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