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