IRC log of wcag-act on 2023-09-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

07:28:44 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act
07:28:48 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/09/14-wcag-act-irc
07:28:48 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
07:28:49 [Zakim]
Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference
07:28:54 [daniel-montalvo]
daniel-montalvo has joined #wcag-act
07:30:29 [Jean-Yves]
Jean-Yves has joined #wcag-act
07:39:47 [daniel-montalvo]
daniel-montalvo has joined #wcag-act
07:41:07 [daniel-montalvo]
Zakim, what is this meeting?
07:41:07 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, daniel-montalvo.
07:41:25 [daniel-montalvo]
Zakim, who is here?
07:41:25 [Zakim]
Present: (no one)
07:41:26 [Zakim]
On IRC I see daniel-montalvo, Jean-Yves, RRSAgent, Zakim, Wilco, ChrisLoiselle, alastairc, Rachael, Github, gonzu_15, blueberryjuice, imlostlmao, sdd, mrlrz, dmontalvo
07:43:46 [zainab_]
zainab_ has joined #wcag-act
07:48:11 [giacomo-petri]
giacomo-petri has joined #wcag-act
07:55:08 [AWK]
AWK has joined #wcag-act
08:05:26 [daniel-montalvo]
Hi! Could someone please review https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2111 It is about removing an outdated accessibility support note about menuitem role
08:08:21 [Helen_]
Helen_ has joined #wcag-act
08:08:33 [Helen_]
present+
09:02:55 [daniel-montalvo]
daniel-montalvo has joined #wcag-act
09:15:23 [daniel-montalvo]
daniel-montalvo has joined #wcag-act
09:33:02 [Wilco]
Wilco has joined #wcag-act
09:33:37 [Jean-Yves]
Jean-Yves has joined #wcag-act
09:33:37 [daniel-montalvo]
Topic: iFrames
09:33:41 [Jean-Yves]
present+
09:33:44 [CarlosD]
CarlosD has joined #wcag-act
09:33:48 [daniel-montalvo]
Mark: I filed an issue about one of the examples of frame has non-empty accessible name
09:33:58 [CarlosD]
present+
09:34:17 [giacomo-petri]
giacomo-petri has joined #wcag-act
09:34:19 [daniel-montalvo]
... iFrames with role="presentation" the role="presentation" is still focusable in Firefox. It does not get ignore there
09:34:21 [giacomo-petri]
present+
09:34:53 [Jean-Yves]
github: https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/2096
09:36:01 [daniel-montalvo]
Mark: Originally Scott wanted to remove role="none" and role="presentation" from frames, but there was pushback from VoiceOVer. It is useful for VoiceOVer and Safari
09:36:14 [daniel-montalvo]
... In Chrome it ends up being treated as role="group"
09:36:59 [daniel-montalvo]
... The two that don't allow for scrolling if the frame is ignored
09:37:19 [daniel-montalvo]
... That is an accessibility issue
09:38:30 [daniel-montalvo]
... There are a lot of problems, not sure all of them are inapplicable
09:38:40 [daniel-montalvo]
Wilco: We know there are browser specific cases.
09:39:13 [daniel-montalvo]
Mark: One suggestion is leaving the applicability as-is but explaining it further
09:40:30 [daniel-montalvo]
Jean-Yves: Currently the applicability has an exception that if the iframe is marked as decorative it has a role="presentation"
09:41:03 [daniel-montalvo]
Mark: It is not clear that that exception in the applicability is because of these issues
09:41:36 [daniel-montalvo]
JEan-Yves: We don't usually put the reasons in the applicability. Either we put them in the accessibility support or in the background
09:41:48 [daniel-montalvo]
Mark: Accessibility support could say something to that effect. It is not very clear why the applicability has that exception
09:42:05 [daniel-montalvo]
... Is it because of accessibility support reasons or for other reasons?
09:42:12 [daniel-montalvo]
Wilco: Is there an implementation issue too?
09:42:50 [daniel-montalvo]
Mark: It came up when we tested it. Presentation role was not consistently ignored
09:43:39 [daniel-montalvo]
... There are problems with frames and it seems they will not get resolved anytime soon
09:43:49 [daniel-montalvo]
Wilco: Resolitions -- We are going to add to the accessibility support section
09:44:58 [daniel-montalvo]
Jean-Yves: We need to improve at linking accessibility support sections to applicability consideratoins
09:44:58 [daniel-montalvo]
Wilco: We can make it an actual link
09:45:34 [daniel-montalvo]
Jean-Yves: Yes. But even in the text when you read back the relation is not very clear
09:45:48 [daniel-montalvo]
Mark: I'll open a PR with proposed solution
09:47:09 [daniel-montalvo]
S/Resolitions/Resolution/
09:47:09 [daniel-montalvo]
Rrsagent, draft minutes
09:47:10 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/14-wcag-act-minutes.html daniel-montalvo
09:47:17 [Jean-Yves]
Github: none
09:47:39 [daniel-montalvo]
Topic: Deprecating Rules
09:48:14 [daniel-montalvo]
Wilco: WCAG 2.2 is removing 4.1.1 as a whole. For WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 a Note is being added that explains that the SC automatically passes for HTML and XMLthis is not a failure
09:49:11 [daniel-montalvo]
... We could deprecate the rule and explain the reasons. Does that convince everybody?
09:49:39 [daniel-montalvo]
Mark: The overall joy is to get rid of 4.1.1
09:49:51 [enrico]
enrico has joined #wcag-act
09:49:51 [daniel-montalvo]
Wilco: We are also thinking of deprecating the rule heading has non-empty accessible name
09:50:14 [daniel-montalvo]
... We tried secondary requirements. The Task Force considered that was not the right way to use secondary requirements
09:50:49 [daniel-montalvo]
... It's either a failure of 1.3.1 or, if it is not, it does not map to anything thus it may be better to deprecate the rule
09:51:39 [daniel-montalvo]
Mark: 1.3.1 does not deal with visible pixels. I don't think this is affecting anything now
09:51:57 [daniel-montalvo]
Jean-Yves: There is a conversation about the goal of secondary requirements
09:52:27 [daniel-montalvo]
... At the beginning it was OK to either fail or pass, now it seems in some cases they could pass and in other cases they should fail
09:52:42 [daniel-montalvo]
... And then we've also used them for stricter success criteria
09:53:43 [daniel-montalvo]
... Maybe goals a re not properly defined
09:53:55 [daniel-montalvo]
Wilco: There be passed examples that would fail the stricter criteria
09:54:13 [daniel-montalvo]
... Color contrast enhanced has examples that pass contrast minumum
09:55:16 [daniel-montalvo]
... There are three categories: stricter SC, less stricter SC, or some overlap with other SCs
09:56:19 [daniel-montalvo]
Wilco: Not making accessibility support a reason for moving things to secondary requirements has implications on audio and video rules. That is still a failure even in some cases you don't have the audio playing
09:57:14 [daniel-montalvo]
Jean-Yves: At some point we should have a rule that form has a label to touch on 3.3.2 or 1.3.1
09:57:47 [daniel-montalvo]
... When we made the autoplay rule having only secondary requirements I opened an issue about that
09:58:38 [daniel-montalvo]
... If I don't have a label that is a failure of 3.3.2, if the label is not programatically then there is a 1.3.1 failure
09:58:55 [daniel-montalvo]
Carlos: Shouldn't we have two rules?
09:59:36 [daniel-montalvo]
Jean-Yes: The distinction for the 1.3.1 case is not that easy, you may not know if you have a label
09:59:37 [daniel-montalvo]
Wilco: You'd expect at least one of these to be failed
09:59:55 [daniel-montalvo]
... I don't think secondary requirements lets us capture that
10:00:19 [daniel-montalvo]
Jean-Yves: At present you need to at least report one SC -- sometimes it is not sure which one though
10:00:51 [daniel-montalvo]
Carlos: If I have a methodology that tests only one of those, then I won't fail the examples that are failing the other one, or treat them as secondary requirements
10:00:55 [daniel-montalvo]
Wilco: Yes
10:01:16 [daniel-montalvo]
... IF we want something like that it should be a different thing
10:02:34 [daniel-montalvo]
... We've had a similar discussion around 1.3.1 and 4.1.2
10:02:34 [daniel-montalvo]
... We ended up not going down that path at all, but we had that conversation
10:02:34 [daniel-montalvo]
... This opens up a lot of potential for inconsistency
10:02:51 [daniel-montalvo]
... I think I'd split this rule into two for more consistent testing of them
10:03:11 [daniel-montalvo]
Jean-Yves: But then if we split which SC would we be failing?
10:05:39 [daniel-montalvo]
Wilco: We just talked about undoing a decision we made in autoplaying audio. We will remove the SC that was under secondary requirements. Any concerns?
10:06:07 [daniel-montalvo]
Mark: The autopaly one if you are using a screen reader you cannot find the content because of the noise
10:06:24 [daniel-montalvo]
S/autopaly/autoplay/
10:07:39 [daniel-montalvo]
... This can do some harm, so failing seems reasonable
10:08:46 [daniel-montalvo]
Daniel: Autoducking feature is a thing in screen reader. We may need to test for consistency of screen readers
10:11:45 [daniel-montalvo]
rrsagent, draft minutes
10:11:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/14-wcag-act-minutes.html daniel-montalvo
10:12:31 [jcraig]
jcraig has joined #wcag-act
10:12:40 [jamesn]
jamesn has joined #wcag-act
10:12:48 [jamesn]
present+
10:12:54 [jcraig]
present+
10:12:58 [daniel-montalvo]
Topic: BackWard Compatibility of ARIA
10:13:21 [MarkRogers]
MarkRogers has joined #wcag-act
10:13:23 [Jean-Yves]
https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1990
10:13:29 [Jem]
Jem has joined #wcag-act
10:13:39 [Jem]
present+ JaeunJemmaKu
10:14:22 [daniel-montalvo]
Wilco: I raised this issue because the removal of aria-expanded being removed from a bunch of static roles
10:14:22 [jamesn]
q+
10:14:22 [daniel-montalvo]
... My expectation was that ARIA was deprecating uses of attributes (that was introduced in 1.2).
10:14:40 [daniel-montalvo]
... Now some uses were deprecated and others were removed
10:15:00 [daniel-montalvo]
... Backward compatibility and keeping clarity on how the spec is changing is very important, it gives us a place to reference
10:15:39 [daniel-montalvo]
... We can raise different issues for things that were recommended and are now removed and for things that were recommended but were not used at all
10:17:19 [spectranaut_]
spectranaut_ has joined #wcag-act
10:17:37 [spectranaut_]
present+
10:18:35 [Jem]
https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1990
10:18:40 [daniel-montalvo]
JamesN: I understand there is a problem.
10:18:50 [daniel-montalvo]
... I'd like to know what you expect in terms of types of changes
10:19:08 [jcraig]
q+
10:19:12 [daniel-montalvo]
... Normative changes (mast to should) what should be doing? That's the same as removing an attribute from something
10:19:15 [jcraig]
ack jamesn
10:19:54 [daniel-montalvo]
... I propose to create a list of obsolete attributes in our spec, similarly to what HTML is doing
10:20:09 [daniel-montalvo]
... I propose to create a list of obsolete attributes in our spec
10:20:35 [daniel-montalvo]
... We previously had some attributes that we don't have a good replacement for
10:20:48 [jcraig]
q+ to suggest there could also be aria issues to track changes (at least filing) of issues in implementations and maybe tools
10:21:15 [daniel-montalvo]
... the 1.2 ones are because they were a specific use cases, and we needed to work around some technical issues in the implementations
10:21:39 [daniel-montalvo]
... If an attribute is not allowed it should not be exposed, whereas these global ones were always exposed
10:22:04 [jcraig]
ack me
10:22:04 [Zakim]
jcraig, you wanted to suggest there could also be aria issues to track changes (at least filing) of issues in implementations and maybe tools
10:22:04 [Matt_King]
Matt_King has joined #wcag-act
10:22:05 [daniel-montalvo]
... It was heavy work to remove them when they were not needed
10:22:12 [Matt_King]
q?
10:22:25 [Matt_King]
present+
10:23:11 [Wilco]
q+
10:23:11 [daniel-montalvo]
JamesC: Removal and deprecation is big enough of a step. We could work on an issue tracker that we could use to point to some implementation issues
10:23:38 [daniel-montalvo]
... That would help not implementing things that are either removed or obsoleted
10:23:57 [daniel-montalvo]
... That could happen even before we even deprecate or remove it from the specs
10:24:14 [daniel-montalvo]
... There are templates that Valerie has that we could use
10:24:48 [daniel-montalvo]
... Also, maybe we could have some author errors be flagged by browser tools
10:25:08 [daniel-montalvo]
... For example, images without an alt attribute
10:25:22 [jamesn]
q?
10:25:23 [Wilco]
ack me
10:25:38 [daniel-montalvo]
... Some of these obsolete attributes can also flag these types of errors
10:26:00 [daniel-montalvo]
Wilco: Having a maintained list out of the spec might do that. Preference would be for it to be in the spec though
10:26:12 [jamesn]
qq+
10:26:30 [daniel-montalvo]
... We ocluid then write ACT rules for things that are obsoleted or deprecated
10:27:00 [Jean-Yves]
s/ocluid/could/
10:27:05 [daniel-montalvo]
... We should have expectations for authors and user agents on what to od with obsoleted and deprecated roles
10:27:40 [daniel-montalvo]
JamesN: When you say list, is it a list of attributes that are no longer supported or you are talking also about normative requirements about child roles for example
10:27:45 [daniel-montalvo]
... The first we could do, the second is just the changelog
10:27:48 [Wilco]
q?
10:27:48 [daniel-montalvo]
Wilco: First one
10:28:09 [Wilco]
ack jamesn
10:28:09 [Zakim]
jamesn, you wanted to react to Wilco
10:28:28 [daniel-montalvo]
JamesN: If there was a label that we put in our GitHub that could automatically be pulled in the changes of this document, would that be acceptable?
10:28:40 [daniel-montalvo]
wilco: Yes
10:28:44 [Wilco]
q?
10:29:11 [Jean-Yves]
q+
10:29:40 [daniel-montalvo]
JamesN: Seems reasonable, HTML does it. We should not get into the details as to why, just have the list
10:29:41 [daniel-montalvo]
... We should not go backwards retroactively, that is more for going forward
10:29:52 [daniel-montalvo]
Wilco: I volunteer to go back to track previous changes
10:29:55 [Jean-Yves]
ack me
10:30:17 [daniel-montalvo]
Jean-Yves: I think it's good to have these lists of changes
10:30:45 [daniel-montalvo]
... I just care about one ARIA version, but still understand rationale
10:31:05 [daniel-montalvo]
... I spend time looking for changes that I need to implement
10:31:40 [daniel-montalvo]
Topic: Updates on ACT
10:31:52 [daniel-montalvo]
Wilco: We have gone through your feedback on ARIA ACT, that is now completed
10:32:08 [daniel-montalvo]
... We need to reorganise some of the rules. We are almost at a point where we can go for a pass
10:32:13 [Jem]
Q+ to ask the detail of "reorg"
10:32:18 [daniel-montalvo]
JamesN: Ask for feedback, if you don't get any, that's your feedback
10:32:31 [Jem]
is it template level?
10:32:44 [daniel-montalvo]
Wilco: A lot of us open issues on ARIA. Any feedback on things we can do to collaborate better?
10:33:13 [daniel-montalvo]
JamesN: I have not noticed any issues. If you aren't getting responses in the timelines you ned, reach back to us
10:33:38 [daniel-montalvo]
... Sometimes a draft PR can be helpful at least to move the issue forward. Not saying we'll accept it, but at least it gives us an idea on how the issue could be resolved
10:33:52 [daniel-montalvo]
JamesC: If it is a giant PR, let's first discuss. Smaller PRs are easier
10:34:23 [Jean-Yves]
q+ to mention JSON data of ARIA
10:34:26 [daniel-montalvo]
Gemma: What does reorganizationof ACT mean?
10:35:18 [Jean-Yves]
ack Jem
10:35:18 [Zakim]
Jem, you wanted to ask the detail of "reorg"
10:35:40 [daniel-montalvo]
Wilco: We split one of the rules up. We took all of the id referencing stuff and put it into its own rule, explicitly looking at what id reference requires the element to the part of the page that exists, for example references to error messages
10:35:45 [Jem]
s/Gemma/Jemma/
10:35:56 [spectranaut_]
RRSAgent, make minutes
10:35:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/14-wcag-act-minutes.html spectranaut_
10:37:08 [Wilco]
q?
10:37:08 [Wilco]
ack j
10:37:08 [Jean-Yves]
ack me
10:37:08 [Zakim]
Jean-Yves, you wanted to mention JSON data of ARIA
10:38:10 [daniel-montalvo]
Jean-Yves: All require context information I use to need to access it programmatically. For example an ARIA JSON
10:38:18 [daniel-montalvo]
JamesN: That's in our repo.
10:38:18 [daniel-montalvo]
... If you run any Respec version that will show it to you
10:38:18 [daniel-montalvo]
... We only regenerate when we publish a new version, it still is 1.2
10:38:24 [daniel-montalvo]
Rrsagent, make minutes
10:38:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/14-wcag-act-minutes.html daniel-montalvo
10:38:31 [MarkRogers]
MarkRogers has joined #wcag-act
10:41:01 [Wilco]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/
10:41:01 [Matt_King_]
Matt_King_ has joined #wcag-act
10:53:30 [jamesn]
q+ to talk a little about required context role rule
10:54:01 [Jean-Yves]
ack jamesn
10:54:01 [Zakim]
jamesn, you wanted to talk a little about required context role rule
11:48:34 [Matt_King]
Matt_King has joined #wcag-act
12:00:12 [trevor]
trevor has joined #wcag-act
12:15:27 [daniel-montalvo]
daniel-montalvo has joined #wcag-act
12:19:35 [daniel-montalvo]
daniel-montalvo has joined #wcag-act
12:34:10 [thbrunet]
thbrunet has joined #wcag-act
12:35:43 [CarlosD]
CarlosD has joined #wcag-act
12:35:46 [Wilco]
Wilco has joined #wcag-act
12:35:47 [suji]
suji has joined #wcag-act
12:35:47 [kathy]
kathy has joined #wcag-act
12:36:31 [Wilco]
agenda?
12:36:38 [Jean-Yves]
Jean-Yves has joined #wcag-act
12:36:47 [Jean-Yves]
present+
12:36:50 [CarlosD]
present+
12:37:36 [suji]
present+
12:37:36 [CarlosD]
scribe+
12:37:36 [thbrunet]
present+
12:37:46 [kathy]
present+
12:37:50 [trevor]
present+
12:37:55 [Wilco]
agenda+ End time on Friday
12:37:57 [Wilco]
agenda+ Subjective applicability (Trevor)
12:38:01 [Wilco]
agenda+ Refining secondary requirements (Kathy)
12:38:01 [Wilco]
agenda+ Defining consistent / partially consistent (Wilco)
12:38:08 [CarlosD]
zakim, take up next
12:38:08 [Zakim]
agendum 1 -- End time on Friday -- taken up [from Wilco]
12:38:30 [CarlosD]
Wilco: How long do we want to go for tomorrow?
12:38:49 [CarlosD]
... I might need to leave before six
12:40:01 [CarlosD]
Jean-Yves: We can end the agenda at 6pm and if someone wants to stay in the room they can
12:40:13 [CarlosD]
... and perhaps we can start at 2pm
12:40:22 [CarlosD]
Wilco: I'll update the agenda
12:40:23 [CarlosD]
zakim, take up next
12:40:23 [Zakim]
agendum 2 -- Subjective applicability (Trevor) -- taken up [from Wilco]
12:41:09 [giacomo-petri]
giacomo-petri has joined #wcag-act
12:41:46 [trevor]
Discussion: https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/discussions/2061
12:41:46 [Jean-Yves]
https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/539
12:42:50 [CarlosD]
trevor: In the current rules format we have an objective applicability requirement
12:44:07 [CarlosD]
... with subjective applicability we can have situations where the applicability scope is too broad (e.g. non-text content)
12:44:56 [CarlosD]
... in the current rules we do have similar situations where parts of the applicability are moved to the expectation
12:45:35 [CarlosD]
... for example the text has minimum contrast rule which has an "except if the element is..."
12:46:01 [CarlosD]
... so we ended up hacking our rules format
12:46:16 [CarlosD]
... other issue is that we could not write some rules
12:46:49 [CarlosD]
... for example "this rules applies to elements styled has an heading" which we couldn't objectively define
12:47:04 [CarlosD]
s/has an/as an
12:47:27 [MarkRogers]
MarkRogers has joined #wcag-act
12:49:50 [Wilco]
https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/539/files
12:54:22 [CarlosD]
trevor: The first major change proposed in the PR is allowing subjective forms in the applicability
12:55:10 [CarlosD]
... these subjective forms are ways to capture subjectivity that we have used in our rules
12:55:43 [CarlosD]
... in each of the forms we start with an objective target and then we apply the subjectivity on top of it
12:57:22 [CarlosD]
... The second part of the changes is the requirement to define the subjectivity in a glossary
12:58:07 [CarlosD]
... this aims to have a group consensus preventing individuals to define subjectivity by themselves
12:58:52 [CarlosD]
Jean-Yves: In the discussion we converged to requiring subjectivity to be expressed in a standard format
12:59:30 [CarlosD]
... But if we need to update the formats of the subjectivity in the future we might not want to have this in the rules format for flexibility
12:59:36 [daniel-montalvo]
q+
12:59:42 [CarlosD]
... similar to what we have with the common input formats
13:00:09 [Wilco]
q+
13:00:27 [CarlosD]
trevor: In the TF we agreed that we should have it in a note or similar
13:01:03 [CarlosD]
daniel-montalvo: I agree with that approach
13:01:09 [thbrunet]
q+
13:01:19 [CarlosD]
... otherwise this would need to go through AGWG at least
13:01:23 [CarlosD]
ack daniel-montalvo
13:02:04 [CarlosD]
Wilco: This idea feels like extra paperwork to remind us that we should write good rules
13:02:21 [CarlosD]
... I'm not sure there is extra value in this
13:02:49 [CarlosD]
Jean-Yves: Compared to what? Not having a list of allowed formats?
13:03:23 [CarlosD]
Wilco: I'm not sure that would be the solution either.
13:03:30 [CarlosD]
ack Wilco
13:03:31 [Wilco]
ack me
13:04:05 [CarlosD]
trevor: If we could all collectively agree that we are going to write good rules, perhaps we don't need to express this in the rules format
13:05:27 [Jean-Yves]
q+
13:05:34 [CarlosD]
... would we be comfortable with just updating best practices documents?
13:05:51 [CarlosD]
ack thbrunet
13:07:11 [CarlosD]
thbrunet: If we require subjective things to be defined we could get away without having the required subjective form
13:07:43 [CarlosD]
ack Jean-Yves
13:07:58 [CarlosD]
Jean-Yves: I like having some sort of gate keeping
13:08:19 [CarlosD]
... we do not always agree with how things need to be formulated
13:08:34 [CarlosD]
... what is too much or enough subjectivity?
13:08:48 [CarlosD]
... Do we want to discuss that every time we review a rule?
13:10:32 [CarlosD]
MarkRogers: What about how automated tools would deal with subjectivity?
13:11:13 [Helen_]
q+
13:11:21 [Wilco]
q+
13:11:22 [CarlosD]
Jean-Yves: That is something we might discuss later... but agree that objective is automated, and we should strive to have most objective rules
13:12:48 [CarlosD]
Helen_: Agree that is creates more overhead, but it also better supports traceability of the decisions we take when writing a rule
13:13:07 [CarlosD]
ack Helen_
13:13:48 [CarlosD]
Wilco: Maybe we could put some constraints around what kind of subjectivity is appropriate
13:14:22 [CarlosD]
... I earlier advocated for the creation of a list of approved examples
13:14:38 [CarlosD]
... which we could update whenever we find another example that should be considered
13:15:40 [CarlosD]
... this way we could list aspects that a tester could examie
13:15:46 [CarlosD]
s/examie/examine
13:17:14 [CarlosD]
trevor: In the PR we have the requirement that when you use a subjective form you need to list what characteristics need to be matched
13:18:35 [CarlosD]
... We could use other alternatives, such as using logic operators to organise the characteristics
13:19:19 [thbrunet]
q+
13:19:25 [CarlosD]
... another alternative is using scoring, where alternatives would have points and you need to reach a gola score
13:19:32 [Jean-Yves]
q+
13:19:39 [CarlosD]
ack Wilco
13:20:50 [CarlosD]
... yet other is specifying characteristics that the element needs to have without expressing a formula or score
13:21:09 [CarlosD]
ack thbrunet
13:21:13 [Wilco]
q+
13:21:35 [CarlosD]
thbrunet: The more I read this it feels like were trying to make something subjective into objective
13:22:32 [CarlosD]
trevor: My goal is we have something more concrete for implementors justifying why they are classifying something as applicable
13:23:09 [CarlosD]
thbrunet: We all have our nuances, as long it matches the fails and passes... I don't think we need to build classifiers
13:25:39 [CarlosD]
trevor: Would you be in favor of including concrete examples as part of the definitions?
13:25:39 [CarlosD]
thbrunet: yes
13:25:39 [CarlosD]
Jean-Yves: I also like the "getting warmer" method
13:26:13 [CarlosD]
... possibly with "getting colder" examples also
13:26:21 [MarkRogers]
MarkRogers has joined #wcag-act
13:26:28 [CarlosD]
ack Jean-Yves
13:26:32 [kathy]
q+
13:26:38 [MarkRogers]
q+
13:28:10 [CarlosD]
Jean-Yves: We should try to reduce the space for information to be as small as possible
13:28:52 [CarlosD]
s/information/interpretation
13:29:31 [CarlosD]
Jean-Yves: The examples are good for creating boundaries and promote discussions, as we already do in the rules
13:29:34 [CarlosD]
trevor: Do you still like the subjective forms and the definitions are enough?
13:30:27 [CarlosD]
Jean-Yves: They go together, and I feel we should have both
13:30:58 [CarlosD]
s/forms and the/forms or the
13:31:19 [CarlosD]
Jean-Yves: For the subjective definition we will need examples
13:31:22 [CarlosD]
ack Wilco
13:31:52 [CarlosD]
Wilco: This impacts manual evaluation, so I would like to know from manual testers
13:32:07 [CarlosD]
... I like the simplicity of the getting warmer approach
13:33:11 [CarlosD]
... it closes the definition, anything that does not have the specified characteristics is not what the definition applies to
13:33:42 [Wilco]
q?
13:34:06 [CarlosD]
... I would like to have a new term such as "closed subjective" to distinguish from what we already have
13:34:09 [CarlosD]
ack kathy
13:34:25 [CarlosD]
kathy: I'm leading towards the logical approach
13:34:36 [CarlosD]
... when would a tester know they are getting hot?
13:35:03 [enrico_]
enrico_ has joined #wcag-act
13:35:13 [CarlosD]
... the logical operators method is mostly tied to how we define a concept
13:35:55 [CarlosD]
... in the getting warmer how do we know how many of the characteristics need to be present?
13:36:40 [CarlosD]
trevor: Would it help if we had examples stating what characteristics are met in each example?
13:36:45 [MarkRogers_]
MarkRogers_ has joined #wcag-act
13:37:01 [CarlosD]
kathy: That seems what is described in the logical approach
13:37:30 [Wilco]
q+
13:38:06 [CarlosD]
kathy: Nevertheless, examples will all be helpful
13:38:09 [CarlosD]
ack MarkRogers_
13:38:09 [thbrunet_]
thbrunet_ has joined #wcag-act
13:38:15 [CarlosD]
ack MarkRogers
13:39:09 [CarlosD]
MarkRogers_: The logical approach could be biased towards headings and western characters
13:39:19 [CarlosD]
... the getting warmer is more extensible
13:39:23 [CarlosD]
ack Wilco
13:39:33 [Jean-Yves]
q+
13:39:42 [CarlosD]
Wilco: The alternatives need not be exclusive
13:39:55 [CarlosD]
... we could use different alternatives for different instances
13:39:59 [Helen_]
q+
13:41:05 [CarlosD]
ack Jean-Yves
13:41:44 [CarlosD]
Jean-Yves: We may need to have a format as a guideline to writing close subjective definitions
13:42:59 [CarlosD]
Jean-Yves: We can mix the logical and getting wormer saying something like "the concept usually has at least two of these characteristics"
13:43:08 [Wilco]
+1 that feels like a great middle-ground
13:44:00 [Wilco]
q?
13:44:15 [CarlosD]
Jean-Yves: But it's good to have the ability to express something logically when needed, and be more flexible when not possible
13:44:22 [CarlosD]
ack Helen_
13:44:39 [Wilco]
q+
13:45:06 [CarlosD]
Helen_: The more information I give testers the more they can make decisions for themselves
13:45:48 [CarlosD]
... a simpler definition seems to be better
13:47:43 [CarlosD]
ack Wilco
13:47:57 [MarkRogers_]
Headings work a bit differently in Japanese: https://www.w3.org/TR/jlreq/?lang=en#hanmen-design
13:49:10 [CarlosD]
suji: I like the combination of getting warmer and logical
13:49:46 [CarlosD]
s/they can make/they cannot make
13:52:11 [CarlosD]
CarlosD: The flexibility of having the possibility of having logical when possible and getting warmer when not is a positive for me
13:55:14 [Wilco]
q+
13:55:20 [enrico_]
q+
13:55:28 [CarlosD]
Helen_: If we are too prescriptive we will need to be exhaustive, otherwise the chances that people mess up when applying the definition will grow
13:57:03 [CarlosD]
Wilco: Passing a rule does not meaning meeting a success criteria, so having definitions that restrain what we test is not a problem per se, as long as we can keep expanding what we are able to test
13:57:30 [CarlosD]
ack Wilco
13:58:12 [CarlosD]
enrico_: I like the getting warmer too
13:58:58 [CarlosD]
... but for each characteristic the text might not also be objective, so we should also explain the subjectivity in the characteristics listing
13:59:16 [CarlosD]
... giving examples would be very helpful
13:59:25 [CarlosD]
ack enrico_
14:01:21 [CarlosD]
Jean-Yves: Agree that we should make as explicit as possible what defines each characteristic
14:03:06 [Wilco]
q+
14:03:43 [CarlosD]
enrico_: do we need to specify weights for the characteristics?
14:04:05 [CarlosD]
Jean-Yves: I don't think we will be able to find the correct weights
14:04:24 [MarkRogers_]
q+
14:05:23 [CarlosD]
Jean-Yves: but nothing prevents implementers to define their own weights
14:08:10 [CarlosD]
ack Wilco
14:09:35 [CarlosD]
Wilco: We have rules where we explicitly exclude things because they are edge cases and we not sure how to handle them
14:09:35 [CarlosD]
s/we not sure/we are not sure
14:10:09 [CarlosD]
Wilco: We are coming to an agreement, with Helen being an outlier
14:10:15 [CarlosD]
... I would like to talk to Helen later
14:10:20 [CarlosD]
ack MarkRogers_
14:11:13 [CarlosD]
MarkRogers_: In the CJK domain headings work differently
14:11:35 [CarlosD]
... so coming up with a set of conditions that work on everything might be difficult
14:11:45 [CarlosD]
Wilco: We don't need to make it work on everything
14:11:59 [CarlosD]
Jean-Yves: We can specify to what it applies
14:12:34 [CarlosD]
trevor: I want to revisit the subjective forms to see if they are still needed or how they can be improved
14:13:02 [CarlosD]
... and I have a list of points to work on
14:13:42 [CarlosD]
... like explore the concept of closed subjectivity
14:13:51 [CarlosD]
s/explore/exploring
14:14:08 [CarlosD]
Wilco: Any further comments?
14:14:37 [CarlosD]
Helen_: Having too many points makes it hard to mantain
14:16:19 [CarlosD]
s/hard to mantain/hard to review and hard to read
14:16:19 [CarlosD]
zakim, take up next
14:16:19 [Zakim]
agendum 3 -- Refining secondary requirements (Kathy) -- taken up [from Wilco]
14:16:19 [Jean-Yves]
scribe+
14:16:49 [Jean-Yves]
kathy: we started talking about secondary reauirements. Requirements that are related to a rule, but not specifically tested by id.
14:17:00 [Jean-Yves]
... they are often reported in implementation.
14:17:58 [Jean-Yves]
... Draft format to add secondary requirements to rules
14:17:58 [kathy]
https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-rules-format.html#outcome-mapping
14:18:51 [daniel-montalvo]
Rrsagent, draft minutes
14:18:52 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/14-wcag-act-minutes.html daniel-montalvo
14:20:07 [kathy]
https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/542/files#diff-4f84b10f4fa5880bac20c3a8b3e31671a67e8bfce9b5d8e67519b1c513f1ed6bR265 - update for how to provide explanation
14:20:17 [kathy]
https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/540/files - additional update for accessibility support
14:21:01 [daniel-montalvo]
S/reauirements. Requirements/requirements. Requirements/
14:24:08 [kathy]
https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/discussions/2095 - discussion and decision to not include accessibility support
14:37:08 [daniel-montalvo]
daniel-montalvo has joined #wcag-act
14:58:22 [Rachael]
Rachael has joined #wcag-act
14:58:28 [Jem]
Jem has joined #wcag-act
14:58:38 [AWK]
AWK has joined #wcag-act
14:59:00 [Jean-Yves]
Jean-Yves has joined #wcag-act
14:59:04 [Jean-Yves]
present+
14:59:08 [Jean-Yves]
scribe+
14:59:12 [daniel-montalvo]
daniel-montalvo has joined #wcag-act
14:59:19 [spectranaut_]
spectranaut_ has joined #wcag-act
15:00:41 [daniel-montalvo]
daniel-montalvo has joined #wcag-act
15:01:11 [CarlosD]
CarlosD has joined #wcag-act
15:01:30 [trevor]
present+
15:01:57 [kathy]
present+
15:01:58 [Wilco]
Wilco has joined #wcag-act
15:02:04 [thbrunet_]
present+
15:02:08 [MarkRogers]
MarkRogers has joined #wcag-act
15:02:26 [CarlosD]
present+
15:02:29 [giacomo-petri_]
giacomo-petri_ has joined #wcag-act
15:02:54 [kathy]
https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-rules-format.html#outcome-mapping
15:02:54 [enrico]
enrico has joined #wcag-act
15:03:08 [Jean-Yves]
kathy: [show draft rule format, Section 4.4.1]
15:03:47 [Jean-Yves]
... this is where we have the categories for secondary requirements (4.4.1.1)
15:04:01 [Wilco]
q+
15:04:54 [Jean-Yves]
... there are 4 scenarios included for secondary requirements, with examples of rules that would use them.
15:05:31 [Jean-Yves]
... we require information has to why the requirement is secondary, currently in the Background section.
15:07:18 [Jean-Yves]
ack Wilco
15:08:24 [Jean-Yves]
Wilco: we want implementers to report the "correct" SC to claim an implementation. But that is not always possible. With 2ndary, we can say "this must be reported, this may be, this may not be"
15:08:24 [kathy]
https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/542/files#diff-4f84b10f4fa5880bac20c3a8b3e31671a67e8bfce9b5d8e67519b1c513f1ed6bR265
15:09:50 [kathy]
https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2060
15:11:02 [Jean-Yves]
kathy: The PR adds some explanations. The reason for being secondary is moved to the Accessibility Mappings section, together with the requirement.
15:11:02 [Jean-Yves]
... two of the scenarios are merged (down to 3 scenarios).
15:12:06 [kathy]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/09o5cg/
15:12:48 [Jean-Yves]
... Some rules alredy have that change, e.g. "text has enhanced contrast".
15:13:04 [Jean-Yves]
Jean-Yves: I like the fact that the scenarios are now named.
15:13:40 [Jean-Yves]
Wilco: I think this goes in the right direction.
15:13:40 [Jean-Yves]
... Do we really need to capitalize "Secondary"?
15:14:21 [Jean-Yves]
kathy: No real reason.
15:14:39 [Jean-Yves]
Wilco: This is a defined term, we can link the first used (in each paragraph) to the definition.
15:18:17 [Jean-Yves]
... We decided not to use secondary requirements for Accessibility Supports
15:18:25 [Jean-Yves]
kathy: that's in another PR.
15:21:00 [Jean-Yves]
Jean-Yves: I think we can keep the example of the removed scenario, because it it a fairly different use case of the same scenario.
15:22:40 [Jean-Yves]
kathy: the other PR is to explicit that 2ndary requirements are not meant to cover accessibility support differences.
15:24:28 [kathy]
https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/discussions/2095
15:25:06 [kathy]
https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/540/files
15:28:39 [Jean-Yves]
[discussions around the precise wording of should/must]
15:31:28 [Jean-Yves]
Wilco: Do need to change something about where the explanation is?
15:31:37 [Jean-Yves]
kathy: Tat's part of the #542 PR.
15:33:10 [Jean-Yves]
s/Tat/That/
15:33:36 [Jean-Yves]
Wilco: We'll merge as soon as this is done, and vote on the full draft.
15:33:47 [Jean-Yves]
zakim, take up next
15:33:47 [Zakim]
agendum 4 -- Defining consistent / partially consistent (Wilco) -- taken up [from Wilco]
15:34:37 [Jean-Yves]
Wilco: we want to add a formal definition of (partial) consistency in the rule format
15:34:51 [Wilco]
https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/541/files
15:34:58 [Jean-Yves]
... we had a concept of "minimally consistent", we have evolved from that.
15:35:39 [Jean-Yves]
... We don't need the definition to be in the format (can be just an internal TF def).
15:36:10 [Jean-Yves]
... This is a fairly complex definition. I tried to start from the simple case and expand from here.
15:43:00 [Jean-Yves]
trevor: I get a lot of confusion due to mixing "implementation" and "implementation procedure".
15:44:02 [Jean-Yves]
... my understanding is that a procedure only has one outcome; the implementation as a whole can be consistent depending on the union of outcomes of its procedures.
15:45:22 [Jean-Yves]
... i think it would help me to see how procedures are aggregated into an implementation from the start.
15:45:50 [Jean-Yves]
Wilco: I think this would put the complexity upfront and might not be that readable.
15:47:08 [Jean-Yves]
... I will try something, need to think how to do it.
15:47:26 [CarlosD]
q+
15:47:43 [Jean-Yves]
thbrunet_: I think 'failed' should take precedence over 'untested'.
15:48:46 [Jean-Yves]
Wilco: Good point.
15:50:56 [Jean-Yves]
trevor: how can a procedure report several outcomes?
15:51:40 [Wilco]
q?
15:51:49 [Jean-Yves]
Wilco: e.g. an example with text both on good and bad contrast, a color contrast procedure could report both passed and failed.
15:52:13 [Jean-Yves]
CarlosD: I'm also confused by the difference between implementation and procedure
15:52:22 [Jean-Yves]
q+ suji
15:52:27 [Jean-Yves]
ack CarlosD
15:52:30 [suji]
q+
15:52:31 [Jean-Yves]
q+
15:53:12 [Jean-Yves]
CarlosD: the first definition applies to implementation, the second one mention procedure.
15:53:48 [Jean-Yves]
... it may be easier to define what is an implementation, and how procedures results map to implementation result.
15:54:38 [Jean-Yves]
... I think it wil e easier if we have the mapping to implementations first.
15:55:10 [Jean-Yves]
Wilco: this is defined with union of outcomes.
15:55:25 [Jean-Yves]
s/wil e/will be/
15:55:39 [Jean-Yves]
Wilco: we can make it more explicit
15:56:27 [Wilco]
q?
15:57:08 [Jean-Yves]
suji: do we also want Inapplicable test cases to satisfy the requirements?
15:57:11 [Jean-Yves]
ack suji
15:58:08 [Jean-Yves]
Wilco: yes, because it is the same "not a problem" bucket.
15:58:26 [daniel-montalvo]
q+ to ask for definition of implementation #598
16:02:26 [Jean-Yves]
Wilco: take e.g. a rule checking that HTML page has a language, an inapplicable example showing a PDF could have no lang, but then a procedure that also checks PDF would fail it and not be able to claim a consistent implementation.
16:02:31 [Jean-Yves]
ack me
16:04:04 [Jean-Yves]
Jean-Yves: it could help to have example of procedure/implementation/rules Might be to big, however
16:04:08 [Jean-Yves]
ack daniel-montalvo
16:04:08 [Zakim]
daniel-montalvo, you wanted to ask for definition of implementation #598
16:04:35 [Jean-Yves]
daniel-montalvo: I think the implemetation could be the set of outcomes
16:05:01 [Jean-Yves]
... line 598
16:05:33 [Jean-Yves]
s/implemetation/implementation/
16:05:57 [Jean-Yves]
Wilco: implementation produces outcome for a page.
16:07:31 [Jean-Yves]
Wilco: "implementation procedure" = "rule inside my tool" != "ACT rule"
16:07:39 [Jean-Yves]
Jean-Yves: could be "check"
16:11:12 [Wilco]
q?
16:13:32 [Jean-Yves]
Wilco: this adds a new requirement to rules, not backward compatible. Do we want this?
16:13:56 [Jean-Yves]
... we can record the version (of the format, in the rule) to be backward compatible.
16:14:40 [Jean-Yves]
... all current rules actually meet that requirement
16:15:28 [kathy]
q+
16:15:29 [Jean-Yves]
... we can easily record the rule format in the metadata.
16:15:47 [Jean-Yves]
ack kathy
16:16:11 [Jean-Yves]
kathy: failed cases do not need to fail all secondary requirements
16:18:13 [Jean-Yves]
topic: first public working draft
16:18:49 [Jean-Yves]
Wilco: for subjective requirements, we are not ready to go public yet.
16:19:00 [Jean-Yves]
... secondary requirements looks ready-ish
16:19:09 [Jean-Yves]
... implementation is also pretty close.
16:19:25 [Jean-Yves]
... want to take that to AG and a first working draft
16:20:26 [Jean-Yves]
Jean-Yves: we can make a join TF/CG call to present it when ready.
16:21:27 [daniel-montalvo]
Rrsagent, draft minutes
16:21:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/14-wcag-act-minutes.html daniel-montalvo
16:28:07 [giacomo-petri]
giacomo-petri has joined #wcag-act