shadi: update on Tuesday from MaryJo and Wilco, no questions or issues
... CFC started yesterday to transition to publish, some of +1 already
... a few editorial comments as pull requests or emails (7 pull requests)
wilco: why are there 2 CFC's?
... there's a CFC for transition to PR and a CFC for 1.0
... they are intended to be the same one
<shadi> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/398
shadi: pull request from Bruce Bailey is for boilerplate text that links in plain text. thinks it can be shortened.
... this is not a priority, suggest closing it and shadi will take this up with communication team since this applies to other specs
wilco: agree
<shadi> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/399
shadi: link to common failures in non-normative section is to layers of guidance. Bruce proposed change to "documented common failures" or link to failures
... likes this idea. will suggest to Bruce to bring it up for wcag 2.2
<shadi> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/400
no objections
shadi: #400 is typo
<shadi> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/401
no objections
shadi: #401 fix broken link
no objections to 401
<shadi> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/402
shadi: 402 - broken in page link
no objections to 402
<shadi> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/403
shadi: broken link fragment in wcag2.1
no objections to 403
<shadi> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/404
shadi: from David McDonald who +1 CFC
... put 2 typ comments in a pull request
no objections to 404
<shadi> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/405
shadi: issue also from David McDonald, suggest change inapplicable to nonapplicable so NA can be used
... used inapplicable for EARL
... inapplicable is in many parts of the doc. suggest leaving as is
anne: if change, will also have to change rules which is a lot of work
wilco: too late to change
<shadi> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/384
shadi: will respond to issue and close
... anne suggested wording change in requirements mapping: level A and above, instead of just level A
anne: confused conformance level with level
shadi: "and above" is understood
wilco: if a SC is required for Level A and Level AA, it is a Level A SC
shadi: it is correct, but isn't necessary
anne: we often say "level" but mean "conformance level" but mean other
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#cc1
wilco: a level A SC is required for conformance level AA
... only a change to examples?
anne: only for examples in accessibility mapping
<shadi> Required for conformance to WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.1 level A [and above]
anne: it would be 2 examples in latest draft
shadi: 2 examples in example 5
wilco: and example 6
anne: total 3 examples
maryjo: what is above?
anne: AA and AAA
<Wilco> "In order to meet the needs of different groups and different situations, three levels of conformance are defined: A (lowest), AA, and AAA (highest)."
maryjo: A is the highest level of conformance
wilco: "and higher"?
... will create pull request
<shadi> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/365
shadi: will submit implementation report, but hasn't happened, suggest closing
... other issues are for rules repository
... that will close all issues and comments
wilco: what happens after CFC is approved?
shadi: I will put in transition request, AC survey form to AC members, a blog and announcement (package for publication)
... questions about implementation report, and may not need an exit meeting if questions can be resolved by email
... decision is likely Friday and publish the week after
wilco: implementation matrix discussion
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/1.0/CR/implementation-report#imprep_aria
shadi: on left side: features and test cases. across top: implementations. each test case result
... for ours, show automated, RGAA, Trusted Tester
wilco: most of the rules we have at least one implementation that we could show. RGAA has the most
... some rules don't have implementations. do we want to show that?
shadi: are the implementations all green?
... saw some "untested"
wilco: some rules may need to be rerun
... ok with a table but it may raise questions
shadi: let's leave it for now
wilco: from last week's conversation, there are 2 rules in ACT-R that have 3 implementations
... we'll need more to make progress
... request implementers to do more testing to publish more rules
... suggestions to help move forward?
shadi: there will be a blog post.
... TPG is doing some testing
... send a formal announcement to organizations
wilco: anyone doing something at testing symposium?
shadi: I plan to be there
... should be published then
wilco: should have a first batch of rules to publish soon
wilco: we just talked about this. are there others doing anything to get ACT to recommendation?
shadi: check if this is of interest in organization - siteimprove, IBM, level access
... messaging could be participation in development of rules, promote
... testimonials, quotes of support
maryjo: takes a while to get approval for quote
shadi: testimonials would be good for Oct timeframe
... for now, twitter, blogs
anne: what is timeline?
shadi: 29 July week for publishing
... W3C will blog, announcement. you can retweet
anne: will find publicity team
agarrison: will investigate
wilco: do you want to reach out to TPG?
shadi: yes
anne: will there be a draft before that week?
shadi: will send by mid next week
shadi: we are in transition from spec development to pre-processing proposed rules on behalf of working group
... more a rule publication mode
... revisit process document, learn by doing when submitting first batch to group
... here are rules with 3 implementation that are ready (do they meet the criteria)
wilco: should we look for others to join the group like wcag veterans
shadi: I think so
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/work-statement
shadi: some may be more interested in the rules than spec development so they may want to join
maryjo: would this group also incorporate completed rules into wcag?
shadi: that is planned at wai