scribe+

ACT Standup

<Helen> Scribe+

<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2060

wilco: worked on PR for secondary requirements.

kathy: I have a PR thatt needs reviewers, #2093, updating examples to remove HTML and body tags from the examples

trevor: worked on subjective applicability format update and did some PR updates

suji: Did some reviews of PRs

chris: Reviewing some PRs, had a question about the heading has not empty accessible name
... #2077 was the number

wilco: may add that onto my PR

catherine: Did a PR request

todd: Went through and reviewed some PRs from Jean-Yves

tom: Not much, did open issue on Aria 1.3, got a couple of off topic responses

helen: Got the table headers PR accepted and merged in.

wilco: Opened up a PR on how to write secondary requirements. Tweaked it a bit. Have a couple of questions.
... have a more standard format. First sentence says it is stricter, less strict, or potentially overlaps
... then next sentence is why, and then the third sentence gives how it applies to the rule, e.g., less strict means some failed examples may satisfy the criterion.

tom: Last this needs a subject and for the last sentence its more that the failure doesn't apply to the success criteria and less than it satisfies the s.c.

wilco: In this rule, some of the failed examples fail the success criteria, but not alll of them

tom: You could satisfy it by passing it
... you wouldn't typically fail something then satisfy something else.

wilco: Could change the wording to be "some failed examples do satisfy the (secondary) success criterion"

kathy: could we use "because" to join the sentence?

wilco: can get wordy, can shorten the last thing
... should we have the *may* in the last sentence

helen: Could say "some results may vary for this success criterion"

<ToddL> Suggestion: "This success criterion is less strict than this rules. This is because the rule does not ignore irrelevant ARIA properties. Additionally, some of the failed examples may satisfy this success criterion."

trevor: Don't love the ambiguity, like having the affirmative and having specific examples showing we understand why we made the criterion secondary

kathy: wondering if we can put the criterion at the start of the sentence
... feel like it needs some word smithing

tom: So is the scenario that the failed examples passes or does not apply to the sc?

wilco: Either or, there is no applicable.

tom: could have something unrelated, if its not applicable then why include it

kathy: Is that the overlaps example?

tom: I thought the scenario for this was that the thing fails, but we aren't including it

wilco: Would like to move on, have people review async

<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2060/files#r1276278715

TPAC Planning

<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/TPAC_2023

wilco: Started working on a tpac agenda
... we were talking and were thinking the goal for this meeting should be to get everyone on the page to get out a 1.1 rules format working draft
... we have a good amount of remote participants from the U.S.
... thinking mornings will be rule writing and workign on open PRs
... then afternoons would be discussion periods
... have some current topics like subjective applicability, secondary requirements, and then revisit consistent and partially consistent implementations
... then have optional test casses, transition states, and ML in rules

tom: I will be remote attending as well

<ChrisLoiselle> agenda looks good however I don't think I will be able to meet due to timing (3:30am ET) I believe.

wilco: will forward this agenda to cg

Review of soon to be published rules

wilco: have a lot of rules that are ready and/or approved by WG but haven't been reviewed in a year
... would anyone be available for another round of reviews
... assigned a few people

Subjective applicability

https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/539

<Helen> Trevor: shares screen

<Helen> ... after lots of TF and CG discussions, we are getting more formal language and making improvements

<Helen> ... there are comments on items I am unsure about that I want to discuss - you have 4 minutes to read it!!!

<Helen> ... any comments on what you read?

<Helen> Wilco: Not sure your use of "must" works here - it should be a "you do not have to do it"

<Helen> ... WCAG does not use must for this reason.

<Helen> Tom: I think the must is ok - but need to reread it/double check to be sure

<Helen> Kathy: In line 408 - where it says "definitions..." I think we were trying to say when definitions are created, we must check if other rules need it how can they see it?

<Helen> Trevor: They should be shared across rules and the definition needs to be approved - but nothing significant has changed

<Helen> ... A lot of this was me stripping out the current applicability as the paragraph is about not using subjectivity, so I moved it in the applicability

<Helen> Kathy: What happens if someone comes to it later and changes a definition in another rule - will it affect the first rule?

<Helen> Trevor: The changer must validate all use of the definition are still valid in any PR

<Helen> Wilco: What I find interesting is that you are moving the subjective notes into the rules - as its own section?

<Helen> Trevor: We can move it into a note instead?

<Helen> ... I was trying to just keep it in one place for the moment

<Helen> Wilco: Please explain the 3 criteria for a subjective statement?

<Helen> Trevor: There are 3 types of subjective criteria I was trying to define, to help people to not be too broad, and to help us define subjective definitions that we can enforce in a rule

<Helen> ... They should not make a guess the intention of the author if it is subjective or objective

<Helen> Wilco: How do we define it to make it clear?

<Helen> Trevor: We could add "Subjective" to the title of the rule, or have a sentence at the start to make it clear

<Helen> Wilco: We do not communicate if something is objective or not.

<Helen> Tom: Is it the case where a tool might want to ignore subjective applicability rules?

<Helen> Wilco: We sometimes add them in to be heuristic

<Helen> Trevor: I need to work out how best to handle these heuristics, and feel a bit too close to it all so want some feedback - and would appreciate it if people could add comments on my questions

<Helen> Kathy: Why is "pre-recorded" mentioned?

<Helen> Wilco: it is hard to define it as quite subjective - is it pre-recorded with a 5 second delay?

<Helen> Wilco: How does this impact us?

<Helen> Helen: Manual testing rules are on hold as use subjectivity a lot...

<Helen> Trevor: It would help on making the rules listed more coherent/cohesive

<Helen> ... I am not sure if it will stop anything yet - but it will help getting the rules approved

<Helen> ... It can stay with the objectives we have and the subjective part is on top of it to help add context

<Helen> ... I am not comfortable with how to describe the subjective part

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Default Present: kathy, Wilco, trevor, ChrisLoiselle, ToddL, suji, Helen, thbrunet
Present: kathy, Wilco, trevor, ChrisLoiselle, ToddL, suji, Helen, thbrunet, catherine
Regrets: Daniel
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: trevor
Inferring Scribes: trevor

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth


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.)