12:59:19 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act
12:59:23 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/08/24-wcag-act-irc
12:59:23 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
12:59:24 <Zakim> Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference
12:59:26 <kathy> kathy has joined #wcag-act
12:59:52 <Helen> Helen has joined #wcag-act
13:00:00 <kathy> agenda?
13:00:05 <Wilco> agenda+ ACT Standup
13:00:13 <Wilco> agenda+ Secondary requirements and accessibility support
13:00:15 <Wilco> agenda+ Subjective exceptions in the applicability
13:00:25 <ShaneDittmar> ShaneDittmar has joined #wcag-act
13:01:11 <Suji> Suji has joined #wcag-act
13:01:36 <Helen> present+
13:01:44 <ShaneDittmar> present+
13:01:47 <Suji> present+
13:01:54 <kathy> present+
13:02:00 <dmontalvo> scribe: Daniel
13:02:33 <catherine> catherine has joined #wcag-act
13:02:38 <catherine> present+
13:04:08 <Wilco> present+
13:06:14 <dmontalvo> Chair: Wilco
13:08:09 <Wilco> TOPIC: TPAC meet with ARIA
13:08:15 <thbrunet> thbrunet has joined #wcag-act
13:08:27 <dmontalvo> Topic: Joint meeting with ARIA
13:08:28 <thbrunet> present+
13:09:10 <dmontalvo> Wilco: At TPAC 2023 we will be having a joint meeting with the ARIA WG, 12 to 13 on Thursday. This will be on the TPAC agenda. The topic will be Backwards compatibility of ARIA specs
13:09:34 <dmontalvo> zakim, take up next
13:09:34 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- ACT Standup -- taken up [from Wilco]
13:10:17 <dmontalvo> Wilco: I finished four of the annual reviews
13:10:36 <dmontalvo> ... Sent out a CFR email for updates to secondary requirements text, which should clear up all my assigned issues
13:11:54 <dmontalvo> Catherine: Cleared up all my assignments
13:11:57 <Wilco> Here's the PR I mentioned: https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2060
13:12:10 <dmontalvo> Daniel: Not much from me, ust came back yesterday  from holiday
13:12:24 <dmontalvo> Trevor: One Open for video and captions, worked on subjective applicability
13:12:41 <dmontalvo> Suji: Worked on annual reviews, two more pending yet
13:13:28 <dmontalvo> Helen: I have done my reviews, done an acceptance on Wilco's secondary requirements, that is now so much easier to understand
13:14:03 <dmontalvo> Tom: Not much from AT, took a look at subjective applicability and secondary requirements
13:14:24 <dmontalvo> Kathy: New PR for the language to add `lang` attribute. I need one more review
13:14:40 <dmontalvo> ... That's PR 2100, please add your reviews
13:14:48 <dmontalvo> ... Started PR for Label in Name, that's draft
13:15:02 <dmontalvo> ... Shane, I'll be sending you an email with details on how the group works
13:16:31 <dmontalvo> zakim, take up next
13:16:31 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Secondary requirements and accessibility support -- taken up [from Wilco]
13:17:29 <kathy> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/discussions/2095
13:17:39 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Discussion opened to clarify secondary requirements
13:18:01 <dmontalvo> ... These are requirements that are related to the rule but are not  exactly what the rule is specifically testing
13:18:20 <dmontalvo> ... tricter SCs, overlap between some SCs, etc
13:19:31 <dmontalvo> ... One of the conversations that came out of this is if we want to allow rules that have failed examples that depend on environmental reasons: browsers, ATs, OS, etc
13:19:56 <dmontalvo> ... We have a rule about viewports. That only works on mobile browsers
13:21:00 <dmontalvo> ... Do we want these types of rule that require testers to fail all of them or we want to move these failures to the secondary requirements category so that tare's more leeway for testers?
13:21:46 <dmontalvo> Kathy: The discussion was on autoplay
13:22:02 <dmontalvo> Wilco: There are others, such as the iframe related ones
13:22:44 <dmontalvo> ... Are we OK with having rules where failing these become "optional"?
13:22:58 <dmontalvo> Trevor: I feel better about iframes, not so good about autoplay
13:23:41 <dmontalvo> ... Because the browser just handles it, we may end up giving the impression that certain SCs can never fail
13:24:43 <dmontalvo> Tom: If it is a cross device issue that's not good, if it is more obscure I would be OK
13:25:10 <dmontalvo> Wilco: For example in the empty headings there is still the argument that some empty headings do not get ignored by ATs
13:25:30 <dmontalvo> .. We have had that as a failure of 1.3.1 and I've not been particularly comfortable about that
13:26:10 <dmontalvo> ... What does Trusted Tester do with these scenarios?
13:27:33 <dmontalvo> Kathy: For the autoplay scenario I found some examples that were coded to autoplay but didn't. And recently I went back and they did autoplay. I am getting different results
13:27:58 <dmontalvo> ... We document which browser and test environment so that we can tell the results we find in each browser
13:28:28 <dmontalvo> ... Trusted Tester falls back to the browser we tested on and that's the result we provide. We don't use to test in multiple browsers
13:29:21 <dmontalvo> ... For the presentational role where image has role presentation but an alt text, we are still figuring out how to deal with this. I think ACT tackled that discussion a while ago
13:30:28 <dmontalvo> ... When we find the heading tag and there is no visible test, we would fail that
13:30:39 <dmontalvo> ... We still don't test viewport
13:30:51 <dmontalvo> ... And we do require that iframes have an accessible name
13:31:15 <dmontalvo> ... For iframes we'd be open to changing that
13:31:51 <dmontalvo> Catherine: I don't feel strongly either way
13:31:54 <thbrunet> thbrunet has joined #wcag-act
13:32:46 <dmontalvo> Wilco: I don't think any of us are dogmatic that if it is not a failure in the browser I would never report it
13:33:06 <dmontalvo> ... The tools we use do check for these things
13:33:49 <dmontalvo> ... There are scenarios where you are relying on the browser and others where you use other means
13:34:04 <dmontalvo> Tom: We would be on the side of flagging the bad code
13:34:36 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Another way to look at this is for example with the iewport, if you are not interested in mobile testing, it's reasonable to skip that rule
13:35:08 <dmontalvo> ... The downside is that you have your rules implemented in ACT and we may create an implicit incentive for those of us trying to implement as many as we can to be stricter and potentially fail things that are no longer relevant
13:35:19 <dmontalvo> ... But I may be OK with that
13:35:42 <ShaneDittmar> q+
13:35:52 <dmontalvo> ... I am OK with saying "autoplay always fails" irrespective of what the browser does
13:36:05 <dmontalvo> ... Methodologies would tend to update to cover these cases
13:36:37 <dmontalvo> Trevor: If there was additional metadata that we could include in the implemnetation reports that expains why they arrived at that result, then Jean-Yves would agree with that
13:37:00 <dmontalvo> Wilco: I think this came from Trusted Tester
13:37:20 <dmontalvo> ... I don't think there was an implementation problem from SiteImprove
13:37:37 <dmontalvo> Kathy: I mentioned this a while back but now the autoplay examples are working
13:37:38 <ShaneDittmar> q+q-
13:38:11 <dmontalvo> Shane: The way is written is code-wise
13:38:47 <dmontalvo> ... The thing that this works or not depending on the user agent is complicated, there is a great variety on configuration to rely on whether user agents will do the right things
13:39:22 <dmontalvo> ... It would make sense to test whether these is built in  a way that could create an accessibility problem
13:39:37 <dmontalvo> Kathy: When we do our tests we do not disable autoplay
13:40:00 <dmontalvo> ... But I am find with the suggestion that if it's coded to autoplay that's a failure
13:40:21 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Then accessibility support is not a reason to set something as secondary requirement
13:40:41 <ShaneDittmar> q-
13:40:51 <ShaneDittmar> q- q-
13:40:53 <dmontalvo> ... I am OK with those. I am not sure what it means for empty headings
13:41:31 <dmontalvo> ... This is an issue sometimes. Does it mean we should deprecate that rule?
13:42:11 <dmontalvo> Trevor:The heading example feels like it's so rare thta it would border an optional test case
13:42:31 <dmontalvo> Wilco: This is an entire rule
13:42:46 <dmontalvo> Tom: If there is no primary SC then what's the point on having the rule?
13:43:01 <dmontalvo> Wilco: The reason we wrote it is because we had a number of implementers who thought this was important
13:43:41 <dmontalvo> Wilco: I think we have another rule like that, which is just a best practice, no accessibility requirements
13:43:55 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Several things:
13:44:16 <dmontalvo> ... Accessibility support is not a reason to make something a secondary requirement. We should put this in the ACT Rules format
13:44:36 <dmontalvo> ... If the problem is common enough that there should be a rule to cover it, we should
13:45:00 <dmontalvo> ... We are happy with all the ones we currently have, except for headings, where we think that's not such big of an issue
13:45:43 <dmontalvo> Kathy: What conclusion reached about the heading rule?
13:45:55 <dmontalvo> Wilco: We should remove 1.3.1 from the rule
13:46:13 <dmontalvo> Kathy: Those implementers who would fail that, would they have inconsistent results?
13:46:31 <dmontalvo> Wilco: I don't think that is what that means
13:47:17 <dmontalvo> ... According to rules format we don't have a mechanism to cover those, as there won't be a way to fail this under WCAG
13:47:34 <dmontalvo> ... We could consider this a common failure but not a WCAG failure
13:47:53 <dmontalvo> ... We may need to have that conversation, there is a TPAC agenda item for that
13:48:25 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Leaving that question aisde, are we happy with these conclusions?
13:48:31 <dmontalvo> Kathy: Yes
13:48:46 <dmontalvo> Wilco: I think we should put that in the rules format
13:48:52 <dmontalvo> Kathy: I can draft something
13:49:21 <dmontalvo> zakim, take up next
13:49:21 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Subjective exceptions in the applicability -- taken up [from Wilco]
13:50:15 <trevor> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/539/files
13:50:44 <dmontalvo> Trevor: This is about subjective applicability.
13:51:12 <dmontalvo> ... We have found cases in our rules where we need to test something subjective:
13:51:13 <trevor> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/discussions/2061#discussioncomment-6245094
13:51:54 <dmontalvo> ... We ended up pushing parts of the applicability into the expectations
13:52:17 <dmontalvo> ... These subjective attribute affect the applicability
13:52:43 <dmontalvo> ... I started to flesh out some updates to the rules format
13:53:00 <dmontalvo> .... We are working on allowing subjective applicability but with a number of exceptions
13:53:13 <dmontalvo> ... There is also wording in favor of objective applicability as much as possible
13:53:49 <dmontalvo> ... We have "allowed subjective forms" to guide authors on how they write subjective applicability
13:54:00 <dmontalvo> ... The second is that the subjectivity needs to be captured in a glossary entry
13:54:13 <dmontalvo> s/glossary entry/gglossary definition/
13:55:45 <dmontalvo> ... If we were to write a rule for things that look as headings to be actually headings, the actual applicability would be the HTML element that is styled as a heading
13:56:00 <dmontalvo> ... We would need to define styled as a heading
13:56:34 <dmontalvo> ... We have a definition for styled as a heading and some logic as to why this definition exists
13:57:45 <dmontalvo> Wilco: Everybody please have a look at this, we will get into this next week
13:57:45 <dmontalvo> rrsagent, make minutes
13:57:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/08/24-wcag-act-minutes.html dmontalvo
13:57:53 <trevor> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/539/files
14:04:18 <thbrunet> thbrunet has joined #wcag-act
14:22:11 <thbrunet> thbrunet has joined #wcag-act
14:40:00 <thbrunet> thbrunet has joined #wcag-act
15:00:42 <thbrunet> thbrunet has joined #wcag-act