minutes 2020 09 10

Present: Carlos, Jean-Yves, Wilco, Jey, Daniel, Aron, Emma Scribe: Jey

Announcement

Congratulations Carlos (on being the co-chair of ACT Group) 👏 [16:06] 👏

agendum 1. "Final call https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/461

1 Final call, merging next week.

agendum 2. "Rules ready for W3C publication https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1120

Discussed that "Rule - No keyboard shortcuts use only letter, number, sign or punctuation keys" has been moved to final call (after a year) Well done Joao for moving this forward Going through ready for w3c list Wilco/ Carlos to curate the list a bit further Adding some due dates to the W3C publication list going through all the row items of status of the rules...

agendum 3. "Scrollable element is keyboard accessible: test cases break if user changes browser default font https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1389

Jym - suggested that we use the PR template same as ACT TF repo Great idea & Wilco has an actionable to do it Carlos - we do not rely on user agent default font size for most of our rules If any of the agents change this default size, then all our rules break Jym - there is a spec in the non normative section Wilco - is hesitant on defining font-size on test cases, as it adds bloat https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/rendering.html#rendering "User agents are not required to present HTML documents in any particular way. " https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/rendering.html#sections-and-headings Jym - the spec details about font-size differentiations for header elements Carlos - these are relative font sizes Carlos - We insisted setting a default font size on the text-spacing rules. There are not a lot of rules where we need this. Wilco - can we have a default stylesheet, that we can use when we use It can be part of the template, or can be added per test case Aron: +1 on adding them to the rule/ testcase Wilco: related issue - the focus indicator rule has something similar when it comes to user agent default style Carlos: having related issue with inline link rule Wilco: If we do not test default user agent styles, is that an issue? Jym: do not believe it is an issue Wilco: Browsers do not change the default font size often Jym: do we worry about user settings/ preferences? Wilco: adding styles into each test cases will make it seem more important than necessary Carlos: We can add an assumption that this rule applies to user agent defaults Wilco: a different perspective, say we set the bg of the page, without setting the foreground color, then that is considered a failure of WCAG. Is the same true for other styles? Wilco: If one relies on the user agent to have a 16px default font size, and if the user changes it, whose fault is it? Wilco: does not think problems caused by resizing text/ font-size is not a failure of WCAG Aron: agrees with Wilco here Carlos: has a different opinion, does not agree with above Daniel: Agrees that this should be a failure. Everyone: going to the nitty-gritty of various ways of overriding defaults Wilco: is it ok to rely on the browser to have its default and do not account for users amending it Aron: Am I right/ wrong, WCAG only considers what the author has created & does not consider preferences/ overrides specified by the user? If that is the case, then I agree that it wouldn't be a failure. Emma: It is about making sure that the text is readable/ functional (not necessarily the looks). Say if a user changes the default, it still works. & there is no clipping or hiding. Emma: believes it is a failure if the page/ content does not adapt. Carlos: my opinions have evolved. Happy to not be explicit about styles in each of the rule/ testcases Jym: Can we add an assumption to each rule relying on defaults Wilco: Assigning this to Carlos

Final thoughts:

Daniel: Interesting discussion Carlos: Wish we got to more items in the agenda ;) Aron: Good stuff. Very enjoyable as always. Emma: Good meeting. Q about F2F Wilco: No F2F this time Jym: Surprisingly good discussion