13:00:03 RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act 13:00:08 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/06/29-wcag-act-irc 13:00:08 RRSAgent, make logs Public 13:00:09 Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference 13:00:09 kathy has joined #wcag-act 13:00:34 agenda+ ACT Standup 13:00:37 agenda+ Disconnect of communication between CG and TF 13:00:39 agenda+ Responses to AGWG feedback 13:00:41 agenda+ Subjective exceptions in the applicability 13:00:45 agenda+ Check-in on annual reviews 13:01:10 trevor has joined #wcag-act 13:01:12 Helen has joined #wcag-act 13:01:14 thbrunet has joined #wcag-act 13:01:59 present+ 13:02:01 present+ 13:02:02 Jean-Yves has joined #wcag-act 13:02:03 present+ 13:02:07 present+ 13:02:12 present+ 13:02:17 present+ 13:03:09 droege has joined #wcag-act 13:03:27 scribe+ 13:03:50 zakim, take up next 13:03:50 agendum 1 -- ACT Standup -- taken up [from Wilco] 13:04:24 ACT chairs here to discuss communication 13:04:30 CarlosD has joined #wcag-act 13:04:48 wilco: worked on AG feedback 13:05:10 Kathy: back from vacay 13:05:33 Trevor: pull requests, AG feedback, subjective applicability 13:06:20 Chris: ACT rules, AG work with Wilco in Github, unaccessible name changes 13:06:37 Catherine: Completed pull request in GitHub 13:06:39 Catherine: pull request 13:06:51 Tom: ARIA parent child 13:08:24 Daniel: pull requests, planning meeting, PR publication website 13:08:30 zakim, take up next 13:08:30 agendum 2 -- Disconnect of communication between CG and TF -- taken up [from Wilco] 13:08:49 https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/2071 13:09:48 Wilco: CG and ACT communication disconnect. CG chairs here today for a open conversation on areas where we can improve. 13:13:15 Jean Yves Moyen: secondary requirements communication and discussion in Github. where feels doesn't work is when there's a change after a review. loses context because discussion in task force but loses context in github. ACT skimming over problem to solve?? 13:14:53 agrees with Jean Yves, loses context in github. wilco and kathy typically attending CG meetings and difficult for just the two to bring all the info from ACT 13:15:59 Trevor: when AcT does rule reviews, notes at the bottom of spreadsheet aren't detailed enough. need to add the Why instead of just the What. 13:16:00 present+ 13:17:21 Jean-Yves: spreadsheet not linked. when link to the spreadsheet was added, that helped. put a link to the spreadsheet in the pull request on regular basis. 13:19:03 wilco: all the information should be in the spreadsheet. good to include link to spreadsheet in pull request. 13:20:06 Jean-Yves: link to spreadsheet should be sufficient. no need to copy and paste from the spreadsheet. 13:22:32 Helen: bit of an issue with scribing. at times, scribed notes are not saved sometimes. level of detail is different with each different scriber. need to add more details in the spreadsheet. 13:22:38 I see https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/minutes as having more than https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/Meeting_Minutes as the latter is archived 13:23:56 Wilco: assign a liaison before going to review and he/she necessary for noting changes 13:24:27 +1 to Trevor's idea 13:24:56 Trevor: take task force conclusion on the bottom and split in two parts and have "what is the change?" "why?" 13:25:28 wilco: link sheet in pull requests. More detail at bottom. Good? 13:25:56 Jean-Yves: yes 13:26:33 Tom: maybe hide sheets and not delete. There are times need to go back to refer 13:26:44 Daniel: agree 13:28:31 Daniel: address Task Force attendees at the CG meetings 13:29:57 Jean-Yves: just need a summary of important parts of task force meetings. point is they should not depend on the task force people to give the details in the meeting. The details should be in the spreadsheet. 13:30:50 wilco: would it help if the two CG would be invited to the planning meetings (weekly 30 min)? 13:31:53 Jean-Yves: probably not necessary. planning meeting is not where the discussion of "why" happens. 13:33:17 Wilco: should we have another joint meeting? 13:33:36 Jean-Yves: no, not necessary with TPAC and summer 13:35:17 Kathy: some resolution put in the spreadsheet but later a change may take place. does CG want to comment and be aware of decision before changes take place? 13:37:10 Jean-Yves: this would be beneficial. but realizes it would add extra work and heavy process so not sure it's necessary. in the end, we end up agreeing anyway. 13:37:57 Wilco: straight pull request is typically fine. Except for those controversial issues. 13:38:55 Jean-Yves: maybe just a joint meeting or agenda item in a meeting is all it takes. just need to talk if there is a problem. 13:39:01 Kathy: ok with that 13:39:51 Daniel: maybe try and see if works before closing... lost audio... 13:40:06 reconnected 13:40:54 Wilco: closing issue. CG chairs will let us know if need to discuss further. 13:41:12 Daniel: ok with that 13:41:29 zakim, take up next 13:41:29 agendum 3 -- Responses to AGWG feedback -- taken up [from Wilco] 13:41:59 https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22ready+for+review%22 13:43:01 Wilco: opened 3 issues. chairs asked to come up with response as to why not resolving. first post is feedback, second post is response. if happy, give a thumbs up. will look at this next week. 13:43:06 zakim, take up next 13:43:06 agendum 4 -- Subjective exceptions in the applicability -- taken up [from Wilco] 13:43:37 https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/discussions/2061 13:45:25 Trevor: when writing rules, are applicability subjective/objective. avoid this or make common practice? so trying to identify subjectivity examples 13:48:14 Trevor cont: thoughts? 13:48:22 s/lost audio.../There is potential risk of extra work as well if there is not enough discussion before TF people start working on their PRs./ 13:48:31 Wilco: doesn't see anything problematic 13:48:55 Trevor: 3rd one is a little more difficult. if break down, would be nice 13:49:09 Trevor: first 2 are good 13:50:19 Wilco: non-text content more difficult 13:53:15 Wilco: ok to use in some areas but not others. If can be more explicit (like image elements), you should be. but if not, then it's non-text content. need to rephrase of "decorative" and "not human language". like it better in expectation and applicability 13:54:59 trevor: lost audio again 13:55:05 reconnected 13:56:04 trevor: put in applicability 13:56:18 https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/afw4f7/proposed/ 13:57:41 wilco: instead of non-text, use purely decorative and ?? 13:58:29 Carlos: good if can classify subjectivity and include in other area 14:00:51 zakim, end meeting 14:00:51 As of this point the attendees have been Wilco, trevor, Helen, catherine, Daniel, Suji, ChrisLoiselle, thbrunet, Jean-Yves, kathy, CarlosD 14:00:53 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v1 14:00:54 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/29-wcag-act-minutes.html Zakim 14:01:02 I am happy to have been of service, droege; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 14:01:02 Zakim has left #wcag-act 14:01:12 rrsagent, make minutes 14:01:13 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/29-wcag-act-minutes.html dmontalvo 14:02:35 zakim, end meeting