IRC log of wcag-act on 2024-01-25
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 13:59:04 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act
- 13:59:08 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/01/25-wcag-act-irc
- 13:59:08 [Zakim]
- RRSAgent, make logs Public
- 13:59:09 [Zakim]
- Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference
- 13:59:16 [kathy]
- zakim, clear agenda
- 13:59:16 [Zakim]
- agenda cleared
- 13:59:45 [kathy]
- agenda+ ACT Standup
- 13:59:50 [suji]
- suji has joined #wcag-act
- 14:00:00 [kathy]
- agenda+ Subjective applicability
- 14:00:13 [kathy]
- agenda+ Video element visual-only content has transcript
- 14:00:25 [kathy]
- agenda+ Video element visual-only content is media alternative for text
- 14:00:37 [kathy]
- agenda+ AG requested we update our work statement
- 14:01:54 [Helen]
- Helen has joined #wcag-act
- 14:02:10 [suji]
- present+
- 14:02:32 [Helen]
- present+
- 14:03:04 [Wilco]
- present+
- 14:03:12 [catherine]
- catherine has joined #wcag-act
- 14:03:13 [kathy]
- present+
- 14:03:26 [catherine]
- present+
- 14:04:12 [trevor]
- trevor has joined #wcag-act
- 14:04:14 [Jean-Yves_]
- Jean-Yves_ has joined #wcag-act
- 14:04:25 [Jean-Yves_]
- present+
- 14:05:09 [kathy]
- scribe+
- 14:05:15 [kathy]
- zakim, take up next
- 14:05:15 [Zakim]
- agendum 1 -- ACT Standup -- taken up [from kathy]
- 14:05:54 [kathy]
- wilco: WCAG 2.2 PR ready for review
- 14:05:56 [Wilco]
- https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2147
- 14:06:09 [dmontalvo]
- present+ Daniel
- 14:06:10 [kathy]
- wilco: prefer 2 to review this week
- 14:06:24 [kathy]
- daniel: will review
- 14:06:40 [kathy]
- wilco: lots of editorial, lengthy
- 14:06:50 [kathy]
- suji and helen will review
- 14:07:14 [kathy]
- catherine: github review on to do list
- 14:08:00 [kathy]
- daniel: looked at trevor's PR for editors draft, joint meeting planning
- 14:08:48 [kathy]
- kathy: liaison for survey, opened a PR
- 14:09:03 [kathy]
- trevor: subjective applicability updates
- 14:09:12 [kathy]
- suji: catch up time
- 14:09:41 [kathy]
- helen: approved some PRs assigned to me
- 14:09:48 [kathy]
- zakim, take up next
- 14:09:48 [Zakim]
- agendum 2 -- Subjective applicability -- taken up [from kathy]
- 14:10:05 [trevor]
- https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/555/files
- 14:10:21 [kathy]
- trevor: thanks jean-yves for review
- 14:10:55 [kathy]
- ... line 412 re plain lang must to should
- 14:11:21 [kathy]
- wilco: some things are difficult to write in way to understand
- 14:11:32 [kathy]
- jean-yves: that's fine
- 14:12:46 [kathy]
- trevor: line 414, expand on applicability being easier to automate
- 14:13:24 [kathy]
- ... add this to a note
- 14:13:36 [kathy]
- jean-yves: agree to not be in normative text
- 14:13:53 [kathy]
- trevor: are there author's notes?
- 14:14:18 [kathy]
- wilco: no, but it can be in a note. don't feel strongly that it's needed
- 14:14:28 [kathy]
- jean-yves: don't mind if it's not included
- 14:16:35 [kathy]
- kathy: adding the note would be helpful
- 14:17:32 [kathy]
- helen: simplify the sentence
- 14:19:18 [kathy]
- wilco: a lot of commas in the sentence
- 14:22:03 [kathy]
- trevor: line 440 styled as a heading example - like the list of objective criteria, should it be required?
- 14:22:15 [kathy]
- ... earlier I had definitions
- 14:23:24 [kathy]
- jean-yves: agree we can't capture all cases needed
- 14:24:30 [kathy]
- ... include it as a note
- 14:25:05 [kathy]
- wilco: don't like should on top of another should, but like expanding more when not objective
- 14:25:24 [kathy]
- helen: should we have categorization?
- 14:25:48 [kathy]
- trevor: applicability type designation is optional
- 14:26:56 [kathy]
- ... maybe add author intention to Background section
- 14:27:35 [kathy]
- helen: helpful to add what is obj or subj and why
- 14:28:15 [kathy]
- wilco: that's more like an authoring practice and not in the rules format
- 14:28:41 [kathy]
- jean-yves: agree to not be in the rules format
- 14:29:09 [kathy]
- helen: flag would be helpful to manual testers
- 14:30:32 [kathy]
- trevor: line 455 incorrect example of having applicability in expectation
- 14:31:27 [kathy]
- ... leads to pass examples that should be inapplicable
- 14:31:42 [kathy]
- ... ACT rules treat pass and inapplicable the same
- 14:33:15 [kathy]
- jean-yves: agree applicability should be in applicability statement
- 14:34:15 [kathy]
- ... but blurry. Can enforce it in CG but not sure how to define it in rules format
- 14:35:06 [kathy]
- ... it only says this is bad in an example, not in normative part
- 14:36:07 [kathy]
- ... we have done this to get around the obj applicability restriction
- 14:37:02 [kathy]
- ... in bypass block rule for example, a page without repetitive content passes when it should be inapplicable
- 14:37:42 [kathy]
- ... don't know how to define in a spec
- 14:39:30 [kathy]
- wilco: agree it's fuzzy what goes in applicability vs expectation
- 14:39:55 [kathy]
- ... people are confused
- 14:40:20 [kathy]
- trevor: should I change this example?
- 14:42:24 [kathy]
- kathy: it would be helpful to address applicability should not be in expectation
- 14:43:27 [kathy]
- wilco: calling it a non-conforming example is not true; it's been done this way
- 14:45:09 [kathy]
- ... change example to show subjective applicability approach is ok
- 14:45:09 [kathy]
- trevor: will make changes
- 14:46:05 [kathy]
- ... thanks jean-yves
- 14:46:47 [kathy]
- zakim, take up next
- 14:46:47 [Zakim]
- agendum 3 -- Video element visual-only content has transcript -- taken up [from kathy]
- 14:47:05 [dmontalvo]
- present+ Daniel
- 14:47:22 [dmontalvo]
- scribe+
- 14:47:30 [trevor]
- present+
- 14:47:39 [kathy]
- https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/3642
- 14:48:12 [dmontalvo]
- Wilco: We had a conversation as to whether WCAG requires transcripts to be visible
- 14:48:36 [dmontalvo]
- Kathy: I opened an issue, 642. Some say yes, some say no. Not sure that helpful this is
- 14:49:04 [dmontalvo]
- ... Others said as long as they available to AT that is good
- 14:49:23 [dmontalvo]
- ... Other said for long videos or more involved content it's good for them to be visible
- 14:49:39 [dmontalvo]
- s/them to be/transcripts to be/
- 14:49:52 [dmontalvo]
- Wilco: It seems we are blocked until we have an answer
- 14:50:09 [dmontalvo]
- ... I don't think we should be taking it to AG until there is an answer
- 14:50:39 [dmontalvo]
- ... We should get in touch with the chairs on this
- 14:50:47 [dmontalvo]
- s/on/about/
- 14:51:16 [dmontalvo]
- Wilco: The other options is that we go with the lowest common denominator (at the very least it needs to be in the accessile tree)
- 14:51:47 [dmontalvo]
- ... Because if it is required to be visible, it may not be required to be in the accessibility tree, at least not in thiss SC
- 14:52:14 [dmontalvo]
- ... I would be happy to change the rule to say that transcripts need to be in the accessibility tree
- 14:53:09 [dmontalvo]
- Daniel: It may be good for us to get a sense of how much of a priority this could get
- 14:55:06 [dmontalvo]
- Topic: Joint meeting with CG
- 14:55:06 [dmontalvo]
- Wilco: I'll be sending out an agenda for that meeting.
- 14:55:24 [dmontalvo]
- ... The meeting will be February 8, one hour later than we use to meet. Our meeting will be canceled that day
- 14:55:28 [dmontalvo]
- Chair: Wilco
- 14:55:34 [dmontalvo]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 14:55:35 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/25-wcag-act-minutes.html dmontalvo
- 15:29:40 [Helen]
- Helen has left #wcag-act