<scribe> scribe: dmontalvo
Helen: No objections made, I will be merging mine after the meeting
Tom: I had two PRs open. I have resolved a couple of comment, still more to do
Kathy: I need to work on the audio ones
Wilco: I have a bunch of them.
Tweaks to existing examples, I would like some review for
... #1827 Daniel and Will
... Form label description tweaks #1826, Will and Helen
... #1825 Kathy and Trevor also approved by Jean-Yves
s/form label/form field label/
scribe: Update to meta view port
rule I need to update it a bit
... Carlos added a note to the "Button has accessible name"
rule 1821, Daniel and I are assigned for review
... 1820 and 1819 Tom has some more here
... 1818, Jean-Yves, that's Daniel and me again for review
on this
... Some changes requested on the draft ones
Wilco: I will probably attending TPAC, September 11 - 16. Is anyone planning to attend? Would we want to meet there as a group?
Kathy: If we do have a meeting I would try ot request to go
Daniel: Same as Kathy
Wilco: We are working on 1.1 and many rules to review. I think there is going to be plenty to do if we wanted to
Helen: Just allowed to travel internationally once a year, difficult for me
Trevor: Not sure if I would be able to travel
Tom: Not sure either
Wilco: Sounds like we are leaning
towards a "no"
... Potentially we may want to have a CG meeting, that was an
annual meeting before Covid
Daniel: Maybe we need to go hybrid
Wilco: Not a fan of that
Daniel: Me neither
Wilco: It would be like setting
half day aside for a meeting, pretty similar to what we are
doing now but just an hour a week
... Let's come back to it next week. IF two thirds of the group
don't meet, there is probably no point for doing that
Kathy: Is CG included?
Wilco: Probably not.
Kathy: I like the idea of meeting with the CG if I had to chose
Wilco: I have been working on getting the implementation data in the WAI website
<Wilco> https://deploy-preview-95--wai-wcag-act-rules.netlify.app/standards-guidelines/act/implementations/
Wilco: Main things to focus on:
How the content is organized, where these things should go, how
structure looks like
... It is using a rewrite implementation mapping tool that I
rewrote that understand the mapping and tracks coverage of what
we were doing before
... Main page is the list of implementations, there will be a
separate list for test methodologies and for automated
tools
... There might be a separate one for hybrid also
... Deque has one, SiteImprove may have another as well
... Under each of those I am listing a table with the
implementation, name, and versions number, as well as how many
complete rules are available for that
... These are currently the number of proposed rules that are
taken into account
... We have approved and proposed versions, which may be
different in some aspects from one another
... The detail for each shows the completing and partial
implementation ofr each of the rules
Will: How are we measuring how true these are?
Wilco: Basing on reports. They
report "passed", "Failed", "Inapplicable", or "Can't
tell"
... After that table I include the set of ACT Rules and their
status for that particular implementation
... These are sorted alphabetically
... Then in the columns and rows we have examples, procedures,
and outcomes
Helen: Would it be possible to have a bit of imagery and colors to complement the text?
Wilco: We can do that, yes
Helen: And possibly a sort for the columns
Wilco: That would be a bit more
complicated
... NOt sure if W3C has such a component
Helen: Table are difficult in general
Wilco: Agree. Not sure if each of these tables should be its own page
Helen: Probably a tabbed interface
Daniel: Not sure about tab interfaces, not users are familiar with those
Wilco: That's design. Now, how
the information is organized? Would this make sense?
... Is this something you could use?
Daniel: Text "WCAG A - AAA" a bit ambiguous
Wilco: I'll try to keep it small
so that we have enough space to put that
... I thought it was important to give context to the completed
rules number
... It helps understand why some numbers are higher than
others
... To clarify that higher numbers don't mean better tools
Helen: Sounds good
Wilco: What about numbers?
Tom: I would be interested in seeing approved versus proposed rules
Wilco: I don't know if I would want it. The approve ones are more authoritative, it would be more insightful to see the approved ones
Kathy: That would be just a very low number
Wilco: I would propose to stick to proposed while this is in draft but move to approved ones when we get out of draft
Kathy: Would approved rules show the implementations?
Wilco: I just don't have that dat yet, that's one of the next things we will be working on
Daniel: How we should ink to the standards?
Wilco: Probably somewhere on the page but not in the tables
Tom: Probably we want to show both as we are working on changes to some of them
Wilco: The table got a bit more complicated with the two, but I can try and bring that back to the group
Helen: Do each of these links go
to the rule or straight to the tool?
... We may want to make it clear that it does not go to a third
party site but actually to the detailed page with each of the
implementation
Wilco: I think I know what you mean. The CG website has "View report" links instead of the tool name
Helen: Still it is not clear
where they go to, as there is only the tool name
... I could add a report column
... You could have links to the details in the numbers for
approved and proposed ones
Tom: If you want other tool vendors to get on board, they might want to focus on the approved rules
Wilco: If you just show approved
ones they are likely to be interested only on those. IF we
show both, that may help them implement other rules as
well
... I feel the approved ones are the more important ones
Kathy: In the summary at the top we may want to provide an explanation of what each of these rows and columns communicate
Wilco: Agree that this needs more explanation
Kathy: I did like the CG table
that listed the vendor for the tools. Maybe some people may
know the name of the engine but some may not be familiar
... MAybe Company (Tool name)
Wilco: I could try that
... But some of these are really long
Hellen: I think it works better in the implementation page
Wilco: Some are most well-known by others
Will: IF you are going this deep,
you probably know more than we are giving credit to
... If someone comes here, they will probably know what they
are looking for
Daniel: +1 to that
Wilco: Let's not do it, if an org wants it, they should put it in the implementations name
Helen: Difficult from the WAI CSS perspective that is minimalist
Wilco: Looks like we are going to
have to update this rule
... Expectation needs to be simpler, by Trevor
Trevor: In the input aspects adn applicability we are repeating some info that is also in expectations, probably we need to take it out of the expectations
Wilco: Update expectations as
Trevor suggest
... Kathy says No real accessibility failure if a blank page is
refreshed
... That make sense. Should we have a clock example that
updates once a minute?
Kathy: Just put some text in failed example 1
Wilco: I agree
... Kathy says 2.2.3should be listed in the requirements
mapping as it is in the background
... Does this mean it needs to be an accessibility requirements
mapping?
... I think you are right, not sure if we should include
those
... It is not a thing where you need to request more time to do
something
... This is about not moving the focus, not about requesting
more time. I think you are right and we should remove these
references
Helen: Sounds good
Wilco: Tom, refresh 0 redirects
Tom: 0 or >20 is fine, that's
what the rule says
... IF you have 0 you are going to be refreshing the page
infinitely
... If you have 0 the way the rule is written means that would
pass
Wilco: I know Mark brought this up in the past. At the time wee said yes, that is not great but is that a WCAG failure instead?
Tom: With and AT you can access the page
Wilco: Nobody will
Tom: We may want to add a paragraphs saying that even though it passes, this is not realistic
Wilco: I am inclined to let this go. Do you think we need to make a change?
Tom: I am fine either way. We separate out the rules to see if there is a URL in the redirect and another that handles the redirect condition
Wilco: If we cover that we would
need a separate rule, one for timing and one for target
... Do we want to put anything in the background?
Agreement to add a note in the background
Wilco: Are any of these blockers?
Trevor: I would say yes
WilcoP: I think so to
<Will_C> Have to drop to catch meeting
WilcoP: We need a liaison.
Will: I can take this on