13:59:25 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act
13:59:29 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/08/27-wcag-act-irc
13:59:29 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:59:30 <Zakim> Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference
13:59:54 <Wilco> agenda+ standup
14:00:15 <Wilco> agenda+ Non-web ACT rules
14:00:36 <Wilco> agenda+ Other topics
14:02:00 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #wcag-act
14:02:43 <Adam> present+
14:03:42 <Kathy> present+
14:04:00 <Shunguo> Shunguo has joined #wcag-act
14:04:17 <Shunguo> present+
14:04:32 <Wilco> present+
14:04:47 <Shunguo> scribe+
14:05:31 <Wilco> zakim, take up next
14:05:31 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- standup -- taken up [from Wilco]
14:06:50 <Shunguo> Kathy: sign lan WCAG 3 items, handles live media.  ACT rules for live media?  Make it a inertion rather than requirement, good progress
14:07:45 <Shunguo> Wilco: useful thought for live media code, example?.  We may include examples in the code, it's a way doing things.
14:08:06 <Shunguo> Kathy:  let's see, it would be different
14:08:38 <Shunguo> Wilco: it's reasonable, than not doing anything with it.
14:09:38 <Shunguo> Giacomo: if we can provide real example, if something is worth to better present to tester for better understanding of intent, more understanding of example
14:10:20 <Shunguo> Kathy: if we can description of live video example.
14:10:50 <Shunguo> Adam: we haven't touched any ACT content for a while
14:11:05 <Shunguo> Wilco: should we worried about that
14:11:19 <Wilco> scribe+
14:11:39 <Wilco> Shunguo: Similar to Adam. Currently focused on provisions and different cases.
14:11:57 <Wilco> ... I think we'll go back to ACT tests. Now it's not specifically ACT rules.
14:12:02 <Adam> q+
14:12:40 <Shunguo> Wilco: If it's about ACT, you don't have obligation to ateend
14:13:27 <Shunguo> Giacomo: I think even no update for specific on ACT, may have sth interesting to be discussed
14:14:18 <Shunguo> Wilco: if sub-group are not working on ACT rules, we don't have to join necessarily, no obligation in this case but
14:15:35 <Shunguo> Giacomo: act rule can guide the process of the provisions,  next step is structure to replace the
14:16:32 <Shunguo> Wilco: I am wondering if we reach to a new stage of WCAG.  Most group have shifted from the ACT, Is it a fair conclusion?
14:17:04 <Shunguo> Kathy: in order to do ACT rule, you have to work on existing provision
14:18:47 <Shunguo> Adam: not intensionally shift
14:20:02 <Shunguo> Wilco: I am wondering while sub groups working refine the provisions, the liaisons should focus on ACT rules to refine the rules to better in line with ACT rule formats?
14:21:11 <Adam> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/774
14:21:21 <Shunguo> Adam: the pull request to update WCAG 3 in ACT rules I made was reviewed and merged, If liaisons refine the rules, that can be used
14:22:27 <Shunguo> Kathy: that's what we need to do, WCAG sub group already drafting the ACT rules, refine and updating their draft. Either they have write new rule, or we fix the draft
14:23:12 <Shunguo> Kathy: In sign lang, they have placeholder, when they finish the research, will draft the ACT rules
14:23:58 <Shunguo> Kathy: any doc is in Google DOCs.  Should we start to make a list for ACT rules
14:24:20 <Shunguo> Adam: single place in Google DOCs?
14:24:48 <Shunguo> Adam: I will look arounf for that docs
14:25:23 <Shunguo> Wilco: at least an overview of provisions, stages, something for ACT rules
14:25:24 <Adam> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1V7u1tjVsxL9NgN9ySoUtt0gmYReXSs0Y9Bc_R2RByzg/edit?gid=0#gid=0
14:25:42 <Shunguo> Adam: massive provision list, a column for ACT rule draft
14:26:32 <Shunguo> Giacomo: I think we need some common way to determine the stage of the rules
14:26:37 <Shunguo> Wilco: good idea
14:27:19 <Shunguo> Wilco: what point we need to put the rules to ? maturity of the rules?
14:28:01 <Shunguo> Giacomo: may we can convention on the provisions: second review? third review? use some consistent way
14:28:28 <Shunguo> Adam: use tags, to commit and review the work
14:28:54 <Shunguo> Wilco: call liasions to fill the column
14:29:24 <Shunguo> Adam:  I will check the column, it's for group review of the rules
14:30:52 <Shunguo> Wilco: we are discussing what to do with ACT rules.  We have an ACT rule column, I will ask liaisons to fill in
14:31:43 <Shunguo> Wilco: maybe missing is after the things to be servuyed
14:32:56 <Shunguo> Giacomo: do we want sth different from the subgroup? the stages, level of details? or doesn't matter?
14:33:24 <Shunguo> Kathy: separate steps the liaison doesn't look util it's proper..
14:34:05 <Shunguo> Giacomo: ACT is only at certain stage you start to look at
14:34:46 <Shunguo> Wilco: we can add things when we needed.
14:35:38 <Shunguo> Wilco: generally, do we want liaisons to refine ACT rules? bring back to ACT group for review.
14:36:02 <Shunguo> Kathy: The ACT rule may need to change
14:37:46 <Shunguo> Wilco: Adam, do we need to have a set of requirement for that?
14:38:34 <Shunguo> Wilco: lot updates in WCAG 3 docs
14:39:39 <Karen> Karen has joined #wcag-act
14:39:51 <Karen> present+
14:40:22 <Shunguo> Giacomo: if the provision is not approved, for example, in survey, is it meaningful to go into ACT rule? for example, a new provision, we don't have details, when it make sense to decide a preview of ACT rule?
14:41:09 <Shunguo> Wilco: I would say, there is not a particular stages we should do ACT rule, just see how much time you need to spend, or how much info in provision
14:41:54 <Shunguo> Adam: In interaction group: act is a tool for us to move further, ..
14:42:15 <Shunguo> Kathy: doe it include ACT rule,
14:42:48 <Shunguo> Adam: yes, focus on provision correctness, ACT is just support to help people
14:43:23 <Shunguo> Adam: main focus of seuvey is on provisions
14:43:42 <Shunguo> Wilco: are we looking for defining process
14:44:02 <Shunguo> Giacomo: think so
14:44:24 <Shunguo> Next AGend item
14:44:30 <Shunguo> agenda
14:44:32 <Wilco> zakim, take up next
14:44:32 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, Wilco
14:44:41 <Wilco> q?
14:44:44 <Wilco> ack ad
14:44:46 <Wilco> zakim, take up next
14:44:46 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Non-web ACT rules -- taken up [from Wilco]
14:44:47 <Adam> ack Adam
14:45:32 <Shunguo> Wilco: one subgroup is looking at no web rule
14:46:43 <Shunguo> Kathy: subgroup looking into include test instruction, software, in ACT rule.  no general instruction now.  The group wanted to include in ACT rule for software.  Not sure if the rule format support software
14:47:01 <Shunguo> Kathy: the group is determine if they can use current rule
14:47:26 <Shunguo> Wilco: nothing prevent that in the rule format
14:48:14 <Shunguo> Wilco: authoring rule support that? generally you can put code in software, but if its desirable?
14:49:03 <Shunguo> Kathy: it's related to increase font size. Html rule use default browser font size.  In software, depending on your platform to determine the default font size
14:49:45 <Shunguo> Kathy: try to create a software rule to increase font size.
14:50:42 <Shunguo> Wilco: in theory, you can have a app as sample, for example, PDF
14:51:05 <Shunguo> Kathy: even it's built, you need to do into the rule
14:52:08 <Shunguo> Wilco: it seems un-pratical, I would not prioritize that.  Software rule are useful to check thing you mean
14:52:28 <Shunguo> Wilco: doc example may be more real
14:52:47 <Shunguo> Kathy: for the group to figure out
14:53:35 <Shunguo> Kathy: if no skill to create a software for a rule, should not write the rule.
14:53:51 <Shunguo> Wilco: if no skill to create a software for a rule, should not write the rule.
14:54:25 <Shunguo> Kathy: the group is more doc oriented. if they want to create doc rule, may be more interested
14:54:51 <Shunguo> Wilco: more reasonable. like reflow,
14:55:05 <Shunguo> Wilco: adam, your comment on this
14:55:47 <Shunguo> Adam: if building examples is not on the skill list, it might not ready for the rule. No clear thought on it
14:56:36 <Shunguo> Wilco: if practically or technically not possible, I would not qualified for that rule.
14:56:58 <Shunguo> Kathy: make sense. It's more on user, rather developers
14:57:27 <Shunguo> Wilco: if we don't know how technicall works, we don't know how rule work. Details matter
14:58:04 <Shunguo> Kathy: but still in requirement. may some one who knows how to do it
14:58:30 <Shunguo> Karen: we need to consider mobile apps in terms of software
14:58:49 <Shunguo> Wilco: yes, need to get people who understant that to write rules
14:59:14 <Shunguo> Wilco: there was of a object to extend WCAG beyond the web.
15:00:07 <Shunguo> Adam: headline is Apple's objection. Did negotiate so they will withdraw Apple's objection
15:00:30 <Shunguo> Wilco: provisions, rules giudance
15:00:46 <Wilco> zakim, end meeting
15:00:46 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Adam, Kathy, Shunguo, Wilco, Karen
15:00:49 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
15:00:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/08/27-wcag-act-minutes.html Zakim
15:00:54 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, Wilco; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:00:56 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag-act
16:57:54 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #wcag-act