Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference

<Helen> Zoom decided to install updates...

<scribe> scribe: ToddL

ACT Standup

Wilco: instead of going through things, surveys, etc. everyone let us know what they're doing.
... Prs are ready, CfC is ready to send out next week.

Helen: had PR merged, surveys done, plan to start other things, needs a nursemaid.

kathy: Call for Review out on scrollable elements
... can send it out for CfC
... secondary requirements we will get to

Will_c: nobody commented on image accessible name is descriptive
... it's ready to go

Wilco: ready for CfC, yes?

Will_c: Ready for CfC then. That's it, everything is CfC or published

thbrunet: PR out for color contrast
... addressed wilco's comments. nothing too major on Tom's end.

<kathy> todd: update heading is descriptive needs work, kathy had a comment

<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1958

Wilco: needs review on PR #1958
... Jen will no longer be returning to the TF perhaps.

CFC: Migrate ACT Implementation Report pages to WAI website

<Will_c> agreed! Like the standup

Wilco: had no objections, 1 comment from Kathy

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules/issues/156

<Wilco> proposed RESOLUTION: Approve report pages after #156 is addressed

RESOLUTION: Approve report pages after #156 is addressed

Wilco: Will check w/AGWG after this

Update from manual rule writing group

Helen: Has ideas and stuff is happening, ideas need to be put on paper.
... Will will be Helen's #2

kathy: may join, and just observe for now. has a lot on plate.

Video element auditory content has captions

Wilco: Going over Captions survey in spreadsheet

group discussing audio/auditory issues with the rule

Wilco: Testing in Firefox. Off and no label for "on", that is built into the browser, browser bug.
... not related to us and suggest we move on from that
... Need to address Wilco's comment on Q5
... Need example of video with background music and no caption
... A/V aspects need to be properly linked
... secondary requirements take on for next half of meeting? or table headers?

Revisit secondary requirements

<Wilco> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E93qynXtcBVL3beIeenv_cbovCy_TsB8mjhmFZUJfqk/edit#

kathy: Moved the PR over to Google Doc
... discussing suggestions and edits to make things clear

minor edits and mapping conformance requirements

kathy: discussing new secondary requirements
... moving on to next scenario
... going over third scenario
... Enhanced contrast is secondary

Wilco: What makes enhanced secondary?

kathy: the accessibility requirement can not be not satisfied

wilco and kathy discussing enhanced contrast issue.

kathy: if we have requirements mapped in both, how would having them mapped to both address consistency?

Wilco: you can report SC as failed but you don't have to.
... thinks it handles that scenario