<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/450/files
wilco: we had an issue that we looked at two weeks ago, there is a bit of a inconsistency in how we define accessibility requirement. strictly speaking it doesn't allow for a best practice to be referred to as an accessibility requirement.
... I have proposed something in the issue above.
maryjom: I like it. what does it mean for the rule?
wilco: means you can list things like sufficient techniques in the rule mapping.
maryjom: As long as it is clearly marked
daniel: I think we could make it a little bit more clear. We could say another meaning of requirement would be an advisory technique or something
... I think we need to point out that there are two meanings. Its not that they are one thing or the other. Its that sometimes it is compulsory and other times is advisory.
... Instead of "also", more like another meaning of requirement
... We show that we have two meanings of the word
... I would phrase it as one meaning is for compulsory, and the other is for advisory.
<Wilco> "Another meaning for requirement is an advisory..."
wilco: I am not sure we want to phrase it as another meaning. That makes it sound like there are two things.
charu: I think he is pointing to it coming out as an AND, where it could be both
wilco: I like the phrasing of compulsory or advisory. Compulsory is a condition that it needs to satisfy a requirement and advisory is for not needing that.
trevor: a little tripped up by the "where it is recommended" bit, but from an editorial way.
shadi: Anything that uses the words compulsory and advisory can immediately cause confusion. Is there any chance this could be seen as adding additional requirements
maryjom: I was thinking that we should maybe scope it by providing context that it is only in the rules format. That this isn't talking WCAG requirements, but is talking requirements for our rule
<Wilco> "In the context of ACT rules, requirements can be compulsory or advisory. Compulsory is .... Advisory is ..."
wilco: Will try to get back with a proposal next week.
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/Rule_Publication_Tracking
wilco: I opened an issue for aria. I looked an the id values comments again and I didn't see anything to add. The comments came down to us not being comfortable publishing the rule.
maryjom: We should mark in the table that we are not planning to publish for now.
trevor: image filename is accessible name issue got updated, the rule seems to have had a lot of work done on it..
wilco: yes, a lot of the implementation data was changed and it should be coming back soon, but will need to be reviewed.
... working our way up from the bottom, aria-* has issue, image filename has received feedback and updates, looking at orientation of page.
... button has accessible name has a small update so can go back to review
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/435#issuecomment-619945462
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1269/files#r413668324
wilco: my understanding was that if iframes are not focusable then they do not need an accessible name. I recently did some testing on whether it should be focusable or not. I dug deeper due to kathy's comments and found out that all iframes need to have an accessible name regardless, unless they are empty.
... If the iframe has nothing available then it gets passed over. So we may have gotten this one wrong.
... We need to do some more research on this.
... Does anyone have the time to do the research?
Daniel: is there a bunch of test cases we could go through?
wilco: There aren't, but they are pretty straight forward. They are listed in issue. empty iframe, iframe with tab index -1, iframe with content...
... testing with JAWS and NVDA would be really good
... html page has title, did we have cfc on this rule?
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTPAGETITLE2/results
wilco: this was pending a small change that kathy left. I don't think we had a cfc.
maryjom: okay, I can send out a cfc on that
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/449
wilco: there are a bunch of places where we add notes for things out of scope. we have received feedback asking for a couple of these changes.
... we are in a position where some rules have notes, but other rules that don't have any notes
... ag asked us awhile ago to look at it and see if there was any way to make the notes more consistent.
maryjom: Want to be careful not to over burden users with too many notes. I think a problem we have with an atomic rule is that is can be hard to see that they are part of a greater composite rule.
... Because they test for one thing but not for the others.
... Maybe there needs to be some ability to mark that better. I think people aren't used to looking at atomic rules and realizing that it isn't a test for the whole SC.
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/failures/F2.html
wilco: what I don't understand is why this is any different from the techniques.
... there is nothing in here that says you need to do other things. it doesn't even say that it is part of a larger thing. It barely explains how it relates to the SC.
trevor: unclear on definition of consistency.
wilco: feedback was that we should have it for all or for none
shadi: are there other inconsistencies?
wilco: I don't fully understand why its being asked.
shadi: I think the comparison to failures, failures usually test bigger things even if they don't cover a whole success criteria. here we break it down much further, so it is something that is unfamiliar.
... the understanding document may help. there are still problems with the failures. I think there is often some confusion over scope, either due to the assumptions/expectation or from what the rule title suggests
maryjom: eventually, it will be helpful to have the composite rules to show how these get combined together and show how they test the whole
wilco: If this is the case, then what we should be doing is improving the title and description and not including these notes.
maryjom: I agree, hopefully the need for notes goes away if it is well described.
... Perhaps as part of rule development, you focus on the whole test and have the piece parts and composite rule developed, so that when we review these groups of rules we can see it all put together.
wilco: I am not sure how many composite rules we will have. A lot of them can stand on their own.
charu: I am looking at some like button has accessible name and it has three notes. Are we missing something in the definition that doesn't scope it well or what are we missing that is causing us to need these notes.
wilco: The only problem is that we do want to keep the titles relatively short. it can be difficult to capture the nuance of the rule in just a couple words.
shadi: we might also be able to change the formulation of the applicability.
wilco: we try really hard to make these applicabilities as readable as possible.
shadi: Is there a listing of all rules that have notes.
wilco: No, but I think I know which ones have them.
shadi: Maybe we should have the rule writer take this as an indication that things are unclear and see if there are other ways to address it.
... are they solvable through title or do they need bigger work arounds.
wilco: The ones I have in mind may be helped by title. But that may not always be the case.
... I want to solve this in the task force, instead of going back and forth with cg. We can find some examples to discuss next week and see what our recommendations might be