Meeting minutes
standup
Kathy: sign lan WCAG 3 items, handles live media. ACT rules for live media? Make it a inertion rather than requirement, good progress
Wilco: useful thought for live media code, example?. We may include examples in the code, it's a way doing things.
Kathy: let's see, it would be different
Wilco: it's reasonable, than not doing anything with it.
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
Kathy: if we can description of live video example.
Adam: we haven't touched any ACT content for a while
Wilco: should we worried about that
Shunguo: Similar to Adam. Currently focused on provisions and different cases.
… I think we'll go back to ACT tests. Now it's not specifically ACT rules.
Wilco: If it's about ACT, you don't have obligation to ateend
Giacomo: I think even no update for specific on ACT, may have sth interesting to be discussed
Wilco: if sub-group are not working on ACT rules, we don't have to join necessarily, no obligation in this case but
Giacomo: act rule can guide the process of the provisions, next step is structure to replace the
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?
Kathy: in order to do ACT rule, you have to work on existing provision
Adam: not intensionally shift
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?
<Adam> w3c/
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
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
Kathy: In sign lang, they have placeholder, when they finish the research, will draft the ACT rules
Kathy: any doc is in Google DOCs. Should we start to make a list for ACT rules
Adam: single place in Google DOCs?
Adam: I will look arounf for that docs
Wilco: at least an overview of provisions, stages, something for ACT rules
<Adam> https://
Adam: massive provision list, a column for ACT rule draft
Giacomo: I think we need some common way to determine the stage of the rules
Wilco: good idea
Wilco: what point we need to put the rules to ? maturity of the rules?
Giacomo: may we can convention on the provisions: second review? third review? use some consistent way
Adam: use tags, to commit and review the work
Wilco: call liasions to fill the column
Adam: I will check the column, it's for group review of the rules
Wilco: we are discussing what to do with ACT rules. We have an ACT rule column, I will ask liaisons to fill in
Wilco: maybe missing is after the things to be servuyed
Giacomo: do we want sth different from the subgroup? the stages, level of details? or doesn't matter?
Kathy: separate steps the liaison doesn't look util it's proper..
Giacomo: ACT is only at certain stage you start to look at
Wilco: we can add things when we needed.
Wilco: generally, do we want liaisons to refine ACT rules? bring back to ACT group for review.
Kathy: The ACT rule may need to change
Wilco: Adam, do we need to have a set of requirement for that?
Wilco: lot updates in WCAG 3 docs
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?
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
Adam: In interaction group: act is a tool for us to move further, ..
Kathy: doe it include ACT rule,
Adam: yes, focus on provision correctness, ACT is just support to help people
Adam: main focus of seuvey is on provisions
Wilco: are we looking for defining process
Giacomo: think so
Next AGend item
agenda
Non-web ACT rules
Wilco: one subgroup is looking at no web rule
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
Kathy: the group is determine if they can use current rule
Wilco: nothing prevent that in the rule format
Wilco: authoring rule support that? generally you can put code in software, but if its desirable?
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
Kathy: try to create a software rule to increase font size.
Wilco: in theory, you can have a app as sample, for example, PDF
Kathy: even it's built, you need to do into the rule
Wilco: it seems un-pratical, I would not prioritize that. Software rule are useful to check thing you mean
Wilco: doc example may be more real
Kathy: for the group to figure out
Kathy: if no skill to create a software for a rule, should not write the rule.
Wilco: if no skill to create a software for a rule, should not write the rule.
Kathy: the group is more doc oriented. if they want to create doc rule, may be more interested
Wilco: more reasonable. like reflow,
Wilco: adam, your comment on this
Adam: if building examples is not on the skill list, it might not ready for the rule. No clear thought on it
Wilco: if practically or technically not possible, I would not qualified for that rule.
Kathy: make sense. It's more on user, rather developers
Wilco: if we don't know how technicall works, we don't know how rule work. Details matter
Kathy: but still in requirement. may some one who knows how to do it
Karen: we need to consider mobile apps in terms of software
Wilco: yes, need to get people who understant that to write rules
Wilco: there was of a object to extend WCAG beyond the web.
Adam: headline is Apple's objection. Did negotiate so they will withdraw Apple's objection
Wilco: provisions, rules giudance