12:55:57 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act
12:56:01 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/05/02-wcag-act-irc
12:56:01 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
12:56:02 <Zakim> Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference
12:56:55 <kathy> agenda+ ACT Standup
12:57:14 <kathy> agenda?
12:57:21 <kathy> zakim, clear agenda
12:57:21 <Zakim> agenda cleared
12:57:29 <kathy> agenda+ ACT Standup
12:57:34 <kathy> agenda+ Review spreadsheet Updates needed
12:57:55 <kathy> agenda+ SC 1.2.1 does not require alternative for time-based media for video-only to be visible
12:58:11 <kathy> agenda+ Transcripts in accessibility tree
12:58:21 <kathy> agenda+ What next?
12:58:26 <kathy> agenda?
13:02:06 <trevor> trevor has joined #wcag-act
13:02:17 <catherine> catherine has joined #wcag-act
13:02:23 <trevor> present+
13:02:26 <catherine> scribe+
13:02:29 <kathy> present+
13:02:33 <catherine> present+
13:02:46 <catherine> zakim, take up next
13:02:46 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- ACT Standup -- taken up [from kathy]
13:03:23 <catherine> kathy - catching up
13:03:39 <catherine> trevor - catching up
13:03:59 <catherine> catherine - catching up
13:04:11 <catherine> tom - getting into keyboard trap next
13:04:15 <catherine> zakim, take up next
13:04:15 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Review spreadsheet Updates needed -- taken up [from kathy]
13:04:55 <catherine> kathy - no update on spreadsheet.  marked update needed on last rules that we surveyed.
13:05:05 <catherine> zakim, take up next
13:05:05 <Zakim> agendum 2 was just opened, catherine
13:05:25 <catherine> close
13:05:35 <catherine> close item 2
13:05:53 <catherine> zakim, take up next
13:05:53 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- SC 1.2.1 does not require alternative for time-based media for video-only to be visible -- taken up [from kathy]
13:06:52 <kathy> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/3642
13:07:30 <kathy> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/3642#issuecomment-2052219068
13:07:56 <catherine> kathy - looked at this before.  in this issue, there is quite a bit of discussion. media alternative in content needs to be visible??  Answer is no.  so this will have impact on several rules related to media
13:08:48 <catherine> kathy - several rules that kathy and helen are working with.  Kathy will pass on to CG and create an issue.  any questions on this?
13:09:00 <catherine> catherine - no
13:09:06 <catherine> zakim, take up next
13:09:06 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Transcripts in accessibility tree -- taken up [from kathy]
13:09:34 <kathy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/1a02b0/proposed/
13:09:37 <catherine> kathy - transcript in a11y tree is another expectation in media transcripts
13:12:02 <catherine> raised by wilco a little bit ago that this is more of a 1.3.1. requirement and question if they should be in these rules right now. she they be included in the transcript rules?
13:12:47 <catherine> kathy - alternative is to keep it in a11y tree and we can add 1.3.1 in mapping but hasn't seen this done anywhere else
13:13:19 <catherine> trevor - would 1.3.1 be a secondary or a full mapping (primary)?
13:13:56 <catherine> kathy - if expectation is it is included in the a11y tree, it would not be a secondary requirement.
13:14:54 <catherine> trevor - i think it makes sense.  does not hurt anything.  feels like it would fit
13:15:10 <catherine> kathy - no requirement for text script to be visible.
13:15:28 <catherine> trevor - if we take visible part out, then we prob don't need 1.3.1
13:15:45 <catherine> trevor - doesn't meet presentation piece
13:16:26 <catherine> kathy - if we take out visible and out of a11y tree, then the expectation is reduced.  text transcript either on the page or linked.
13:17:28 <catherine> kathy - veridying audio and visual of video element has transcript
13:18:20 <catherine> kathy - this is a AAA rule 1.2.8.  requires both audio description and transcript
13:19:39 <catherine> trevor - would expect it to be on the page OR linked.  but if it's on the page and yuo can't access it, then what's the point
13:20:15 <trevor> ^^ was from tom
13:20:20 <catherine> kathy - id we keep it included in the a11y tree, kathy will follow up with wilco.  he feels it's a 1.3.1.
13:23:26 <catherine> tom - either on the page or linkned.  if on the page, then it's visible, then 1.3.1.  or off the page, which is not visible.  Or linked, on a separate page or separate step
13:25:42 <catherine> kathy - what we have with these 3 scenarios could mean 3 atomic rules, rather than combining all in one rule.
13:26:35 <catherine> trevor - might just need two.  whether it's visible or not.  the link is an exception case.  but agree we need to split into some type of atomic rule if we want 1.3.1 to be included.
13:27:34 <catherine> tom - 1.3.1 could trigger but not in all cases.
13:28:24 <kathy> kathy has joined #wcag-act
13:29:27 <kathy> agenda?
13:29:31 <catherine> tom - either linked first OR on page and in a11y tree.
13:30:02 <catherine> trevor - examples of either visible or not visible.  if visible, then 1.3.1 is included.
13:30:32 <catherine> 1.3.1 is really not the primary issue here.  it's really about the transcipt.
13:31:16 <catherine> tom - i think we could keep it as one rule since it's not really about 1.3.1, it's about the transcipt
13:31:36 <catherine> kathy - if 1.3.1 is a secondary, then it shouldn't go in the expectation.
13:32:16 <catherine> tom - we've removed expectation.  if it's in the tree but not visible, then 1.3.1 doesn't apply
13:32:38 <catherine> kathy - in test cases we could have visible, non visible and linked as passed.
13:32:59 <trevor> scribe: trevor
13:35:06 <trevor> kathy: in that case sc 1.3.1 can be a secondary requirement
13:35:50 <trevor> zakim, take up next
13:35:50 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- What next? -- taken up [from kathy]
13:36:27 <trevor> kathy: Trying to figure out what direction we want to go as a group? For CG and TF we identified a few things that everyone wants to work on going forward
13:36:43 <trevor> ... one of those was github guidance, which a few of us have been working on
13:37:40 <trevor> ... we can continue to do surveys and review rules. Several possible things were rules for manual gaps, multi-state rules, and WCAG 3 collab
13:38:38 <trevor> trevor: short term more rules, long term multi-state rules
13:39:51 <trevor> ... had some conversation with Wilco on this. Would need to figure out where to apply it
13:41:03 <trevor> kathy: for open rules, there are several video rules, an iframe rule, and one with links
13:41:47 <trevor> tom: We probably need to do some work refreshing for wcag 2.2 at some point
13:44:37 <kathy> present+ Tom
15:36:42 <spectranaut_> spectranaut_ has joined #wcag-act
15:57:39 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #wcag-act
16:58:01 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #wcag-act