12:49:25 RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act 12:49:29 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/04/04-wcag-act-irc 12:49:29 RRSAgent, make logs Public 12:49:30 Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference 12:49:33 agenda? 13:00:27 trevor has joined #wcag-act 13:04:39 present+ 13:04:46 scribe: trevor 13:05:26 zakim, take up next 13:05:26 agendum 1 -- ACT Standup -- taken up [from kathy] 13:06:04 present+ Daniel 13:06:17 kathy: Activity on media alternative for video needs to be visible. Sounds like they are closing in on a decision. We also have another PR open regarding label in name 13:06:37 ... paying attention to those PRs that are happening outside of ACT. 13:07:41 daniel: Was involved in the planning committee. Sent email to chairs for format 1.1. Open an issue about having the composite rules working properly on the W3C site. Took some time to figure that out. 13:08:00 present+ Tom Brunet 13:08:43 tom: Not a lot ACT related. Has a colleague around international characters for color contrast. Doesn't like some of the assumptions, some of the font-sizes don't need to be as large due to differences. 13:08:52 ... might get brough to WCAG for more clarification. 13:09:04 scribe+ 13:09:44 scribe+ 13:09:57 Trevor: Reviewed currently open PRs and rule writing guidance 13:10:08 scribe- 13:10:41 ... If an SC does not have an explicit exception we want it in the applicability, otherwise in the expectations 13:10:43 scribe- 13:12:25 zakim, take up next 13:12:25 agendum 2 -- Review spreadsheet Updates needed -- taken up [from kathy] 13:13:49 kathy: PRs open with WCAG are holding up progress on some of my rules. 13:14:27 ... label in name that I mentioned earlier. I updated the rule, but the CG is putting together an algorithm to determine when things passes and fails. The understanding article is inline with what they are planning. 13:14:40 ... AG asked ACT to review the update to make sure we are aligned. 13:14:51 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2725/files 13:15:36 q+ 13:15:51 ... take a look at it in advance and we can discuss it more next week. 13:19:53 ... have a few rules that Wilco is the liason on, we will probably need to get someone else to be liason for. 13:20:10 tom: do you know what needs to be done on the language one? 13:21:39 ... you can stick my name on it for now, can reassign later if needed 13:22:26 kathy: For daniel, there are two rules that are ready for AG. 13:22:41 daniel: We normally send larger batches like 5 or 6 instead of just 2 or 3. 13:23:21 kathy: I'm fine waiting 13:23:47 zakim, take up next 13:23:47 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, trevor 13:23:53 q- 13:23:59 ack d 13:24:04 zakim, take up next 13:24:04 agendum 3 -- Focusable element has no keyboard trap via standard navigation -- taken up [from kathy] 13:25:11 kathy: Comment about updating to format 1.1, adding 2.1.2 as a secondary requirement. 13:25:44 ... assumptions question, not sure if the Browser UI is part of the navigation cycle. 13:26:53 https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1909 13:27:06 trevor: There is an issue that addresses using "Web UI" 13:28:53 kathy: Think that cycling to the browser UI isn't part of the SC 13:29:13 tom: You should be able to get between the Browser UI and the page. Otherwise I would consider it a trap 13:30:58 kathy: I was interpreting that was you would need to go through the Browser UI to get into the application. I think this could be okay then 13:33:30 ... toms comments on if these are actually a trap. Fail 2 you can shift tab backwards to get to the third element. 13:36:36 trevor: For fail 3 the expectation takes care of Standard keyboard navigation, so that should take care of using ctrl+L 13:36:54 tom: Is that definition from WCAG or from ACT? 13:37:03 trevor: Think its probably ACT 13:37:20 tom: Its probably fine to still flag this since it would be awful design anyways 13:38:39 kathy: Tom also has a comment on having a modal example where the escape key dismisses the modal. 13:39:32 tom: would be a good passed example to make sure people are using all of the keys to the standard keyboard nav and not just focusing on the tab, mistakenly thinking a modal window is a keyboard trap. 13:41:01 zakim, take up next 13:41:01 agendum 4 -- Focusable element has no keyboard trap via non-standard navigation -- taken up [from kathy] 13:42:26 kathy: same comment about updating to format 1.1 and adding 2.1.2 as secondary 13:43:50 ... tom's comment about the assumptions for the keyboard trap or in general. 13:44:15 ... I'm reading it as the rule assuming that you cannot use standard navigation since that is covered in a separate rule. 13:46:01 tom: Do we need it in both the applicability and assumption? 13:46:20 kathy: Possibly not 13:46:47 ... second comment on not needing the tab order to be cyclical. 13:47:39 tom: It kind of goes back to the first/last element discussion and the Browser UI. 13:49:19 ... not fully understanding what the point of the assumptions is 13:50:43 ... I think the only thing the assumption is adding is that the keyboard trap is cyclical. I think the first assumption is saying the same thing as the applicability. 13:52:31 kathy: Similar comment that cycling to the Browser UI is not an explicit part of the SC. Might need to just absorb that phrasing to make sure it meets the SC 13:53:49 tom; Think the second expectation should say "how to cycle with non-standard keyboard navigation" to get to the browser UI or a way to get to a place where you can use standard navigation 13:55:11 thbrunet has joined #wcag-act 13:55:37 thbrunet has joined #wcag-act 13:56:24 kathy: 1909 could also be relevant to this rule 13:59:23 tom: Not sure about my comment on expectation 3, trying to figure out what was confusing 14:02:08 kathy: Comment about using another keyboard shortcut 14:02:31 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:02:32 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/04-wcag-act-minutes.html dmontalvo 14:02:40 trevor: Problem with the word "cycle", think it is getting used differently than usual