<Wilco> scribe: Helen
Wilco: Shares screen
Kathy: I am revising the items and soon will be finished
Wilco: I will look at mine soon
Helen: I had a question for Tom - about the image failure for the object
<dmontalvo> <object>
<dmontalvo> <img alt="hello world">
<dmontalvo> </object>
Tom: Did you see my nested item example?
Wilco: This could be an assumption that if it is not loaded correctly then it will not have the correct MIME type so it is not applicable
Tom: I will send my examples to Helen to help her out
Helen: Thanks everyone!
Wilco: I will add a note to add to the background
<thbrunet> Object nesting examples: https://codesandbox.io/s/object-nesting-i3v33u
Wilco: #1850: I do not know how
others have implemented this rule successfully as you cannot
put a span inside a table row it must be in a cell
... #1848: 2 approvals can I get a third? Todd
... #1846 is on me to update
... #1845 - I will review that. Kathy too.
... #1844 - it is approved but there are failing checks so I
don't know how to fix it?
Daniel: If someone can take a look that would help
<kathy> Wilco: #1841 is a big one to remove back ticks and capitalization
Daniel: #1835 - how is this going?
Tom: Yeah - I need to check a few bits and make it cleaner if ok?
Wilco: #1778 - been updated and
needs reviews
... #1820: There are change requests here?
Tom: Yes I addressed Helen's and need to look at Kathy's
Wilco: #1819 looks ready to go
Tom - sending an email for a 2 week review
... and another one I can send out to review
... I have updated the summary and title of the page
... I kept the length down and Daniel you were the reason for
this - does it help your concerns?
Daniel: yes thanks
Wilco: We could remove the word "Accessibility" as well?
Daniel: Yes as the context being in the W3C site makes it redundant
Kathy: +1
Wilco: "For understanding consistency, see understanding ACT consistency" - is this overkill?
Daniel: Yes I think so!
Wilco: How about automatic and semi-automatic? Thoughts?
Daniel: I will have a look as seen both listed before
Wilco: I will also tweak the
disclaimer as have redundant text in it too
... I wanted to have a feedback section as we are not checking
the results
Helen: I agree
Wilco: I might look at how to
reorganise the implemented rules table
... I need to look at a few more ideas on how to show the
rules, and look at Kathy and Tom's suggestions of how to make
it easier to see if there is more than 1 rule at fault
... I would like to merge this - as then I can look at
automatically filling these out
... We have a deadline of the 31st to get this to AGWG to get
this out of the draft status
Tom: The bullets are not clear under the consistency section
Wilco: I am glossing over we do
not make a distinction between the 2
... I could refine the 2nd one to be more explicit?
Tom: I thought the first was fine until I read the second and then I was not sure
Wilco: We could say passed examples should not fail and vice versa?
Tom: So the first bullet is about
SC and the 2nd about the examples in the rules?
... not sure of a clear way to say that?
Wilco: It is something I need to look at as I understand what you mean, and could reword this
Daniel: I also think "vice" should not have an s
Kathy: The underlines for the consistent rules is not clear what it means?
Wilco: This is V1 and I want to look at the table and have the largest of that type to be 100% and the rest less than 100%. So when Axe-core has 9 proposed rules so that is 100% and the other lines are fractions of that 9
Helen: If you have to explain it - then is it necessary?
Wilco: I will remove them then -
any other comments?
... none so I will update this and then merge this pull request
- if no-one objects?
... I will do this shortly and then will add minor new pull
requests for the less urgent items
... I am asking for updated test results by the first week of
June as I want more than just my work on here
Kathy: Since you will have more automated test tools - will it be better to list the tools first and the methodology last?
Wilco: We already have this idea
it is all about the automation and not the methodologies I
think it is better the shorter ones are first
... and in theory I think this is better as the methodologies
are more complete
RESOLUTION: merge implementation matrix after editorial changes & progress bar removed
<dmontalvo> editorial changes & progress bar removed/addressing editorial changes & removing progress bar
Helen: Please amend my incorrect answer!
Wilco: Kathy have you looked at the bibliography? It is in the definition
Kathy: I did not - but the link does not take you to the correct role
Wilco: You are right! We need to update this
<thbrunet> https://www.w3.org/TR/dpub-aria-1.0/
Wilco: I will update the link in
Passed Example 2 and it needs to include a link to DPUB role
list
... Anything else? Oh yes is it 4.1.2 not 1.3.1 from Kathy - we
have had this discussion in the past, and we map to 1.3.1, as
everything with a particular role has a specific mapping. But
that is only relevant in 4.1.2 to user interface components
Kathy: But I think these are all user interface components?
Wilco: True - all of these examples are all user interface components - maybe we need some examples for non-user interface components?
Kathy: It also has a link to a technique that is 4.1.2 specific
Wilco: Yes maybe we should take out those 4.1.2 techniques instead
Kathy: Wouldn't it be easier to map it to 4.1.2?
Wilco: Yes but that would be
wrong - so if I misspelled heading that is not a user interface
component and it fails this rule
... We could split the rule between focusable elements for
4.1.2 and non-focusable elements for 1.3.1?
... to be continued