wilco: maryjom responded positive, noone else responded. I will take that as no objections.
... So the liason proposal is accpeted and I will merge.
wilco: This is just a regular item for us to revisit. We now have 3 rules that are out of survey. It is up to Kathy, Mary Jo, and myself to create and update the issues for the survey results.
maryjom: One question, for the id attribute value is unique, there is a link in the open issue that shows the link to the rule review. Is there an issue open?
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Rule+proposal%22
maryjom: If we could get the issue number in there that would be great.
wilco: There is now a rule label for each rule proposals so you can sort by that.
... We are working on getting those rule proposals ready.
... We are trying to be fast, so that we can get some more rules in before CSUN. We hope to ask AG for review by the end of the month.
... We have some stuff that could be surveyed, but we are prioritizing these first before we open anymore.
maryjom: I am assuming they will be ready for survey tomorrow. Will we be able to discuss them by next Thursday?
wilco: I am not sure we will be able to close them that early.
maryjom: Just concerned since AG has a lot of things they are trying to get done by CSUN as well.
wilco: Last time we discussed this, I don't think we fully resolved the disabled element debate.
... This is difficult to discuss without kathy
maryjom: Maybe we can send her an email.
wilco: Does anyone think disabled elements should not be tested under 4.1.2?
kasper: I think it should.
maryjom: It counts as a state, and 4.1.2 looks at states
wilco: It would also have some implications, like disabled buttons may no longer count and we already approved that.
... We can send an email to kathy, I think she said we need at least an assumption to clarify more.
... Maryjom you have this rule, do you want to reach out to kathy?
wilco: yes we talked about the description of the rule. It is inconsistent with the rest of the rule.
... It should say each image has an accessible name or is marked up as decorative.
... kathy's comment on failed example 4, the whitespace is still a description, despite not being able to be announced.
... I think the thing here is that it will get announced as an image instead of being ignored.
maryjom: This is using a blank space as an accessible name instead of the null string. I think she may think that it is the null string.
<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/23a2a8#failed-example-4
wilco: I suspect that this would fail in trusted tester.
... If this were ignored by screen readers I would agree, but I am fairly sure it isn't.
maryjom: We should test to make sure.
wilco: I think we continue, and see if kathy can show that screen readers do ignore it then we can consider it more fully.
trevor: Getting rid of the examples with smiley face for consistency.
wilco: May not add another example.
trevor: maybe helps with clarity.
... We don't use empty and null consistently within expectation and throughout implmentations.
wilco: That has gone through several revisions, so not surprised it has some leftovers.
... There are still a decent number of open issues.
Looking at: https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/446
kasper: The rule wants this to be inapplicable, but it isn't since the rule applies to img elements regardless of if they are in the accessibility tree.
wilco: I see what you are saying, the applicability can be read in multiple ways. This needs to be fixed.
kasper: I think we even came up with the suggestions down in the comments.
Other issue is: https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1124
wilco: We should take this into account and make the change listed.
... Looking at the ready to publish, seems like it definitely needs work. Do either of the open issues need to be resolved first?
maryjom: Yes, we will need to fix those issues.
wilco: We have already gone through this, quick run through to make sure there is nothing new.
... Need to make change on empty elements and assumption. Need to take a look at similar examples. Several questions regarding H58 and several open issues.
... This one is not ready to go, so Kathy will need to create an issue for this one.
maryjom: Trying to figure out when we will send the AG chairs with more rules to survey. The good news is they only need to survey for a week. Provided they don't find any issues, I am tyring to find the right timing so we can get them in and published before CSUN.
... If we have to survey for two weeks, we won't be able to get it done. It would take too long to get back from them, especially if we have updates from them.
wilco: If we can get the okay to publish with the promise to make some additional updates as we go. We might be able to get quite a few of these done that way. I think that will work.
... If they are good with the 25th to 3rd that would give us enough time.
maryjom: They would need to review and approve at the meeting on the 3rd.
wilco: Are they are aware we are sending them a batch.
maryjom: They should be.
wilco: We are sending somewhere between 1 and 7
maryjom: Hopefully they can handle that. A lot of other groups are trying to get publications out as well.
wilco: There are two ready now.
maryjom: I could send them out today, then we could discuss them next week.
wilco: We have a final call on a pull request, and we just have to wait long enough.
... I think we should just mention that in the survey, that this pull request will be merged in.