wilco: Good news is that 4 rules got accepted. There are a few editorial and a few needs changes.
... Alistair suggested that we go through them and decide which ones we can make before we publish, and which we will make ASAP after publishing. Some of them just take a final call for the community group to update.
... There is one comment about changing "Further tested needed" -> "Further testing needed to satisfy success criteria or rule"
... Suggest change name of some of the rules. Something needs accessible name -> "Thing has non-empty accessible name". I don't think we can do this without CG approval.
shadi: We are kind of rushing publication to make it before CSUN. Do we want to wait and cleanup and publish a larger set later?
wilco: We have AG approval so I don't want to hold it up too long. if we wait we may have to go back to AG again.
shadi: I was wondering if anyone was plannign to do media announcements.
wilco: The reason I started was because of you planning to make an announcement.
shadi: But due to changes in attendance at the conference we may no longer be under the pressure. The announcement is just mean to stir up a bit.
wilco: We can wait until next week, we can take a bit more time to publish things.
... So name change I don't think that we can do.
... There are a few small editorials that we can change that I don't think needs any work in the cg.
... I think there is one that we need to make an issue for. We have some notes that we are using inconsistently.
... We have discussed this before, but AG has asked us to figure out how to be more consistent.
... That is it for the 4 that were passed.
... The one that didn't make it in, was the duplicate ids. It did not make it in because AG was not sure we should recommend people test this. They are considering removing the requirement.
maryjom: It rarely causes problems and they think there are better problems for people to spend their time on.
wilco: It was weird that a rule noone disagreed with is not getting published. Alistair said this is unlikely to happen with other success criteria. I thiink this one just goes on the shelf for awhile.
shadi: Makes sense, the requirement was very old, and it does include accessibility support assumptions. It seems like it has changed over time, so it makes sense to wait and see what the decision is. It may be a best practice rule.
... Since we have already done the rule, potentially we could publish this as a best practice rule.
kathy: Section 508 points to WCAG 2.0. Right now we use ANDI's and it only flags duplicate id's when it causes a problem.
wilco: I think this means that this rule just gets shelved and that we should avoid working on 4.1.1 rules.
... I think 4.1.1 should go away, but wonder if we should have a rule to test for it.
wilco: I think we have talked about all of the comments in here already.
... Trying to think of what we did with the link has no text argument.
... One issue for 1185 for updating a note. Won't be in the current batch, but will be in the next one.
kathy: (on comment about requirements not including 2.4.4 and 2.4.9) These two don't fit in the particular rule, because the rule is just checking for the presence of the accessible name, not the quality of the accessible name.
... Under expectation, we say that the quality of the name is not checked, and I think that those two are specifically about the quality of the name.
... If the error is an empty accessible name, the link purpose would not pass, but link purpose is checking for more, it is checking for how well it describes the link. Our expectation says we are not checking for that.
shadi: Is it the title that needs to be changed? That we are only testing part of it.
kathy: I think it relates to the recent review of the rules that we may need to change the rule. I think this rule is just checking for the accessible name, but doesn't describe that it is checking the whether it describes the purpose of the link.
... Those seem to belong under a rule about describing the purpose. It goes one step further.
... If we were to have a composite rule for links, and have an atomic rule for having an accessible name, and one having a quality accessible, then these would go better under the rule checking for the name being descriptive.
wilco: But if it doesn't have an accessible name then 2.4.4 would be a failure.
kathy: Yes, but it could be checked in another atomic rule. May be I am missing how these rules are planned. To me I am thinking there is going to be another rule for checking if the names are descriptive.
wilco: Thats true, and that rule is already in progress. But I don't see how that changes the mapping. It is related due to failing this rule meaning that you fail the success criteria. All 3 fail if a link doesn't have an accessible name.
... When the rule passes, we say further testing is needed.
kathy: So would the future rule on description quality, would it take into account name, context, etc.?
wilco: Yes
kathy: Not trying to hold up, it just seems like there may be some division.
... The rule that is checking the purpose.
shadi: I think the breakdown of the rules is difficult. We had a similar issue with the images. But the primary reason for cutting out such a small part is to automate it.
... As soon as you include the purpose with checking if it exists then it is no longer automatic.
... But if you know then it fails this test, then you know it needs work without anyone checking the purpose.
wilco: Your concern is that which SC is the most appropriate one to fail under? That it makes more sense to report it under 4.1.2 rather than 2.4.4.
kathy: I think it fits more under 4.1.2
wilco: Does it not fit under 2.4.4
... The rules format says we need to have anything. If a rule causes a failure then we need to list all SC.
... I am going to call this resolved. No more new comments, this is still open until monday.
maryjom: So its time to update this again. The ones awaiting AGWG approval will need to be changed. I will come up with a new status for the one that is in a holding pattern.
... for HTML page has Title, I think it has some updates?
wilco: Yes, we can potentially update that rule. I don't know how to show a diff that will show what the changes were.
... Maybe we should hold on that until we have a good way to review.
maryjom: So for the list of comments, we will need to have issues created
wilco: Yep, I will either create issues or a pull request for those issues.
maryjom: Either tell me the issue or the pull request link
wilco: I will update the table
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1212
maryjom: Examples need updated to ID attribute value rule.
... Some that need editorial work.
wilco: Bringing that to cg today
maryjom: HTML page lang is valid and HTML land and xml lang match need issues.
kathy: The first has an open issue already
trevor: The second has an issue as well.
wilco: Its issue 417
maryjom: There are a few that still need editorial work, there are issues open, but unsure if CG has gotten to it.
... HTML has lang attribute, I opened an issue
... link has accessible name is still in survey.
... Wilco, are there any other rules ready for survey?
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/438
wilco: There are a decent number ready. CG we are running against a bottle neck. A lot of the descriptions need to be updated, and its preventing them from making it to the TF.
... We just need to rewrite the test case descriptions.
maryjom: To make them clearer.
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1120
wilco: We didn't have a format before, so everything needs to be updated to follow that format.
... In the rule above in the second comment, there are 10 rules ready for review.
... We do have a new implementer, and they have added a lot of new implementations which unlocks some things for us.
... Shadi, do you happen to know what happened to our labels? We have a whole bunch of new labels.
shadi: These are global labels that are for working groups to add horizontal review requests.
wilco: So its not relative to us. We can just delete the labels.
shadi: If someone does use them, then they may trigger some stuff.
wilco: We may need to do some errata, I found a typo. We should probably update that.
... Given that most of us are no longer going to CSUN, I am available for a meeting next week.
... We will let everyone know on monday whether we will have it or not.
shadi: Also, our meeting times for the next three weeks will be different. So it will be an hour earlier for the next three weeks.