<wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/381
WF: tried out how an ACT Rule would look like in the format/layout of a Failure Technique
... lots of overlaps but some differences too
... is that a direction we want to go?
AC: so the question is, do we want to incorporate all the rules and/or replace the Failure Techniques
... question is what is the volume
MC: wouldn't follow the format for the mere purpose of getting it integrated
... my question is what is the relationship between rules and techniques
... for example, is it a 1:1 mapping?
WF: agree, we also identified some of the questions
... do we want rules to replace Failures, or be stand-alone
MC: are rules failure-oriented?
WF: yes, the usually map to Failures
MC: WCAG is conformance-oriented
... so these rules would not determine conformance
WF: correct, they are to identify miss-conformance
MC: in that case, Failures are not comprehensive
... don't think it will ever be
WF: also not itending to be exhaustive but more comprehensive than currently
... much of this work right now is coming from an EC-funded project called WAI-Tools
... intending to develop 30 rules this year, 25 next, and 15 the year after
AC: historically there have been difficulties with identifying failures
... because they are then considered as absolute failures in any context
... if rules should pass the WG then the bar will be fairly high
WF: were not intending as replacement for Failures from the start
... but meanwhile accuracy seems quite high
... there are assumptions to contextualize the rules
... for example, the color contrast rule has the assumption that there is no CSS style change widget
AC: there is a Venn diagram of ACT Rules and Failures Techniques which may not be a complete fit
... not sure if that is a problem, though
... MaryJo was asking about process of publication
... as a sub-group of AGWG, then think could go into a queue for publication
MC: issue with reviews is that some may say "yes" and others may spot problems
AC: problem spotters would be better join the work
MC: problem spotters can't join all groups
<moekraft> Shadi: I want to say we have some criteria already. Rules being developed in Auto WCAG CG. Task force is focused on developing the spec. Could live beyond and become gate keeper. Certain criteria that rules need to be reviewed by 3 independent groups and two implementations
<moekraft> Shadi: We can preprocess for AWAG Spotters welcome to find bugs however if we do our work directly this should happen very rarely
WF: have a review process document
... needs updating but basically has a relatively high bar
AC: if they are coming in as pre-revewied ACT Rules than may be easier
... but if coming to replace Failures, then may be more tricky and may need more discussion
WF: would like to get it to replace Failure Techniques
... but understand that it may not be a perfect fit
... maybe revise the format for Failures so that we can fit the rules in?
SAZ: maybe broaden the question, are these rules considered useful for content authors?
... and if so, how would the group envisioning integrating them into the WCAG framework?
AC: would like to defer to AWK and MC for that, but do agree they would be helpful
... if they end up replacing some Failures then great
... but suspect may not be a 100% fit
WF: don't really like it to be half-half
MC: layers of guidance for WCAG
... think these may be a layer below the techniques
... maybe with cross-referencing
... trying to merge may be a huge project that is difficult to keep in synch
<alastairc> replace or add to?
SAZ: agree it is sort of a layer but not completely distinct
<wilco> https://auto-wcag.github.io/auto-wcag/pages/rules.html
SAZ: want to focus on integration in the WCAG framework
<wilco> https://auto-wcag.github.io/auto-wcag/rules/SC2-4-2-page-has-title.html
SAZ: this encourage development and use of the rules
... at the same time, more rules clarify the use of the guidelines
AC: would like to think about this
WF: absolutely - we have been learning over the past three years
... but what are the questions to take forward to the WG?
... I like the idea of integrating them into the Understanding at least
AC: this may be staright forward - not necessarily easy but straight forward
... would like to discuss this with AWK and MC about potential options
... like several of the ideas, like cross-linking
<wilco> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act-rules/review-process.html
MK: still struggeling with the claim that ACT Rules lead directly to failures
... pretty strong disclaimer in WCAG
<moekraft> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/faq/#techsnot
WF: there can always be a conforming alternative
... also if they are not used correctly
... they are also not exhaustive
... but rules do identify specific failures
SAZ: conforming alternative exception also apply to Failures
WF: please complete the survey, especially the question of TPAC
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/381
https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/224
WF: like Anne's proposal
SAZ: me too. however, aggregation is currently a normative part of the spec, so it needs to be included
WF: how?
SAZ: tools that generated aggregated results, or that consume aggregated results
WF: WCAG-EM Report Tool could do that
<wilco> https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#quality-accuracy
<wilco> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/Exit_Criteria_for_Rules_Format_Spec