wilco: first comment, changing order of accessibility requirements
hidde: agreed we can move it
wilco: we could potentially make it collapse as well. similar to the ACT website
<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/59796f
wilco: can expand to see finer details of the requirements mapping
hidde: didn't realize there could be that many, so yes making it collapsible will work
... so display type and title and then the rest is nested
wilco: Not too keen about the collapsed examples and definitions.
hidde: some of them have quite a lot of examples, so I thought having them collapsible makes it easier
wilco: I was thinking of having the first two showing and then expandable after that
trevor: like the collapsible, would be okay with the first two examples showing
hidde: it would create a bit of a hierarchy where the first to examples are the main examples
wilco: its not formalized, but usually they are ordered by expected frequency
shadi: thinking about the audience here, do they look at the three categories separately or do you want to read everything
... could have whole heading collapsible
daniel: with the collapsible on each type you can see the types of rule (pass, fail, inapplicable), would prefer whole heading collapsible
shadi: I hear you say its nice to be able to see the three types, but you want to have a way to expand them all
levon: would rather be able to expand all of them at the same time
wilco: I think showing the first two gives you a quick concrete example of what the rule is testing
maryjom: I don't know how tool developers use these, but I think they would either looking at none of the examples or want to see all of them.
shadi: Do we need expand/collapse at all?
levon: with good heading structure we don't really need it.
... there could be a lot of examples though
daniel: can be 8 or 9 in some cases
shadi: sounds like we probably do need a collapse
... Leave it as is, but include an expand all button?
wilco: And what about the glossary, does the same apply there?
shadi: How many terms do we normally have
wilco: Some can have a dozen or more, it varies
shadi: may be useful to keep the same approach
wilco: Can we have code highlighting?
hidde: Other people said this as well, just need to make sure we know what language it is
wilco: Yep we have that, that's how we get it elsewhere
hidde: Problem is we would need to do that in a lot of other places
... unsure if I like that, I think its already separated by having a different size. I think it maybe too much
daniel: I understand the point visually, but am not a fan of it
shadi: would a colon help after the test rule?
hidde: I like that, it might be a more subtle way to achieve the same effect.
wilco: Link to the test pages, we don't have those links yet, need to setup some automation to get that working
<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/59796f#passed
hidde: Yeah, we would link out the ACT rules community group
shadi: So that page would be on the community group?
wilco: Yes, those are archived so that they are always available. Its much more difficult to put them on the W3C website
hidde: Could potentially calculate the link hash as well?
wilco: I think I should include those as well
shadi: I am wondering if there is a way to avoid dependency on the community group
... we also said anyone could submit test rules to the community groups.
wilco: You could do it automatically, but it would be some extra workload for Hidde.
shadi: is it too much to ask the rule creator to submit in separate files along with the test rule
wilco: It feels like it will be error prone, you want to just grab those test cases the moment they are moved over, not when its first submitted
<Levon> be right back
shadi: I am dreaming of a script that would package a rule with all of its test cases and would go to the W3 site
wilco: once we have the link it wouldn't be too hard to grab the file and push it into a directory.
shadi: Hidde please take a look at this and see how difficult it will be
wilco: Kathy's comment on heading link having aria-hidden="true"
hidde: Yes that needs to be changed and made accessible.
wilco: Kathy comment, whitespace links to glossary definition, but outcome in requirement mapping does not
hidde: Yep that will be fixed.
wilco: Kathy comment on the summary of act rule in the about pane
... it doesn't quite describe how to test, more what to test
... Kathy comment on this being stated as atomic rule 3 times.
hidde: We wanted to be very clear about what this was
trevor: like it stating the atomic rule at the top
wilco: problem is that the sentence in the box is actually incorrect, it being an atomic rule does not test a criteria because its an atomic rule
shadi: Yeah we have two types of rules, conformance that maps success criteria otherwise it will be a Good Practice rule.
... the rule in the sidebar remains the same, that it is an atomic rule.
wilco: That will sort of be repetitive of the requirements mapping
hidde: I think this might be a good one sentence overview of the rule that doesn't go into as much technical detail as down below.
<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/bc659a
wilco: There could be cases where there are multiple success criteria that may be included in that box.
... MaryJo's comment that DOM tree is a non-working link
hidde: Yeah, that's due to it being a prototype.
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#atomic-rules
maryjom: The content for the atomic and composite rules could link to the definitions in the document
<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#composite-rules
wilco: next question about all act rules page
<hdv> https://draft-wcag-redesign.netlify.app/techniques/
wilco: question from Trevor on organization as the rule list grows
hidde: example that has collapsible menu for techniques
maryjom: It also not as cleanly divisible, was wondering what types of filtering, a listing by success criteria.
... depends on the use case, how do people want to use that page.
... maybe we just do alphabetic, could group composite rules with their atomic rules in hierarchy
shadi: Ideally, the rules will be linked to from the QuickRef as well
... until then, we might need something in the interim. The quick ref is the main way to do the filtering and sorting
... the all techniques is a way for people to do text search
trevor: agree with MaryJo, may have problems with searching because a lot of them are similar
<shadi> +1 to Trevor
hidde: we can leave it for now, but we can eventually add headings
<shadi> +1 to move this to later
hidde: sort of need to see more rules than to get better idea
maryjom: For the interim, I think we should at least put them in alphabetical order
<shadi> +1 to publication date if it is easy to get from the content/meta-data
maryjom: date added may also be important for rule implementors to see what rules are new or have been recently updated
hidde: would we want a sorting mechanism there or leave for a future iteration
wilco: can leave for a future iteration
wilco: replace act rules with test rules
maryjom: Agreed, seems like a good change
shadi: Trevor and Daniel thumbs-upped
<hdv> +1 to Test Rule as it requires less knowledge of how we are organized
wilco: Do not like test rule. Its not a rule about testing, would rather have conformance or WCAG rule
... its rules for conformance testing, but not a rule about testing
... it tells you what to do and what not to do.
<shadi> "Conformance Testing Rule"
wilco: Could possibly just say test rule
shadi: I think that's a bit abstract
daniel: I think its a good point
wilco: Sounds like we need another quick discussion on this topic