <dmontalvo> ... Do we fix test cases for 1.2 or we wait for 1.3
13:08:13 <dmontalvo> Wilco: I'll bet the ARIA WG will want us to focus on 1.3
13:08:56 <dmontalvo> ... I don't think our rules should be inconsistent with 1.3
13:09:15 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Are you sur that is supposed to pass?
13:09:33 <dmontalvo> Tom: They say it's supposed to ignore generic
13:09:44 <dmontalvo> Wilco: We should raise this with the ARIA WG
13:10:14 <dmontalvo> ... Especially if browsers are doing what we say they are doing
13:10:22 <dmontalvo> Tom: I'll do that
13:10:29 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Feel free to loop me in
13:11:53 <dmontalvo> Daniel: Repo maintenance and Bikeshed error fixing
13:12:14 <dmontalvo> Trevor: Subjective applicability stuff, hoping to get to my open PRs tomorrow
13:12:36 <dmontalvo> Catherine: I finished the annual surveys
13:12:50 <dmontalvo> zakim, take up next
13:12:50 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- TPAC planning & registration -- taken up [from Wilco]
13:13:04 <Wilco> https://www.w3.org/2023/09/TPAC/registration.html
13:13:30 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Sign up for registration, that is open now
13:13:37 <dmontalvo> ... Meeting Thursday and Friday
13:14:30 <dmontalvo> ... We will be meeting a little later in the day to make it easier for US folks to participate
13:14:45 <dmontalvo> ... There is a Waiver program
13:15:32 <dmontalvo> Daniel: Also discounts for hotel that you can get to from the venue page
13:15:37 <dmontalvo> zakim, take up next
13:15:37 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Open pull requests and issues -- taken up [from Wilco]
13:15:52 <Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pulls
13:16:38 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Trevor suggested that to help prioritize
13:17:06 <dmontalvo> ... Can I get a third review?
13:17:20 <dmontalvo> Catherine: Yes, I can take a look
13:18:09 <dmontalvo> Daniel: I think we should close that, not the work the group feels need to be done
13:18:22 <daniel-montalvo> daniel-montalvo has joined #wcag-act
13:18:28 <dmontalvo> Wilco: This is a small PR
13:18:45 <dmontalvo> Daniel: I can take that
13:19:00 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Transcript rules is on hold until I can get to that
13:19:53 <dmontalvo> Wilco: 2050 has changes requested
13:20:16 <dmontalvo> Trevor: I think it's pending some of the subjective applicability talks
13:20:24 <dmontalvo> Helen: We are waiting for the process to be agreed on
13:20:42 <dmontalvo> Wilco: We could write rules while we discuss that
13:21:26 <dmontalvo> Helen: The feedback we've got is related to the outcome of that discussion
13:22:22 <dmontalvo> Wilco: 1959?
13:22:37 <dmontalvo> Trevor: I'll have a look
13:22:58 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Essential text changes needs some work
13:23:09 <dmontalvo> Trevor: I still need to make some changes
13:23:21 <dmontalvo> zakim, take up next
13:23:21 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Subjective exceptions in the applicability -- taken up [from Wilco]
13:24:14 <dmontalvo> Trevor: Two topics to talk about today
13:24:35 <dmontalvo> ... First is part of JEan-Yves comments. Is subjectivity in the expectations any better than in the applicability?
13:24:50 <dmontalvo> ... Second. Can we start clasifying some of the types of subjectivity we may want to allow?
13:25:55 <dmontalvo> ... Jean-Hves took the different types of rules that we can write and established what happens with the different places were we can allow for subjectivity
13:26:12 <dmontalvo> ... Nice framework for authors to clasify their rules
13:26:49 <dmontalvo> ... He suggests if we should treat subjectivity the same everywhere? If so, that would apply in the expectations and in the applicability
13:27:22 <dmontalvo> ... Almost all of our approved rules do not have a subjective expectation
13:27:48 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Part of that was based on funds for us to write rules that were easily automatable
13:28:04 <dmontalvo> ... You are right that they are generally easier to write as well
13:28:57 <dmontalvo> ... Should we explicitly avoid writing rules in one category that could be in another? Maybe even requiring separate rules
13:29:42 <dmontalvo> Language rules: there is the third one where both applicability and expectations are subjective
13:29:59 <dmontalvo> Trevor: I thought all had objective expectations
13:30:39 <dmontalvo> Trevor: Depends on how we define common language
13:30:57 <dmontalvo> s/common language/common input aspects (language)/
13:31:26 <dmontalvo> Wilco: These seems like boundaries that we are building
13:31:56 <dmontalvo> Trevor: We would rather you be objective in both, if not, be objective on the applicability, then on the expectations, and so on
13:32:36 <dmontalvo> ... The enforcement of that is what I think is more difficult
13:33:04 <dmontalvo> ... We wanted to be very clear on what our test targets were, that's what we wanted objective applicability
13:33:26 <dmontalvo> ... But not sure if not konwing what the expected results are is even worse
13:33:53 <dmontalvo> Helen: It is subjective in the fact you can interpret it in different ways
13:34:08 <dmontalvo> ... Are we trying to reduce the different interpretations?
13:34:38 <dmontalvo> ... For example, decorative images tend to be subjective
13:35:07 <dmontalvo> ... If the description is in the following text then it is easier to make it less subjective
13:36:02 <dmontalvo> Trevor: In most of the rules where we have decorative we've pushed it into the expectations but it should really be on the applicability
13:36:27 <dmontalvo> ... Can we just put in the applicability that it does not apply to decorative content?
13:37:16 <dmontalvo> Helen: For example an empty alt may be the applicability if in the context of an SVG
13:38:01 <dmontalvo> ... Expectation should match what you are expecting to achieve, how to get there is what can be subjective
13:38:30 <dmontalvo> Trevor: Let's discuss the subjectivity types
13:38:52 <dmontalvo> ... We do not want to allow rules like "applies to any type of non-text content"
13:38:59 <dmontalvo> [Screen sharing]
13:39:10 <dmontalvo> Trevor: These are my initial thoughts for categorizations
13:39:39 <dmontalvo> ... First -- something is styled as a [role]
13:40:00 <dmontalvo> ... Secon: more interactive, in addition, it has to operate like a [role]
13:40:40 <dmontalvo> ... Third: something that expresses something subjective (a text node is decorative / expresses something in human language)
13:40:48 <trevor> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/discussions/2061
13:41:23 <dmontalvo> Wilco: I like the idea of trying to refine these
13:41:42 <dmontalvo> ... "Operates like a check box" does not seem subjective to me. There are rules for that
13:41:48 <dmontalvo> Helen: Then you get to mobile
13:41:57 <dmontalvo> Wilco: There are still some expected behaviors
13:42:14 <dmontalvo> Helen: You can't define a check box and a button on mobile
13:42:27 <dmontalvo> Trevor: I could use a more complicated widget instead of check box
13:42:40 <dmontalvo> ... But the point still stands that there could potentially some degree of subjectivity
13:43:03 <dmontalvo> Tom: Is it "operates mostly like a check box" but it may not b a check box?
13:43:35 <dmontalvo> Trevor: You may have a div and some JAvaScript to make it operate like a check box but it may be difficult to programmatically determine that
13:44:26 <dmontalvo> Wilco: I'd call this "functioning"
13:44:46 <dmontalvo> Trevor: I changed that because "operate" was more WCAG
13:45:08 <dmontalvo> Trevor: I was looking at more interactive things
13:46:08 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Something can look like a heading and very clearly not be a heading. If you give a paragraph a heading style, that does not necessarily look like
13:47:42 <dmontalvo> Trevor: Either "styled as a heading or looks like a heading" is actually a heading
13:47:42 <dmontalvo>  a heading
13:48:19 <dmontalvo> Trevor: Manual rules, consistent navigation. We could say that "any [...] that functions as a navigational mechanism"
13:49:09 <dmontalvo> ... Similarly to focus related when opening modal windows, although the trigger to open a modal window is still not very clear
13:50:24 <dmontalvo> ... Also we can qualify the expectations through exceptions,
13:51:08 <dmontalvo> Wilco: One example we've talked about in the past is transitions. Kwnowing when something is transitioning and when it is not
13:52:43 <dmontalvo> Trevor: If we were to start allowing subjectivity into rules and we said that you need to use one of these predefined types, we'd have templates for the language to use. Does that help in trying to pin down what people can use in the applicability?
13:52:58 <dmontalvo> ... We could create some predefined templates depending on the subjectivity types
13:53:26 <dmontalvo> Wilco: That is an interesting exercise
13:53:30 <dmontalvo> Helen: And exhaustive
13:53:53 <dmontalvo> Trevor: We miss types and we'd need to do some further tweaking, but we could formalize this
13:54:09 <dmontalvo> Wilco: What if we create input aspects?
13:54:52 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Let's think about it some more
13:55:16 <dmontalvo> rrsagent, draft minutes
13:55:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/22-wcag-act-minutes.html dmontalvo
14:13:50 <daniel-montalvo> daniel-montalvo has joined #wcag-act
14:19:04 <Helen> Helen has left #wcag-act
14:57:47 <daniel-montalvo> daniel-montalvo has joined #wcag-act
15:18:15 <thbrunet> thbrunet has joined #wcag-act
15:52:24 <daniel-montalvo> daniel-montalvo has joined #wcag-act
15:52:26 <thbrunet> thbrunet has joined #wcag-act
16:26:43 <daniel-montalvo> daniel-montalvo has joined #wcag-act
16:57:31 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #wcag-act
17:14:34 <daniel-montalvo> daniel-montalvo has joined #wcag-act
18:12:07 <daniel-montalvo> daniel-montalvo has joined #wcag-act
18:54:58 <daniel-montalvo> daniel-montalvo has joined #wcag-act
19:53:18 <daniel-montalvo> daniel-montalvo has joined #wcag-act
20:39:19 <daniel-montalvo> daniel-montalvo has joined #wcag-act
20:50:41 <thbrunet> thbrunet has joined #wcag-act
21:04:56 <thbrunet> thbrunet has joined #wcag-act
21:06:11 <thbrunet> thbrunet has joined #wcag-act
21:46:52 <daniel-montalvo> daniel-montalvo has joined #wcag-act
22:20:05 <thbrunet> thbrunet has joined #wcag-act
22:29:56 <daniel-montalvo> daniel-montalvo has joined #wcag-act